November 2000

November 2000 posts

October 2000
December 2000

"Genious. Pure Genious. The last time I checked out the Buffy Message Boards was after the ep where Dawn joined the cast. Everyone was so disappointed with it. They were all saying "there's no way dawn could have been there the whole time" and "i hate dawn blah blah blah". But look at what they've come up with? Amazing. I think Dawn is just what the show needed I was starting to lose intrest. (as i have completely for dawson's creek a show i watched from the pilot till this season.) Buffy started to be too much about sex just as dawsons creek has. I'm glad to see buffy recovered from that. Does anyone share my veiw on this? Also is it just me or is Dawn too babied on the show? I dont mean with buffy protecting her and all.. but with her mom's tumor.. they lied about it to her for how long? and dont you think she should know that she isnt what she thinks? they are trying to protect her from the truth but its really just tearing her apart inside like the whole "what is this thing" thing etc. But i am sure they'll turn this into something great that's been planned the whole time. I'm just the average veiwer seeing what they want me to see thinking what they want me to think. Peace out"

Dawn is too babied but she's the youngest child. I have three children the youngest now 8. My eldest (now 19) detailed for me the other day all the things she did at 8 that her kid brother is not expected to do. Dawn is too babied but that's a very typical situation I must therefore ruefully report.

I agree that we got a sex overkill last season. What I got from that was Buffy is young and her first experience almost caused the end of the world. Then she meets Joe normal who won't loose his soul and try to kill the world so she got to indulge...lots. But even Reilly could see that she really didn't love him lust yes love no. So what was once fun was shown to have no meaning. If casual sex is so okay why are so many people hurt but it. Sex causes people to do stupid things like assume a relationship exists beyond the casual act. Reilly is an extreme example he loves but even sharing a bed with someone doesn't guarrantee happiness. Casual sex is meaningless therefore a person can loose interest. I want to see real loving relationships and the best example of that in BVS right now is Willow and Tara.

I think there is a fairly easy explanation of why Dawn is babied. She in human terms is a baby of only 2 month old. As the key she was energy without form now she is human. The memories that were planted into everyone were purposly programed to baby Dawn for express reason to protect her. I think it is right to not tell anyone but Giles and now Joyce about Dawn. Dawn is an innocent and the knowledge will hurt her and the less people that know about her the less likely it is that Glory will find her.

"> Buffy started to be too much about sex

The realistic mature sensitive and sensual portrayal of sexuality on the show is one of the things that makes it great.

> I'm glad to see buffy recovered from that. Does
> anyone share my veiw on this?

Recovered? If Buffy is having less sex than before it's because she's in tremendous pain. It's a symptom that she is not happy that she's not in a "normal" state.

I assume that if there comes a time when she is under less emotional stress she will regain her usual sexual appetite. We already know that slaying naturally increases a slayer's libido."

"I don't think Dawn's ready to know the Key stuff given all the familial emotional stress they're going through. Besides they don't really know _what_ she is. All they can tell her is "Well you're not a real person. You're some sort of energy thing. That's all we got." They have to at least find out what makes her so important because she's going to need something like that to anchor herself."

It's going to be interesting to see if and when Dawn gains self-knowledge whether any of her essential functions can be controlled voluntarily by the human personality that has been superimposed over them.

Baz

"What do you make of the comment Willow made to Tara "Why is the big snake afraid of Dawn?"

"Well what i got from that whole snake thing was that it was just supposed to find her and then go tell Glory where she was. I dont think it was "afraid" of her just doing its job."

The great motivator of plot on Buffy is the experience of growing up. What major themes or life passages are motivating recent episode?

I am as yet fortunate. Both of my parents are alive and hale. But surely this realization is one of the most wrenching of life passages--realizing that your parents are not the indestructable sources of security that they once seemed.

Sure you grew up with them. There are things about them that you alone know. But do you really know what they are all about? How they see the world? Why they make the decisions they do?

The inexplicably bad decisions of others or your own....where do they come from? Why are certain people obsessively drawn to self-destructive behaviors? Drug addiction sexual addiction dangerous sexual behavior thrill-seeking bad relationship choices? Inviting vampires to suck your blood?

Hey Baz sorry to see so little action on your threads so far I thought you brought up some good topics.

I have been accused by some folks I have had debates with on the nature of human nature as being too emphatic on genetic determinism as opposed to social conditioning aspects. This is the way I see most (note I said *most*!) human behaviour though.

We have never really beeen let in on just how Slayers are selected but it doesn't seem to be a familial thing that is it isn't the daugher of a slayer of a daughter of a slayer type of thing they just seem to be 'called'. Do the PTB simply look around the world find the most current demonic hot spot and then scan the brains of available young women to find the best available match?

Whatever the case it seems reasonable that Buf was called because she had the 'right stuff' as far as Slayerage goes. Perhaps a key ingredient is that somewhere in the new Chosen Ones' psych profile is the ability to hold the death wish part of us at bay for as long as possible. Another was of stating this is that the Chosen One has to have inherent or be able to develop if latent a 'warrior' psychology.

I think a lot of what becomes self-destructive behavior in most people doesn't start that way these people have a 'warrior' nature but no way to utilize it constructively. (Unfortunately short of actual warfare it is a characteristic with limited applications).

Some of those who have this instinct subvert it into sports and may even seek out sports with a greater and greater level of personal danger in it. There is that thrill in staring the reaper in the eyeball and then walking away.

You can't do this though if you really have a death wish or develop one. Spike said as much to Buffy in FFL-- she didn't deny it.

I'm rambling a bit but I think that gets the gist of it. The warrior spirit will eventually tend to go one way or the other-- you direct it constructively or it reflects backward and kills you.

I do think that some are wired differently than others. For instance those who choose thrillseeking sports such as bungie jumping may get a different chemical jolt to the brain than we timid ones do.

On the other hand at least some self-destructive behavior is psychological in origin and has to do with some sort of self-inflicted punishment your your conscious or unconscious lack of self worth.

Riley's case makes me think of Hugh Grant: handsome personable married to Elizabeth Hurley for cryin' out loud....but somehow needing to become entangled in the seediest possible situation. Is it the danger? Is it the need to punish or be punished? or what?

Baz

Human beings are simply too complex mentally to rule anything out but I think the 'desire to be punished' is a severely overused reason for people who engage in dangerous or highly sensory behavious on an obsessive basis.

I did very little experimental drug use when I was a teen but had occasion to associate with both friends and casual aquaintances who used pharms rather regularly and it was interesting to see how they were divided into roughly two camps. The first was the users who genuinely were into the consciousness expanding thing-- they really did long to take their mind to new uncharted places.

The second group pretty much wanted to get as wasted as possible removed from reality and stay there as long as they could. They didn't want an expanded mind they wanted their mind to go away and just leave them with pleasant physical sensation.

The first group I could understand intellectually even envy somewhat since I was much too timid to take the risks they were taking. The second group I never got at all. I've tried to apply some psych to them in retrospect but I still come up with the idea that they were just sensation junkies. They wanted to get to the end of the road as fast as possible. The first group people wanted to linger on the journey.

Does this make sense to you in context of the lust for danger thing and how different people deal with it? It still is a cloudy issue to me no matter how much thought I've given it.

> married to Elizabeth Hurley for cryin' out loud

Living with involved with. Not married

Sooner or later everyone wakes up and finds it necessary to take positive charge of their course in life. Are you studying law or are you a LAWYER? Do you hunt vamps or are you THE SLAYER? Re: Buffy's newfound interest in the history and mysticism of her calling.

Varieties of family and family substitute:
Buffy and the Scoobies
Tara's weird blood kin
Joyce Buffy Dawn (real or adopted sister?)
Riley's alienation: his old Initiative buddys....his lack of integration with the Scoobs
Glory and Ben (yikes! ...but it sounds like a sibling relationship)

"Last season seemed to be about friendship with the Scooby gang falling apart as they all went on their seperate life paths.

This season it seems to me is about change in oneself self-improvement and identity. Buffy's been training more than ever and is struggling with her slayer identity. Riley has lost his "powers" and is also struggling with his identity. Willow has been improving her witch powers while Tara falls behind...Anya is working on becoming more human...Giles is getting over his post-watcher slump and moving on to new goals (ie his magic shop)...and Xander is finally getting out of his parents' basement.

And Oz is off somewhere trying to change his identity too. hehe

"

"Last season and this season Lindsey managed to interfere with W&H's plans -- to the point where he is now little more than a pawn in their evil machinations (in fact they counted on his disloyalty.) Now he's done it again.

Darla had taken her first real steps to redemption -- when Angel suggests that vamping her might be different because he has a soul Darla refuses his offer (the one thing she had wanted before this episode.) As her health continued to decline she might have changed her mind. Angel would have been faced with two choices: "save" her by making her into the Darla-demon she once was or watch her slowly waste away. In the first case he would have been playing into W&H's hand -- by taking the path to darkness. In the second case he would have been consumed by guilt and taken on increasingly dangerous missions to try to find a cure. Either way W&H wins.

Then Lindsey steps in and makes the decision for Angel. With no blood on his hands Angel can blame Lindsey for everything bad that develops while at the same time being freed from guilt for letting Darla die. Rather than being removed from the game Angel becomes a more energetic foe of W&H. Plus in a moment of hubris Lindsey actually invited Angel into his home (he really should move.)

It's hard for me to see why W&H would keep Lindsey around even one more day. Angel and his friends will also be hunting him. And then there's Darla -- I don't think human Darla paid much attention to her babysitter. Lindsey should hope this is the case -- if she felt any sort of emotional attachment to him he's probably on her first to die list when she changed. The best he can hope for from her is indifference.

Lindsey seems to share Professor Walsh's naivete about the forces of evil. He just doesn't understand that evil plays by a different set of rules than does society."

Angel becomes a more energetic foe of W&H.

This would certinly be the likely end result of what happened in last night's ep-- or to paraphrase Spike you'd have one 'Very brassed-off vampire-with-a-soul'.

So why didn't W&H dust Angel when they had the chance? He was already stunned and restrained why not finish the job? Do they think he will be so demoralized at losing the chance to save Darla that he'll wig out and become evil again? Really puzzling.

I think it's too soon to tell what happened to Angel. Much will depend on where the next episode picks up. Plus did Darla drink?

i'm pretty sure that she did drink

one thing i was wondering was if W&H was even involved in that little stunt Lindsey pulled. That would explain why they didn't kill Angel. We know that Lindsey has used W&H resources for his own purposes (when he had Darla checked out by all those other doctors) so maybe this is his own little crusade and the firm is not really involved except by lending the muscle power albeit unknowingly

"*I was wondering if W&H was even involved in that little stunt Lindsey pulled*

I am almost certain that they did not know. I think Lindsey used Dru because W&H had researched Angel pretty thoroughly so he knew about her -- where else was he going to find a vampire on short notice? Lindsey has interfered with W&H business time and time again. He thought he had redeemed himself in the eyes of his masters with his sacrifice when he finished the spell that brought Darla back but he found out this season that W&H do not trust him -- they have merely been using him to further their own interests. So what will W&H do to Lindsey now that he has ruined yet another plan? And why didn't W&H know this betrayal was coming?

W&H's reaction to Lindsey's latest betrayal should tell us more about their motives -- if they kill Lindsey as an incompetent bungler they are what they appear to be -- evil lawyers who want Angel out of the game. I think however there is another possibility...

Others have said that Angel is all about redemption (characters who redeem themselves by their own actions -- with a little suggestion and encouragement from Angel)-- I believe this is true. The other side of redemption is damnation. Just as Angel is an agent of redemption W&H could be an agency of damnation. Their plan may not have anything to do with Angel at all; instead they might seek the self-damnation of Lindsey Lilah and any other promising young lawyers. If Lindsey's boss calls him in makes vague threats then gives Lindsey and opportunity to make things "right" with the firm by sinking further into evil the redemtion/damnation theory holds. If they remove and eat his liver the former theory is better.

Plus Angel vs W&H battling for souls in the City of Angels is more poetic than Angel squabbling with evil lawyers over loopholes in the law."

"This certainly goes along with what we've seen so far. Granted this is TV but if Lindsey were botching this many projects in the real world he would quickly become unemployed. So W&H must have another agenda concerning Lindsey.

"Angel" being about redemption: All redemption all the time would be dull to watch. A little damnation adds spice and further defines our hero."

"I think Angel let the bite happen. He might have been unable to fight off Dru in his weakened condition post-trials but I fail to see how he couldn't have fought off two humans even if they are lawyers.
Also need I remind everyone...Lindsay has decided that he's back in the game so to speak. He brought Dru to Darla. What was it he said to Angel? Wasn't it a cold "How did you think this would end Angel?" This guy seems to be a good actor. Or he got scared knowing that W&H were going to dispose of him and decided to redeem himself in their eyes. I could not really give an accurate interpretation as to the certain outcome to Lindsay's actions or why he has done so. Why? Because Joss is a magic maker. He will blow our minds."

Angel demoralized yes. Will he go evil because of it? No.

When Wolfram & Hart couldn't get Angel to sire Darla they came up with a contingency plan. Lindsey's involvement in this new plan is up for debate. For now let's assume he is following the plan.

W&H may think that they can get more mileage out of a demoralized Angel beging forced to watch an unwilling Darla be sired into a vampire particularly if it is done by Drusilla. W&H are very sneaky and always seem to have a plan B (or C or D) when plan A fails.

However it is curious that he didn't fight his attackers more. Maybe having to watch the woman he drove crazy and vamped (Drusilla) bite the woman he had just risked life and soul to save (Darla) took all the fight out of him. Some sort of weird cosmic just-desserts? - or maybe that's the way W&H saw it.

Need more information for a complete analysis.

"Yes I think of Wand H as like the anti- Powers that be...they know all see all and are always up to something. I agree Angel will not turn evil ( not enough episodic thrill in that) and am wondering if Lindsay now has a "stable" of vamp she devils (Darla and Dru)...muahuahua...and how they will depict Darla now that she's revamped...will the redemption theme continue? Can Wand H hold her in line to do their evil bidding with those pictures? "

Were they pictures or her medical reports? I thpought it was some kind of photos at first but later presumed it was her medical reports stating that she was dying. Also I presumed that Angel didn't fight back more because he was both weakened from the trials and zapped with a stun-gun by Lindsey's/W&H's goons. I seem to recall they zapped Darla also.

They zapped Angel several times.

If Darla has been revamped and returns to her evil ways and Angel can't stake her because he stil believes he can save her then every victim of her blood lust will count against Angel's redemption. It will be the same situation that Buffy faced when she couldn't kill Angelus without killing Angel. Angel like Buffy will have to come to realize that to kill Darla the Vampire then Darla the person will have to die as well.

I think Angel will still feel guilty about Darla's re-siring even though Lindsey initiated it. Angel drove Dru insane and sired her therefore he sees himself as responsible for Dru's actions (parental obligation?)

By using Dru to sire Darla it just makes Angel's remorse over Darla vamping again even stronger.

He'll have to fit some Drusilla brooding into his schedule between his Darla and Kate brooding.

I think he's going to realize that he needs to kill her. She was going to die and this would have been the least-painful for the human Darla. This would end her pain and end vampire-Darla. But Drusilla I hear might be transferring to Buffy... back to Sunnydale. But going back means Spike (duh) and Spike has been pretty preoccupied with Buffy lately. Maybe Drusilla is the big test of how deep Spike really loves Buffy. Maybe it's something Joss is going to prove? Well we know that Spike isn't going to be staked anytime soon cuz he has a contract for the last remaining seasons. I can't wait! (the next All New ep. is supposed to be a turn in Buffy history and is supposed to involve Spike and Riley's confrentation over Buffy! YAY)

Where did you get the information about the next new episode? Is it on the web somewhere? Thanks.

Does anyone think Darla actually wanted to be a vampire? I know what she said to Angel but she could have changed her mind. I thought that in Buffy vs Dracula Dracula says that you can't become a vampire unless you ask for it. But then again he could have just been lying...Darla didn't look to happy to see Drusilla

"> I thought that in Buffy vs Dracula Dracula
> says that you can't become a vampire unless you
> ask for it.

I think Dracula was just talking about the way he prefers to operate not in general. Dracula likes to play mind games. It's sort of like how some people practice S&M/D&S -- "you think you don't want it like that now but before I get done with you you'll be begging for it." Then he's not only conquered her through physical power but also through mental and emotional power."

"Sorry pushed enter key. Last night I noticed a change in how the Spike character presented himself. Throw out the panic attack when he encountered the et demon. He seemed...calm. Has lost some of the cocky attitude even with Reilly. He assisted Buffy instead of trying to show how neutral he can be. He just stood there when the military arrived and was almost contemptuous of Reilly when he said "you missed a real good time". I'm more and more interested in how the storyline is going to turn out. I a different tonal quality to his voice as well. Is it the chip or what?"

My theory on Spike:

I think that even though he is in love with Buffy he is still a hunter who has killed two slayers and desires to see her eliminated. (But not before a good night of shagging.)

When Spike grabbed a pair of her undies before Riley threw him out and then seeing him slip those pictures of her in his coat pocket I thought ña spell! (Actually I thought voodoo spell since this was part of the culture I learned growing up in the South.) And a good spell needs items of the person you plan on casting it against.

Catherine Madison almost did her in so we know sheís susceptible.

Having a personal item of hers and the pictures are true of someone in love I just canít help to think having a darker reason. I mean HEíS EVIL!!!

Since he canít attack her physically why not try something magically. Donít think it would work since Buffy does have two wiccas on her side but you canít blame the boy from trying.

Re: Re: Spikes change of attitude *my theory*,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 14:49:17,63.50.140.114 writes,"But he could attack her physically. What he said to Harmony was essentially correct when he planned to use the shotgun on Buffy-- ""It'll hurt like hell for a couple days but she'll be dead longer than that"". (May not be an exact quote but pretty close).

How long would it take to pull a trigger? Certainly he could do it before the chip cuts in. As he said ""all we've ever done is dance"". Spike loves the fight if the opponent is worthy the fight itself is the thrill and Buffy is the most worthy opponent he has ever found. It's like a journey for a traveler not the destination.",OnM,

Re: Re: Spikes change of attitude *my theory*,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 15:11:19,216.232.33.7 writes,Spike seems to have a handle on how unpredictible magic can be. I think that for the first time in his existance he has it really bad for someone. Remember Dru picked him and it wasn't a monogomous relationship. Harmony has a big vacancy above the neck so she bores him. So now he is dancing for the first time with someone he feels is his equal. Did I mention how can you have a relationship with someone(Dru)who is so insane anything goes. With Buffy it is a challange. He now is treating her differently and at some level she has caught on but is too wrapped up in family struggles to give it much consideration. This guy doesn't have much of a clue on what to do with a woman who makes him think. I think the Dru relationship shows that even evil he was loyal cause she was the first woman who noticed he existed. The stuff with the panties was for the benefit of Reilly more than the panties themselves. If they are going to rehabilitate this guy I hope it takes time cause he's funny to watch.,Rufus,

Re: Re: Re: Spikes change of attitude *my theory*,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 16:11:38,142.165.91.239 writes,I agree with Rufus here. I think that being in love has just mellowed Spike out. Underneath he's the same evil-demon but outside he's starting to change. When Spike was with Dru he would become extreamly calm whenever he was near her. I think that same thing is happening when he's near Buffy. He wants to make an impression on her to win her over and he's trying all the tricks he knows. Being agressive didn't work for him as shown is FFL Buffy just pushed him away. But at the end when he sat their comferting her on the porch she didn't regect his touch. I think he's figured out what keeps him closer to Buffy and what may help him win her heart.,Sanguinary,Sanguinary_515@hotmail.com

Re: Re: Re: Re: Spikes change of attitude *my theory*,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 17:58:55,38.28.85.160 writes,"1) Reilly didn't notice him snag the panties. He got it into his pocket before he could...don't you guys think Reilly would have kicked Spike's butt if he had seen that? 2) I don't think Spike is leaving her house at all now. I think he's living in the basement because he knows that Buffy is upset and he's seemingly hanging around trying to help. 3) Yes he had pictures of her. He's smitten. Notice that if he were a truly wicked little thing instead of such a soppy romantic on the inside wouldn't he have been smelling her undies instead of her sweater? 4)I agree with Sanguinary there that he's trying to change somewhat...perhaps not too willingly. let's not forget he was Mr. Sensitive Poet man pre-vampire. 5) Giles' precognitive dream in ""Restless"" showed Spike as a poser vampire. An attraction of sorts. Anyways there's my rather jumbled opinions on the matter.",JoRus,

I noticed the same thing,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 16:53:21,205.188.197.181 writes,"When he said ""you missed a real nice time"" to Riley I was thinking he ordinarily would have said something much more sarcastic and said it in a much more inflammatory way. He does seem to be changing somewhat at least when it comes to Buffy. It remains to be seen whether this change affects his whole life i.e. will he think twice about killing someone now or only think twice about killing Buffy? I think that handholding last night which the camera lingered on is definitely telling us something about their future; whether it's friendship or romance I don't know.",jade,

Re: I noticed the same thing,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 17:42:06,216.232.33.7 writes,I'm glad I'm not the only one that could see and hear a difference. The Broad accent has been less noticable. The tonal change in the voice is what struck me right away even when he was trying to bluster out a lie. Has the voice changed because there are no flunkies around that he has to prove how bad he is. The lack of fear when the military came was new too. No attempt to sneak out. And he's past the panty raid thing with Reilly. This is a good job of acting given the small amount of time he appeared. I always say listen to what a person says then watch what he does cause that is the real person. Listen to this guy but watch what he does it's getting interesting. SMG I have to add is the show and her reaction to her mothers situation wasn't overplayed. She showed how burnt out and distracted a person becomes when watching a person fight for their lives.,Rufus,

Re: I noticed the same thing,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 17:48:56,209.109.91.215 writes,As much fun as it has been to see Spike act as a school boy over the slayer and I agree that there must be some significance in the shot of the hand (and as Iíve stated before ñ how he was in the background of the shot in Family) I still have to go back to one point. HEíS EVIL! Weíve all been in a comfortable spot happy in our Buffyverse but thatís usually when Mr. Whedon cruel Mr. Whedon pulls the rug out from under us. ,estefena,

Re: Re: I noticed the same thing,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 18:16:17,216.232.33.7 writes,Thats where Joss could change the formula bad goes good goes bad or dead. If the Spike character is changing don't let it be for a season show how truly hard it is to change but also some of the payoffs. If we're to have our heart ripped out thats the chance you take when you believe in a character or person. As to the panty thing I know Reilly didn't see him do it that wasn't the point guys will do stuff like that to one up each other oh yeah and the satisfaction of knowing that the other guy would be very angry. Just a small victory in the competition.,Rufus,

Re: Re: I noticed the same thing,Sunday 3-Dec-2000 18:56:11,209.245.164.125 writes,lol...you're right on one thing...Assume Nothing when it comes to Joss.
However to assume nothing (or as little as you can) you must also question whether assuming Spike is evil is completely wise.
Oh I'm not saying he's out picking the daisies. Spike is not some harmless little man. ,JoRus,

Re: Spikes change of attitude *poss spoilers*,Friday 1-Dec-2000 17:44:48,64.228.136.5 writes,Quick thing: why didn't the initiative guys recognize Spike as Hostile 17 (or whatever number it was) and 'arrest' him? I was sure that would happen. Oh well.

,Phronk,phronk@yahoo.com

Re: Re: Spikes change of attitude *poss spoilers*,Friday 1-Dec-2000 18:14:28,209.109.91.215 writes,Iniative was disbanded. No place to put him. What would they do with him?

My question is what happened to Ethan Rayne?,estefena,

Re: Re: Spikes change of attitude *poss spoilers*,Friday 1-Dec-2000 20:48:17,216.232.33.7 writes,A good number of the former Initiative soldiers are dead and the government would sooner forget that project existed. One possible reason that the soldiers didn't recognise hostile 17 is when the big blow out happened their last memory of Spike was he was one of the people helping the save their butts. He wasn't on the laundry list of HSTs to pick up that night and he wasn't acting in a way that would make them pick him up. The big question to me was why did Reilly not grab at this chance to rid himself of who he now sees as a rival. Most of the people there wouldn't know about Spike and the people who did kept quiet...why?,Rufus,

Joyce Buffy and a mental patient,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 04:09:07,152.163.201.61 writes,Just taking a shot at the spoilery question. I would like to have Joyce's tumor be non-Dawn non-crazyiness related. (I like the idea of Buffy being overwhelmed by life instead of the earth ending monster of the season/week. And it's finally given the actress playing her something to do.)
None of the other mental patients seem to have tumors or at least no one has mentioned them having any such thing. (Or is Ben covering it up? HMMMM!),Drew,

Re: Joyce Buffy and a mental patient,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 13:04:28,209.48.144.34 writes,"I think the rash of crazy people is directly related to the appearance of Glory. Something about her is affecting people - Ben said he had spent his whole life cleaning up Glory's messes. (He was the one who called the ""Quietor"" demon.)

Perhaps Joyce's tumor is also related. She got an extra big helping (craziness *and* tumor) because of her false memories of Dawn. People who don't know the Summers family would not need false memories just craziness.

Why are some people affected and not others i.e. like the Scooby Gang? Some people are more susceptible to whatever is making them crazy. Due to training or inherent personality the Scoobies and others have mental walls that protect them.",purplegrrl,

Re: Re: Joyce Buffy and a mental patient,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 13:14:18,205.188.199.162 writes,I think the tumor is related to Dawn.

The spell cast by the monks was not specific -- they did not have to spell out what color dress dawn would wear at her fourth birthday party or whether she would need braces -- it was just a spell to send her where she would be best protected. Buffy makes a better protector than Joyce -- with Buffy as head of the household and Joyce out of the picture the slayer will make certain that Dawn lives. I suspect the spell accellerated a pre-existing condition (taking the course of least resistance to kill Joyce off) rather than actively destroying her.,Malandanza,

Re: Re: Re: Joyce Buffy and a mental patient,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 13:32:12,63.50.140.114 writes,I think the tumor is related to Dawn also but I think the reason that it has shown up first in Joyce is that the false memories the monks implanted would have to the most extensive for her. Keep in mind she would not only have to have all the memories of her interactions with Dawn since she was 'born' but also the memories of all of Buffy's (and other persons such as her husband friends family etc.) interactions with her. That's a lot of revisions!

Buffy would be the next most likely candidate but her Slayer-related healing abilities might very well prevent the tumor from forming. The scoobie's memory interactions with Dawn would have been relatively minor.,OnM,

Re: Re: Re: Re: Joyce Buffy and a mental patient,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 13:55:53,63.77.240.186 writes,OnM - I really like your theory. But I also like the idea expressed elsewhere that the tumor is just life and Buffy is facing something that she can't fight or kill. One of those growing up lessons which Joss sprinkles throughout the series.,Brian,

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Joyce Buffy and a mental patient,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 14:22:15,63.50.140.114 writes,"I agree that the ""tumor is just life"" has a certain 'purity' to it but I am also (quite selfishly I admit) afraid that if that is true then it greatly increases the odds that the writers are going to kill off Joyce's character. I'm all for Buffy getting angsty challenges but on the other hand I don't want this to get into an Andy Sipowitz situ (NYPD Blue) where multiple family members start dropping like flies.",OnM,

Let her die,Thursday 30-Nov-2000 11:41:53,205.188.198.158 writes,I'd like to see Buffy throw herself entirely into her work and become a super-intense very scary obsessive demon slayer. And I never liked Joyce anyway :) -- alcoholic mothers are evil (granted she's been on the wagon since Buffy ran away but she was a bad mother for a long time before that.)

And you're right about angsty challenges -- Joss loves the angst (that's why I keep watching) -- and it is far more angsty to have Dawn be the indirect cause of Joyce's death than to have it be mere coincidence. I just hope he doesn't attribute the cause to emf fields caused by Dawn as a source of energy -- I prefer science and magic to be as separate as possible.
,Malandanza,

Re: Re: Joyce Buffy and a mental patient,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 14:39:54,164.58.104.12 writes,Something about her is affecting people

That something would be her hands. The crazy man in the woods recieved the fingers-in-the-head insanity venting and it seems implied that the rest of the crazy people are also victims of her attacks. Joyce if her condition is supernatural at all is probably more due to Dawn than to Glory.

Insane people whether they're caused by Glory or not seem to be easily able to see through Dawn's manufactured life. Could this be the reason Glory is pouring her own insanity into others? Or is she just venting and doesn't realize that she's creating a bunch of Key-sniffers? Could that be the wild card that eventually reveals Dawn to her? Perhaps she'll overhear some delirious person 'out' Dawn. She may not realize that her own flashes of craziness could find the Key for her; she's expurging herself of the very thing that could help her most. Of course even if she realized Dawn was the Key while in a fit of insanity she may not have the presence of mind to act on that (and she might not remember it afterward).

So are Dawn and Glory somehow related to insanity itself? Could that have something to do with wherever the Key's portal leads to? Perhaps it's a Lovecraft-type dimension with a nature that inherently brings about insanity. Or maybe Glory is somehow a diety or incarnation of insanity and the Key has to keep her from infecting some other place. It's quite intriguing.,Xayide,

Re: Re: Re: Joyce Buffy and a mental patient,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 20:01:41,204.210.185.47 writes,"Just thought of this
So ben is the one who called in the qweller/quieter/whatever they said demon. The demon gets rid of the ""key-sniffers"". Ben good guy?? IOW: Ben knows that Dawn is the key. (god knows what the ""key"" is for..i'm not picking up on that) He knows that the crazy people can see what she really is. Glory may be pushing these people crazy to help her find Dawn maybe? Perhaps Ben is really more than he seems. More than just an intern. THink: major influence the fates The PTB? Either way he is definately a good guy. Even though there was a definate ""Bad-guy"" essence coming off there. and why would this average guy have that demon in the back seat of his car giving him life advice? they are connected in some way perhaps? I think ben is much more than he seems. :) :)
anyone got any info on the guy???",Amy,amywalzgurl@HOTMAIL.COM

With Good Guys Like That Who Needs Villains?,Thursday 30-Nov-2000 12:50:19,207.105.12.254 writes,Ben a good guy?!?! Good intentioned maybe but summoning a demon to kill all the crazy people in order to cover up for Dawn is not a nice thing to do in my book.,Ben,

Re: With Good Guys Like That Who Needs Villains?,Thursday 30-Nov-2000 16:23:37,209.48.144.34 writes,Ben is covering up for Glory not for Dawn.,purplegrrl,

Who Ben may Be *Spoiler!*,Friday 1-Dec-2000 18:31:32,209.109.91.215 writes,The following can be considered very spoilerish (If I'm right)

From the rumors and posts that I've seen on some other sites -

Ben is Glory's brother.
,estefena,

Re: Who Ben may Be *Spoiler!*,Monday 4-Dec-2000 12:32:12,209.48.144.34 writes,That was my thought just from what Ben said in the last episode. His complaint about cleaning up after Glory all his life is something only a close relative (brother) would gripe about.,purplegrrl,

Will Angel get a New Love Interest,Tuesday 28-Nov-2000 22:43:49,170.140.87.200 writes,Dru rocks Darla never had a chance ...probably another crossover for Buffy and Angel. Speaking of the star-crossed perfect couple will he ever get another Love? It's not fair to me when Angel couldn't make it with Buffy. My own fantasy ending involves Angel averting the apocalpse becoming human and reuniting with Buffy. Still all things bow to the need to make the show entertaining. Besides Buffy would have moved on in her life ditched Riley & gotten another lover grumble grumble...,olie,

Re: Will Angel get a New Love Interest,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 03:08:59,64.40.42.230 writes,I have always thought the whole Buffy-Angel relationship thing was kind of sick.

And I don't mean only because of the whole Vampire/Slayer thing.

Buffy was a teenager inexperienced in life. A kid really. Angel on the otherhand was very mature (he had been souled for practically a century not to mention the time as an unsouled vampire).

It almost struck me as an lolita thing.,,

Re: Re: Will Angel get a New Love Interest,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 06:18:48,209.210.43.168 writes,But during that whole time Angel was a bad vampire he didn't really progress much in the way of emotional maturity. It isn't even until long after he received his curse that he starts making headway. I guess vampire's may not be able to progress and grow emotionally or spiritually. Whereas one of Buffy's big dilemmas all through the series is that she is thrust with huge responsibilities at a very young age (which really is not fair for her at all) which forces her to grow up very fast.,Hydraulix,

Re: Re: Re: Will Angel get a New Love Interest,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 16:15:58,65.2.35.119 writes,"How come whe we see a couple with a pretty big age difference(even 20 years) we do ""eew!"" but when we see Buffy(16-19) and Angel(240something) her go ""aww!""? Just a thought!",Sarah,

Re: Re: Re: Re: Will Angel get a New Love Interest,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 16:21:55,63.77.240.186 writes,If you eliminate all the years that Angel was Angelus then he and buffy are like 2-3 years apart in age,Brian,

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will Angel get a New Love Interest,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 16:27:25,149.79.38.130 writes,That depends on when you peg the change from Angelus to Angel. If you peg it at the imposition of the curse then he stopped being Angelus a long time ago so he would be much more than two or three years older than Buffy.

However I have a theory that although Angelus might have been eliminated by the Kalderash curse the Angel persona as we know him did not start to fully emerge until his encounter with Whistler. In that case what you say might well be more or less true.

Who was he during the period following the curse and preceding his calling by Whistler? He certainly wasn't Mr. Do-Good-Virtuous-Hero-Guy.,A. Mazumdar,asmazumdar@my-deja

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will Angel get a New Love Interest,Thursday 30-Nov-2000 17:09:43,209.48.144.34 writes,"Since vampires don't age physically after they are sired Angel is the same age as Liam was when he was sired. My guess is somewhere between 19 and 27. In other words the age difference between the *actors* (SMG and David B.) is about the same as the age difference between the *characters* (Buffy and Angel).

Mental age is a whole 'nother story. Both Angel and Buffy have shown maturity and immaturity for their physical age - as do all people. Probably the reason we have the phrase ""12 going on 30 "" or something similar. Physical age and mental age may or may not correlate and are subject to changes and variations throughout a person's life - even if that person is a 240+year-old vampire.",purplegrrl,

Re: Re: Re: Re: Will Angel get a New Love Interest,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 16:22:14,149.79.38.130 writes,"Who's ""we "" Kimosabe?

I don't automatically go ""ew"" when I see a couple with a substantial age difference. We're all just lonely people trying to find some happiness after all.

And I don't go ""aw"" over Angel and Buffy. In my opinion when they were together they were cloying and at their worst and they brought out the worst in each other. I think they're much better much more complete much more stable much more self-aware much more self-respecting when they're apart.",A. Mazumdar,asmazumdar@my-deja.com

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will Angel get a New Love Interest,Saturday 2-Dec-2000 08:38:34,152.163.204.192 writes,"I am in complete agreement with you.

Where ""substantial age differences"" are concerned the relative ages of the participants must be considered -- for example not many people would be shocked by a 50-year old man dating a 43-year old woman but for a 20-year old to date a 13-year old is repulsive. (My guideline is [man's age - 14]/[woman's age -14] < 2 for non-platonic relationships)

I had the feeling Angel was a dissipated young man in his 20's when he was turned (I doubt Darla would choose a companion whose physical age was less than hers -- women like their men to be a little older even if it is only a year or two.) Even if we take the most generous view of Angel's age (that he is frozen at the age he was turned) his relationship with Buffy was still inappropriate at best. I have never seen a Buffy-Angel relationship as ""eternal"" -- if Angel has a predilection for very young girls what happens as Buffy ages and he remains young? Of course slayers are doomed to die young...

I also never liked the Angel-Buffy relationship. Cloying was definitely the right choice for it. One of the things I have found most interesting about AtS is that they removed the three characters I liked least from Buffy and created an excellent show out of them. Wesley Angel and Cordelia are all much better characters away from the shadow of Giles/Buffy.",Malandanza,

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will Angel get a New Love Interest,Tuesday 5-Dec-2000 09:55:29,149.79.38.130 writes,"> but for a 20-year old to date a 13-year old is
> repulsive. (My guideline is [man's age -
> 14]/[woman's age -14] < 2 for non-platonic
> relationships)

I don't hold with this analytical view. Relationships are about emotions not statistics. Of course the stereotype of a 50-year-old man dating a 13-year-old girl might be repulsive but faced with a real-life example I would evaluate it on its own terms.

The show ""Northern Exposure "" for example portrayed a relationship between a 60-plus-year-old man and a teen-aged girl (Holling Vencoeur and Shelly Tambeaux) and that didn't seem inappropriate to me at all.

> Even if we take the most generous view of
> Angel's age (that he is frozen at the age he
> was turned) his relationship with Buffy was
> still inappropriate at best.

I don't think their relationship was ""inappropriate."" I just think they aren't good for each other.

> Angel has a predilection for very young
> girls

He does? I think it's been demonstrated that Angel is attracted to all kinds of women but mostly intelligent ones.

> women like their men to be a little older even
> if it is only a year or two.)

I think this is a societal prejudice that is slowly losing grip. Among my friends relatives and acquaintances there is a significant number of couples in which the wife is older than the husband by three or four years.

And I think that to an immortal especially a vampire who had been around for a century or two like Darla when she met Liam the subtle differences of one or two years of physical age would begin to blur. Also there is variation among people with regard to physical aging. I don't think vampires would be too concerned with raw numbers.",A. Mazumdar,asmazumdar@my-deja.com

Re: Will Angel get a New Love Interest,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 19:11:20,209.109.91.215 writes,"I don't think so. I'm sure he'll get crushes desire to be with someone get struck with the loneliness of being a creature of the night might even fall for someone but that's as far it would ever go. Knowing what the repurcussions are if he did try to have a ""normal"" relationship -- he wouldn't allow it.

Angel has a lot to make up for. He knows once he has made amends and gets his reward then he can get snuggly with some chiquita. But not anytime soon.

",estefena,

Since there are two slayers maybe buffy can retire someday,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 23:20:42,64.20.150.158 writes,When the shows started that had two slayers I always thought that this would be a way for Buffy to retire someday without having to die. Then we move forward to the show where Angel becomes human for a day and we get to see how much they really do care for it. I mean I was really touched and I am a guy. Anyways I would see a great scenario in the last season of Buffy or Angel as this; Angel averts the Apocalypse and is made human. Faith either gets out of jail or dies somehow. Then a new slayer is called and Buffy is free to marry Angel and they live happily ever after. Hey I don't know the answer to this question. Can Slayers have babies? Anyone? Ladies?,VanMoodySenior,vanmoodysenior@hotmail.com

Re: Since there are two slayers maybe buffy can retire someday,Thursday 30-Nov-2000 16:10:45,128.218.111.104 writes,"First why should 'ladies' know more than men whether slayers can have babies? The only one who knows is Joss and he said quoting now--""Yep Buffy can get preggers. Most girls can.""",Nancy,

Re: Re: Since there are two slayers maybe buffy can retire someday,Friday 1-Dec-2000 18:48:36,63.48.10.67 writes,Yeah! That's how I hope they end the series... but who knows what Joss is gonna do.,Buffy,

Wicca and healing and BTVS,Sunday 26-Nov-2000 22:55:13,24.147.124.28 writes,"Ok... Tara said that if they tried something they might end up making matters worse. She's right. Need I remind everyone of the spells that have gone astray or had undesired effects before? Namely the ""I Will it So"" and ""Blind-to-demons"" spells. And there were less than fun consequences with the joining spell. Remember? I'm sure there were others. ANYWAYS... MY POINT... Tara was right... something could go horribly wrong and when another life is concerned you don't want to take that chance.

~Lucifer Sponge",,Lucifer_Sponge@hotmail.com

Yeah but well... how exactly could it get worse?,Monday 27-Nov-2000 00:27:53,130.49.95.67 writes,Alright at the moment there are possible treatments. But if those fall through there's literally nowhere to go but down. Even if the spell turns her into a vegetable she'd still probably be better off than the ultimate results of death by brain tumor. ,Sam,

Re: Yeah but well... how exactly could it get worse?,Monday 27-Nov-2000 16:18:13,63.214.10.19 writes,as it stands the tumor may be operable...modern medicine may fix it (more or less)...so what if they ask that the cause of her tumor should be gone (what is the cause? Stress? Buffy? Dawn? All of the above?)what if they ask that the tumor be vanished...and she has a gaping hole in her brain??,JoRus,

remember?,Monday 27-Nov-2000 20:45:48,151.204.203.194 writes,Does anyone remember the boy from Buffy's old school in LA who came to sunnydale to become a vampire so he wouldn't die of his brain tumor? Why didn't anyone do a healing spell on him?,Lyn,

Re: remember?,Tuesday 28-Nov-2000 15:01:22,164.58.104.12 writes,For the same reasons they don't cast spells on Joyce. Also I haven't seen that episode yet but I don't think they had any skilled spellcasters at that time. I'm a little shaky on the timeline but I think Willow wasn't big into magic then Giles probably wasn't that proficient (other than his dark magic experience and book learnin') and healing might not have been in Jenny's specialization. Even with the trained Willow and Tara of this season they could have easily botched it and made a bibbidi-bobbidi-aneurism.,Xayide,

Yes but I'm wondering why they shouldn't try something...,Tuesday 28-Nov-2000 19:30:50,130.49.95.67 writes,...if it turns out to be inoperable and untreatable.

If the medical prognosis is death by brain tumor things really can't get any worse.,Sam,

That's not the point.,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 00:50:22,209.52.199.22 writes,The whole point of Joyce's tumor is to give the Slayer something she CAN'T fight. If they did a spell then poof the problem would be gone. The point of Joyce's condition is for Buffy to learn that she (and the Scoobies) can't solve everything. Who knows where Joss will go with that lesson but hopefully it won't mean the end of Joyce's character.,Amber,amber_turgeon@hotmail.com

Re: That's not the point.,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 13:23:22,63.50.140.114 writes,So far that also seems to be the same problem with Angel and Darla. Interesting how the one story line is running parallel with the other-- accident or deliberate? ,OnM,

Re: Re: That's not the point.,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 14:25:29,128.218.111.104 writes,"Actually I was disturbed by the parallel because I was thinking ""Oh Buffy could totally get through 3 challenges/a trial of her own to save her Mom's life and I'll bet Joyce hasn't had HER second chance at life yet!!",Nancy,

Re: death of Joyce?,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 18:19:24,209.245.166.190 writes,Yes I've been wondering if Spike's telling Buffy that the only thing that's kept Buffy alive is her family/friends. If Joyce dies Buffy is very vulnerable. Spike seems to be residing in the basement of the Summers house to be protective (though I think he's watching TV when no one is home) When the Scoobies are patrolling with Giles they get their butts kicked...an d they're right outside of Spike's crypt/home...he'd come out and fight but he's re prioritized to protecting Buffy/her family. And yes he's lost his Cockney.,JoRus,

Oh I get that. ,Thursday 30-Nov-2000 00:00:16,130.49.95.67 writes,I'm just saying that Joss probably should have thought of that before he started giving major characters the power to cast magic spells. Magic always causes these problems in stories...,Sam,

Buddhism in the Buffyverse,Saturday 25-Nov-2000 13:38:44,199.201.192.125 writes,"While on the subject of religion it seems that many of the demons have Buddhist leanings. This makes a lot of sense. Buddhism is the only real-world religion that I know of which has a place in it for demons. Being a demon is a very unfortunate rebirth but a Boddhisattva is compassionate for all sentient beings demons included. In the ""Wheel of Life"" there is a Boddhisattva in all six realms of existence--gods Asuras humans animals Pretas and hell-beings.

This would explain why Spike had no trouble with the Buddhist images while fighting the Chinese Slayer in a temple during the Boxer Rebellion.",BobR,

Calling all Buddhist Hindu or interested BtVS fans,Saturday 25-Nov-2000 20:16:40,206.170.1.184 writes,I've become convinced based on various things I've read on this board that my site could use an entry on one or more of the Eastern religions on the good.html page. But I have to admit I know very little about these religions.

If you have examples of Buddhist Hindu etc. text or subtext from BtVS or Angel episodes email it to me at masqthephlsphr@yahoo.com.,Masquerade,masqthephlsphr@yahoo.com

Re: Calling all Buddhist Hindu or interested BtVS fans,Monday 27-Nov-2000 13:16:03,199.201.192.125 writes,"I agree that an entries on Buddhism Hinduism Taoism and other non-Western religions would be of great interest. The Buffyverse doesn't seem in the least Christian except for the use of crosses holy water etc. against vampires.

When Angel lived in Sunnydale I was struck that he had a Chinese statue of the Bodhisattva Kuan-Yin in his apartment. It was never mentioned in the dialog and he might have had it only as a work of art but he might have explored Buddhism as a way to lessen his enormous load of guilt.

Later in the ""Angel"" episode in which he killed the good warrior-demon he lit a candle before what looked like a Buddhist image in the demon's lair. It could have been a Buddhist warrior-demon.

In the ""Angel"" episode with the blind woman assassin Cordelia of all people speculates that the assassin was Enlightened though questioning it. Cordelia is bright but no scholar and it seemed out of character for her to think in Buddhist terms which might say something of the religious make-up of the Buffyverse.

Only a handful of characters in either series appear to have any religious affiliation. Willow's family are Jewish but don't appear to be in the least observant. Ms. Calendar said she was a ""technopagan "" which doesn't seem to fit with her being a Gypsy. Willow and Tara are ""Wiccan "" but are very different from real-world Wicca. In the ""Buffy"" episode ""The Freshman"" on Buffy's first day on campus she's approached by a campus Christian evangelist but brushes her off. (Those people are one of the minor annoyances of college life!)

This post has turned out longer than I intended but the subject interests me.",Bob R,BobR@37.com

Re: Calling all Buddhist Hindu or interested BtVS fans,Monday 27-Nov-2000 17:39:28,207.105.12.254 writes,"Masquerade
Bob just mentioned some of the examples I would have given. Also remember that Oz apparently went to Tibet and learned meditation techniques to control his wolfy-nature.

Also please mention the Buddhist concept of the ""mutual possession of the ten worlds"" which is an important concept in East Asian Buddhism esp. the T'ien-t'ai and Nichiren schools.

I am training to be a Buddhist minister and my temple has recently published a book I wrote on basic Buddhist concepts. If you would like any advice or even some articles on Buddhism (including the mutual possession of the ten worlds) I would be happy to send them to you.

My email is Sryuei@aol.com",Ryuei,Sryuei@aol.com

Re: Re: Calling all Buddhist Hindu or interested BtVS fans,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 12:35:41,199.201.192.162 writes,Ryuei
I'm glad somebody who actually knows something about Buddhism is writing about it in the Buffyverse. I don't consider myself to be a Buddhist but I've read a lot of books on the subject over the decades though I've done the same for many different religions. It seems to me that Buddhism fits the Buffyverse better than any other religion I've read about.

I wonder what is your affiliation? I know this can be a complex question within Buddhism. Given the anonymous nature of the Net I don't even know your nationality.,BobR,BobR@37.com

Re: Re: Re: Calling all Buddhist Hindu or interested BtVS fans,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 14:10:46,207.105.12.254 writes,I am a minister-in-training (I should be a full minister next Spring after I undergo the final 35 day training period at Mount Minobu in Japan) with the Nichiren Shu. The Nichiren Shu was founded by a priest in 13th century Japan named Nichiren. Nichiren started off as a reformer of the Tendai school but later realized that what he was teaching was deeper and yet more accessible than what had been taught by the Tenai patriarchs. Tendai itself was the Japanese version of the Chinese T'ien-t'ai school. T'ien-t'ai was a syncretistic school that attempted to bring all the Buddhist teachings and practices under the umbrella of the One Vehicle of the Lotus Sutra. It's founder was a 6th century Chinese monk named Chih-i. Chih-i himself was primarily a Madhyamikan scholar as well as a practitioner of tranquility and insight meditation (aka Samatha Vipassana). Many of the early Zen teachers in China borrowed their teachings and even methods from the T'ien-t'ai school. The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch reveals a lot of T'ien-t'ai terminology and ideas (including the Four Bodhisattva Vows) which are not credited. Even the idea of a line of patriarchs from Shakyamuni Buddha up to the 28th Indian patriarch originated in the T'ien-t'ai school. The Zen Buddhists simply added the legend of Bodhidharma in order to bring the lineage into China.

Nichiren created a calligraphic mandala based upon the Lotus Sutra which is also called the Gohonzon. It is also a lineage tree. On that mandala are the following: Shakyamuni Buddha Nagarjuna Chih-i Miao-lo (the restorer of the Chinese T'ien-t'ai school) and Dengyo (the founder of the Japanese Tendai school). So you can see that Nichiren Buddhism is a Mahayana school which grew out of the T'ien-t'ai school which itself was based upon Madhyamika.

As for myself I am a European-American and one of the first few novices to train for the priesthood in the Nichiren Shu. I live in San Francisco but my temple is in San Jose. My sensei is the Venerable Ryusho Matsuda of the San Jose Nichiren Buddhist Temple which recently had it's 20th anniversary. Nichiren Shu has been in this country for almost as long as there have been Japanese immigrants (the turn of the last century) but the San Jose temple was only founded recently by the great scholar and missionary Bishop Shingaku Oikawa. As part of the celebration my sensei published a book I wrote (90% of it anyway) called Lotus Seeds: The Essence of Nichiren Shu Buddhism.The book goes into some detail about some of the things I have written about here in relation to Buffy and Angel. If anyone is interested in reading it or has any other questions please feel free to email me. ,Ryuei,Sryuei@aol.com

Re: Re: Re: Re: Calling all Buddhist Hindu or interested BtVS fans,Friday 1-Dec-2000 15:24:26,199.201.192.165 writes,Thanks for the background information. You seem to be knowledgeable about a wide variety of Buddhist lineages.,BobR,BobR@37.com

Saving souls,Saturday 25-Nov-2000 10:44:24,65.5.128.182 writes,"I was just reading the episode summary for ""Darla"" and have issues with the point that Angel doesn't discriminate when saving souls. It has been proven that he does. When Lindsey came to him for help in saving the blind seer kids Angel was a total jerk and basically told him that he would need to die to start redeeming himself. But what had Lindsey really done at that point? We had only seen him a few times and he was just a lawyer defending his client. But Angel seems to be more than willing to save and female soul that comes his way. We saw it with Faith he accepted her wanting to be redeemed without question and now we are seeing it with Darla. I think that he needs to start practicing what he preaches and be open to everyone not just women.",Princess K,buffyslayer34@hotmail.com

Re: Saving souls,Saturday 25-Nov-2000 12:01:10,206.170.32.54 writes,"I'm certainly open for debate on this 'cause I think you have a point. Angel has been tougher on men than women. I think it goes back to something Cordelia said in ""Untouched"" about Angel's old-fashioned attitude towards women. I don't mean that he's sexist (e.g. he doesn't make a fuss about Cordy fighting side-by-side with him) but he tends to give women more lee-way. He's encouraging supportive tells them they can find their inner strength yada yada. With men he tends to kick them around demanding that they do the right thing already damn it.

I'm thinking this goes back (as everything does) to his mortal family life. Dad expected Liam to just snap himself together and ""be a man"" and Liam doted on his little sister Kathy and has been seeing women as little sis's ever since. I think he sees himself in other men and tends to do the father-figure thing with them acting like the father he knew the best.",Masquerade,

Re: Re: Saving souls,Sunday 26-Nov-2000 22:51:49,205.188.192.51 writes,I agree that Angel's treatment of Lindsey was surprising particularly in light of the superhuman lengths he went to save Faith. Part of it may be that he felt as though he had failed the first time around -- when saving Faith was a relatively simple prospect. His history with Darla makes his efforts to save her realistic.

Looking at the other women with whom he has had an adversarial relationship -- Kate Rebbeca and Lilah -- do you think he has treated them more softly than the men? I think that Angel was partly in control when he poured blood down Rebecca's throat -- Angelus might not have bothered to lecture her on her choices.

Age might also be a factor -- Lindsey went into W&H with open eyes. Or maybe Angel doesn't like Lawyers.,Malandanza,

and again i'm playing my liam of galway card...,Monday 27-Nov-2000 00:32:43,205.188.196.34 writes,well liam of galway liked girls so there you have it. ^_^' not much of an explanation but hey. lol,pocky,pocky_angel@hotmail.com

Re: and again i'm playing my liam of galway card...,Monday 27-Nov-2000 11:57:44,128.218.111.104 writes,Actually it isn't. *g* If you're saying he was heterosexual well yeah sure. But being straight doesn't make a man like women or a woman like men. Sexually emotionally perhaps. But there are plenty of heterosexual mysogynists out there (and vice versa). I think you have to look at the individual's own particular attitude towards a particular gender and Liam saw most women as pretty disposable. But men like that would often be the first to defend their own sisters (probably because they figure most other men are like them). Present-day Angel has improved considerably since those days and being cut off from humanity and sex and allowed his nobler attitudes towards women to surface. But he still has a bit of a slut-Madonna complex. He just sees most women as Madonnas now.

,Nancy,

Re: Re: and again i'm playing my liam of galway card...,Tuesday 28-Nov-2000 12:07:25,149.79.38.130 writes,"Okay just for pedantry's sake what exactly is the meaning of:

> But there are plenty of heterosexual
> mysogynists out there (and vice versa).

Is it ""But there are plenty of heterosexual misogynists out there and plenty of heterosexual misogynists out there are there""?

;-)

",A. Mazumdar,asmazumdar@my-deja.com

Is it possible to 'murder' a vampire?,Saturday 25-Nov-2000 08:53:04,63.50.131.233 writes,In the thread 'Sandy the Vampire' below gds brings up a point that I think is very well worth it's own thread-- my thanks to him for the idea.

Let's set up the following *hypothetical* situation:

In a future ep Riley is sitting at Willy's bar when he is accosted by several vamps *very* unhappy over his dusting of Sandy. It turns out that Sandy is (was) the vamp equivalent of a vegan and has never been known to kill a human. She only ever feeds on them and only after they consent (perhaps in exchange for her sexual favors). They then proceed to drag him out of the bar and he gets rather a good thumping prior to eventually dusting the vamps.

If we allow for this hypothetical has Riley murdered Sandy?,OnM,

Re: Is it possible to 'murder' a vampire?,Saturday 25-Nov-2000 13:19:25,64.40.46.59 writes,It turns out that Sandy is (was) the vamp equivalent of a vegan

If we allow for this hypothetical has Riley murdered Sandy?

We can not allow for this hypothetical. Not in Joss's world.

It's like we are trying to so desperately redefine what a Vampire is. Gypsy curses and microchips aside the Vampire's primary drive is to suck the blood of living humans. They are bad evil demons and should be slayed whenever encountered. To do otherwise is quite likely dooming some other human to be their next victim.

There may be strategic reasons to back off a fight with a vampire but there are no moral ones. To refuse to slay out of some misguided sense of mercy is again to condemn some human (or many humans) to death.

Sandy is dead. The vampires killed here. The vampire who was in undead Sandy is (was) a demon not Sandy. Gunn knew that when he slayed the vampire that his sister turned into why is it so difficult for the rest of us?

So the answer is no you can't murder a vampire. You can only slay them.,Grant,

Regarding Sandy,Saturday 25-Nov-2000 13:42:40,64.40.42.21 writes,Let us not forget that Sandy was in the process of killing Riley before he finally slayed her.

It's not like he just walked up to her and put a stake in her heart (which would have been perfectly acceptable).

It's never wrong to slay a vampire. But in this case you couldn't have a clearer situation of self defense.,Jill,

Re: Regarding Sandy,Saturday 25-Nov-2000 14:41:46,24.4.252.249 writes,1. Riley offered himself to her she didn't take him by force. We don't know just how much of himself he did offer so we don't know whether his death would have been closer to murder or suicide.

2.She was feeding on him but it is not a that clear she was killing him. Buffy has twice been fed on without killing her. In both cases this was deliberate on the part of the vampire. Although Angel (as always) was a special case Dracula was not. He didn't kill her for his own reasons (not good reasons to be sure but he 'pushed the plate away' before finishing the meal). Sandy might have done the same. In fact it might have been to her interest to do so. Some humans give blood repeatedly to blood banks. Setting up her own long term blood bank that didn't want to esacpe would be a very practical thing to do. Riley would be 'bringing home the bacon' in a very different sense of the phrase but still appropriate.

3. The concept 'the only good vampire is a dead vampire' has NOT been proven. We haven't seen much of any good ones but that doesn't prove they don't exist. How many good people do we see see on the nightly news? That doesn't mean that there aren't many out there. Many real life human 'monsters' have been created by the belief
'The only good Indian is a dead Indian' (or Commie or Jew or...). We haven't yet been given all the details of the Buffyverse. Like life it is a work in progress. It is a sophisticated enough show that like life we can expect to find truths that we don't like and answers which don't fit into our view of the universe. ,gds,

Re: Re: Regarding Sandy,Saturday 25-Nov-2000 14:51:25,64.40.45.101 writes,"It seems that a scorpion wanted to cross a river but scorpions can't swim. He saw a fox nearby and asked the fox for a ride across the river but the fox refused. ""You would sting me and I would die "" said the fox.

""But you will be carrying me across the river and if I sting you then I would also drown and die "" reasoned the scorpion.

The fox was convinced. The scorpion jumped on his nose and the fox began swimming across the river. Halfway across however the scorpion stung the fox on his nose. As the fox began losing strength and slipping beneath the river's surface he cried out to the scorpion ""Now we will both die! Why did you sting me? ""

He answered: ""Because I am a scorpion and that's what I do. You knew that before you agreed to carry me across. ""
",,

Re: Re: Re: Regarding Sandy,Tuesday 28-Nov-2000 02:39:12,64.40.42.23 writes,Sorry.

I see that someone else posted the story before me.

Vampires can't change what they are as much as we (or even they) would like them to.

Angel of course being the exception as he now has a human soul.

Which brings me to this one question. Angel is looking for redemption but I don't think he has done anything that he needs to seek redemption for. All the killing that Angelus did - that was the demon. Angel wasn't in control and therefore can't be held responsible for the acts committed as Angelus.
,Lucy,

Re: Re: Re: Re: Regarding Sandy,Tuesday 28-Nov-2000 10:54:11,164.58.104.12 writes,"Which brings me to this one question. Angel is looking for redemption but I don't think he has done anything that he needs to seek redemption for. All the killing that Angelus did - that was the demon. Angel wasn't in control and therefore can't be held responsible for the acts committed as Angelus.

That's true IF the party line that a vampire is just a human corpse inhabited by a demon is true. The events of the two shows are showing that that's not exactly how it is. Although they make it sound as if the original human is gone and replaced by a completely alien demonic entity it seems more that the original human is still there just turned cruel and predatory by the demonic essence carried in vampire blood. They also don't have a soul but if you ask me that's just because they died not because they were turned into vampires. Hmm that makes me wonder if vampires view a soul in the same way humans view a placenta.

So anyway they've always described vamping as possession but it isn't possession really it's poisoning. The human is turned into a demon (and the soul-losing is incidental to the process). Angel is indeed responsible for all the deaths and torture. He's still the demon. It's just that now he has that human soul that reminds him where he comes from and what he's done from the human perspective.

Urgh. Looking over that I think it's all vague and incomprehensible but I'll go ahead and hit ""Submit"" since I spent so much time on it OK? -_-;",Xayide,

Re: Re: Re: Re: Regarding Sandy,Tuesday 28-Nov-2000 12:19:53,149.79.38.130 writes,"> Vampires can't change what they are as much as
> we (or even they) would like them to.

Er ... sez who? The most important characteristic of vampires is that they are ... _fictional_. They can have whatever traits that the writer chooses to give them.

It has not been demonstrated in ""Buffy"" that no vampire ever can be anything other than a sociopath.

What we have been told about vampires in the show could easily be seen as (1) human propaganda to steel the troops fighting the war against demons or (2) vampire propaganda to preserve a certain kind of image.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if some time in the future we were to discover that there's more to the nature of vampires than we've been told. As the show goes on one of the developing themes has been the complexity of motives morality good and evil etc.",A. Mazumdar,asmazumdar@my-deja.com

Re: Re: Regarding Sandy,Saturday 25-Nov-2000 20:54:11,64.40.44.98 writes,"Basically you are saying ""he was asking for it?""

As for ""good"" vampires. We haven't seen any good vampires. And before you bring up Angel remember he is not quite a vampire anymore as he has a human soul as a result of a Gypsy curse.

He is the exception that proves the rule.

Show me a vampire without a human soul and without microchip and I will show you a blood sucking murderer.

Vampires (without souls) exist off the death of humans. They are the ultimate preditors.

Mourn Sandy if you must but you are kinda late. She died in season three. As for vampire Sandy - her dustying is a cause for celebration. For it means that a few less Sunnydaleans (or is it Sunnydalites) will become happy meals.",Jill,

Re: Re: Regarding Sandy,Monday 27-Nov-2000 02:07:18,24.113.26.191 writes,Buffy actually got feed off 3 times in season one by the Master was the first time.,dragon,

Krishna's advice to Arjuna,Saturday 25-Nov-2000 21:20:40,205.188.195.43 writes,"Grant wrote:

This reminds me of the advice of Krishna to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. The warrior Arjuna does not wish to fight to regain the kingdom which rightfully belongs to he and his brothers because he will have to kill his kinsmen. Krishna tells him that is mercy is misplaced and that it is his duty (dharma) to fight. I would say that it is the duty (dharma) of the Slayers and those in the know to fight against the demons as well.

However I think it is accepable to make exceptions in the case of Angel who has a soul and really isn't quite a vampire anymore and while Spike should be slain for pragmatic reasons I agree it would do a number on the Slayer to kill him in cold blood. Spike like any other serial killer should be confined at the very least.

The trouble here is to what extent are the demons creatures of evil who are to be slain out of hand? Angel ran into this problem in Judgement when he accidently killed a warrior of good. On the other hand it may well have been his dharma (duty) to kill even that good demon because it seems as though the PTB planned on him to become the champion in the trial.

A final twist here the Bhagavad Gita seems to argue that if you are a warrior it is your duty to kill even your relatives for the sake of righteousness. This is reminiscent of the Watcher Council party line that vampires are no longer one's relatives and should be slain without qualms- advice which Gunn followed himself without ever hearing it. Gandhi however read the Bhagavad Gita as a tract on non-violence (ahimsa). So in a sense Gandhi turned the Bhagavad Git on its head and argued that the battle Arjuna is being asked to fight is a spiritual one against his own ignorance and selfish desires. Of course Buffy turned Gandhi on his head when she did her ""Gandhi when he's pissed off"" imitation and put the kebosh on that demon back in Anne. So what does all this mean? I don't know. I just offer all this for your consideration.

",Ryuei,

Re: hypothetical vamps continued...,Saturday 25-Nov-2000 22:38:56,63.50.141.47 writes,My thanks to all who have responded so far.

I would like to point out that the reason for posing my hypothethical was not to *defend* vampSandy but to pose a basic ethical question that troubled me and evidently has also troubled gds.

Comments that 'in Joss's universe' benign vampires *cannot exist* is a logical fallacy simply because that universe like all universes is essentially infinite and we have only seen a very finite portion of it. This argument is similar to those I have heard from some Christian fundamentalist types that there is no point looking into outer space for intelligent life since the Bible doesn't mention it and therefore there isn't any. These people assume the universe we know is bounded *entirely and completely* by what is written in the Bible when in objective fact it is not.

We have *not* seen all of the vamps in the Buffyverse and in fact while all vamps *may* be evil that is *still an assumption* at this point.

So we come back to the hypothetical-- IF I repeat **IF** Sandy never killed a human would Riley's killing of her be murder?

The whole reason this comes up in the first place is that at least two people (gds & myself) likely many more saw this particular scene played out in a way that seemed as if Riley had somehow not played the game fairly.

Sandy may very well be a stone killer who uses seduction to attract and dispatch her prey. In that case Riley's method of killing her was not only appropriate but very ironic from a Sandy point of view.
,OnM,

Re: Re: hypothetical vamps continued...,Saturday 25-Nov-2000 23:43:53,64.40.44.253 writes,So we come back to the hypothetical-- IF I repeat **IF** Sandy never killed a human would Riley's killing of her be murder?

She was killing Riley so the answer is no. Self Defense.
,Grant,

Ironic,Saturday 25-Nov-2000 23:59:41,64.40.44.253 writes,It was quite ironic how Sandy-vamp died.

Riley turned the tables on Sandy-vamp. Beat her at her own game. Perhaps that is why she was so shocked as she was dusted.,Grant,

Vamping Mr Finn,Sunday 26-Nov-2000 10:19:20,206.74.191.221 writes,I somehow got the impression that Sandy was going to turn Riley. Does that change the circumstances? If so did he just suddenly change his mind or was it a trick from the get-go?,Wilder,

Re: Vamping Mr Finn,Tuesday 28-Nov-2000 02:23:11,64.40.42.23 writes,"I somehow got the impression that Sandy was going to turn Riley. Does that change the circumstances?

No to be ""turned"" the human must die.

It was still self defense.

Vampires are evil. And whenever any of them are SLAYED that is a reason for humanity to rejoice.

There is only one Angel. The exception that proves the rule. And remember he has a human soul. Vampires by their very nature are bloodsuckers. It can't be any other way.

I do wonder though why Willow doesn't ""curse"" the other vampires by bringing back their souls.
",Lucy,

Willow Wicca Abilities,Tuesday 28-Nov-2000 07:52:04,63.77.240.186 writes,"I always thought that Willow was able to return Angel's soul because she became possessed by the the power of the dead Gypsys. It wasn't her own power but ""borrowed"" power from forces way beyond her control or abilities. That is why she can not return other souls to vampires. Of course now that she is with Tara her powers may be equal to the task.",Brian,

It's their nature,Tuesday 28-Nov-2000 02:32:33,64.40.42.23 writes,"The concept of a ""benign"" Vampire goes against the essense of what a Vampire is.

That oft-resurfacing tale of the Fox and the scorpion echoes in my mind as I read your questions.

The scorpion asked the fox to carry him across a body of water. The fox naturally fearful of the deadly scorpion declined. So the scorpion tried to reassure him saying that ""it wouldn't be in my interest to harm you while we are crossing the water together for we will both drown."" With that assurance the fox agreed only to have the scorpion fatally sting him in the middle of their journey. When asked by the fox why he did that when he knew it would lead to both of them drowning the scorpion's sorry response was simply ""it is my nature.""

Vampires ""need"" to kill to survive it ""is their nature"" to do so.

Angel has a human soul. But there is always the demon inside him making him hunger for the next kill. It takes the full strength of his human soul to restain him from not killing and feeding like the other vampires do.

Vampires feed off the blood of the living. That is what they are. They can't be anything else.

Sorry to the Spike and Sandy fans out there.",Lucy,

Re: Is it possible to 'murder' a vampire?,Sunday 26-Nov-2000 12:29:44,65.5.128.182 writes,"Maybe it's just me but I think an important point that I don't see anyone bringing up (unless I misread a message which is possible) is that vampires are not alive in the first place. They are just these dead bodies walking around with a demon inside them. How can you ""murder"" something that is already dead. This point was kind of brought up in Angel in the episode ""To Shanshu in L.A."" The prophecy states that if Angel does enough good he will become human thus alive. Well Angel has a soul so that should make him alive already right? Apparently having a soul is not enough and that just reinforces that vamps are already dead.
",Princess K,buffyslayer34@hotmail.com

Re: Re: Is it possible to 'murder' a vampire?,Monday 27-Nov-2000 16:17:03,4.17.250.5 writes,I agree. Vampires are already dead and thus have no moral or otherwise right to life. They are an affront to the world's (or at least this dimension in the Buffyverse) natural order - dead but animated. A discussion of murder is moot because it presupposes that the victim was alive.

The flip side of this coin is that the killling of other forms of demons may be murder. We have seen in the Buffyverse that demons are simply an alternate form of life and have various agendas. As they are alive killing one in cold blood could be considered murder. I don't believe we have seen Buffy do this. As I recall she kills demons only when she catches them in an act of wrongdoing against humans which could be excused as self-defense and/or defense of others,CBee,

Are >all< demons soul-less?,Sunday 26-Nov-2000 13:23:37,213.46.104.82 writes,"Allthough a ""soul"" is a bit hard to define. Let's just say it's the difference between the computer (machine) and human (animal?) and it wrong to kill a human and it isn't turning of a machine.

So if we say all demons don't have souls (beside the soul-cursed ones) than killing a demon is as bad as smashing a computer: if that demon does bad or will do bad slay it if it does good and will keep doing good don't.

If a demon does evil buffy kills it so it reasonable to say that all demons are soul-less. So Angel shouldn't feel so bad when he killed that ""good"" warrior demon (in Judgement 2x01) at all. There is however a more interesting matter: If a wampire's soul can be restored shouldn't the scooby gang (at least Willow) be focussing on restoring all vampires souls like Angel. And while their at it restore the souls of all demons. An ominous couse but worth the effort since your essentially saving lifes (only not before they die but afterwards (like reanimation?)).

Hmmm... interresting...

-The13thSin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
""It's comforting to know I lack the culinary finness of a cave man."" -Xander Harris (BtVS 5x01)",The13thSin,

Re: Are >all< demons soul-less?,Sunday 26-Nov-2000 18:52:19,209.245.166.76 writes,"I saw a late night show once that posited that reincarnation was not possible because there were larger and larger populations ergo: some people out there would be soulless there simply weren't enough to go around. I thought "" Hasn't this guy ever been to a bus stop at three A.m.??"": ) Actually I am postulating here that souls don't make people good or demons bad.I'd rather go to the demon bar than Nazi Germany.",JoRus,

Re: Re: Are >all< demons soul-less?,Monday 27-Nov-2000 21:54:49,216.232.33.7 writes,The vampire is the only demon that so far has been shown not to have a soul. We have been shown that there are alot of other demons in the Buffy verse whose soul status isn't known. Why I like this show more and more is that at first you saw a vamp and dusted him/her. Now we see that Buffy is reluctant to slay a demon who to her is harmless. To my way of thinking if you kill a being who is harmless it is murder. Watching Reilly kill Sandy was creepy because he went out looking for her and accepted her advances...looked like murder to me.,Rufus,

Re: Is it possible to 'murder' a vampire?,Monday 27-Nov-2000 13:23:26,199.201.192.125 writes,I found the scene in which Riley staked Sandy disturbing. It seemed so cold-blooded. He knew she was a vampire and was letting her feed on him willingly. It seems that he was feeling down and wanted to kill something to make himself feel better. Sandy happened to be there. It is debatable whether or not all vampires deserve staking but Riley killed Sandy because of the way he felt but in order to rid the world of another blood-sucker.,Bob R,

Ali spares the Infidel,Monday 27-Nov-2000 15:53:01,207.105.12.254 writes,This reminds me of a story I heard concerning Ali the cousin of Mohammad (if there are any Muslims out there please correct me if I garble this story). Anyway Ali was in battle against the foes of Islam and was about to dispatch an infidel who then spit in Ali's face. Ali abruptly allowed the man to get up and go on his way. The infidel could not understand this and asked why Ali was letting him go. Ali replied that he was going to kill him as his duty for the Jihad (righteous warfare) but when he was spat upon he realized that he would then be killing the infidel for personal reasons and that would be a sin against Allah and humanity. So at that point he had no choice but to refrain from killing. Going by this story perhaps Riley did commit an offence because of his unworthy motives.,Ryuei,

Re: Ali spares the Infidel,Monday 27-Nov-2000 23:18:35,63.50.141.0 writes,Ahh as usual you come up with a good story Ryuei.

On the face of it this parable makes sense in that it encourages someone to choose their battles only for the best possible reasons or for the highest causes.

I suppose though that the other side of this would be that this is the exact same logic that leads to the institutionalizing of violence a la the Nazis the Khymer Rouge the Spaniards who conquered the South American native tribes the 'Americans' who conquered the 'Indians' etc. etc ad nauseam. Each and every one was absolutely convinced that they were fighting in a 'righteous' cause-- history now views them very differently.

That is when does the personal become the political or vice versa? When I was very young I was raised as a Catholic but grew away from the church as I got older. There were many reasons for this but one of the most disturbing was as I learned about the level of butchery supposedly committed in the name of Christ over the centuries since the church's founding. (By the way I am not picking on the Catholic religion in particular it was just because I did have some smallish personal experience with it-- I find any church or political organization that engages in this kind of wholesale persecution to be equally reprehensible).

So how does one know for sure when one is fighting a righteous battle? It is easy to think in your heart that you are right but where is an objective frame of reference you can use as a source for guidance?

,OnM,

Re: Re: Is it possible to 'murder' a vampire?,Monday 27-Nov-2000 16:28:55,63.214.10.19 writes,"I found the scene disturbing also...if he is killing Sandy because he ""doesn't date vampires"" ...unlike Buffy..and then later lets Sandy feed off him/pick him up...and then he kills her...is he killing Sandy because he's attracted to her? And he can't kill the vamp(s?) Buffy is attracted to?",JoRus,

Re: Re: Is it possible to 'murder' a vampire?,Monday 27-Nov-2000 21:03:53,64.40.42.194 writes,There is no wrong way to kill a Vamp.,,

Re: Re: Is it possible to 'murder' a vampire?,Monday 27-Nov-2000 22:41:48,64.40.43.109 writes,"What if someone made a murder/suicide agreement but at the last minute decided not to go through with it? If they killed the person who they made that agreement with would it be in self-defense?

Of course it would.

Riley acted in Self Defense. The only thing we should fault him for is waiting until the last moment to slay. He is living life on the edge with perhaps that ""Death Wish"" that Spike warned Buffy about.

So it was a set up. Sandy took the bait. She was going to suck his blood or turn him into a vampire - either way it meant his death.

",,

Re: Re: Re: Is it possible to 'murder' a vampire?,Monday 27-Nov-2000 22:49:57,216.232.33.7 writes,Murder is the killing of a person with or without intent. Yes Reilly set up Sandy and if it was for the good of mankind fine but this guy has a hidden adgenda(keeping his girlfriend by being as powerful as her) so he killed for personal gain. That to me is plain evil(even if he is a good person at heart). ,Rufus,

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it possible to 'murder' a vampire?,Tuesday 28-Nov-2000 01:55:31,64.40.42.23 writes,This is a war.

Riley Killed a Vamp. Good for him.

Next time though he shouldn't wait until the vampire has its teeth in his neck.,,

No,Tuesday 28-Nov-2000 02:14:11,64.40.42.23 writes,"There is a difference between Killing and Murder.

There are times when someone must kill to defend themselves or to protect others from evil (you don't kill a Vampire the Vampire goes out and kills others). In Jewish tradition it is also considered that slander and gossip are a form of murder because they harm a personís character.

In war you don't ""murder"" the enemy you kill them.

And when it comes to Vampires you Slay them.

That is why the show is called Buffy the Vampire Slayer instead of Buffy the Vampire Killer or Buffy the Vampire Murderer.

Just War Theory",Lucy,

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it possible to 'murder' a vampire?,Tuesday 28-Nov-2000 03:19:53,216.232.33.7 writes,It depends which side of the stake you are on to if it is murder or not. I still believe that Reilly did commit murder in the most simple sense of the word. What made it worse was the motivation for the act. Call it war or whatever killing is killing it just depends on who won the war to who the murderer is. Reilly crossed a line when he sought this former person out for his own personal gain. I guess he will only be a murderer if he gets vamped and proceeds to kill mortals. I think Buffy shows more ethics by only killing vamps that she feels warrant it. She won't touch those who she feels are helpless showing to me that she has a better sense of what evil is. Reilly wasn't fighting a war he was just playing with fire.,Rufus,

Re: Is it possible to 'murder' a vampire?,Tuesday 28-Nov-2000 12:13:01,149.79.38.130 writes,> It turns out that Sandy is (was) the vamp
> equivalent of a vegan

If Sandy sustains herself by drinking human blood but not killing the people she feeds from and this is the vampiric equivalent of a vegan ...

That would mean that a vegan is someone who will feed off of animals in such a way that does not kill them. E.g. drinking their milk. (Some other examples? I don't know -- eating only their earlobes and tails?)

But that's not what vegans do. Vegans don't eat anything that comes from an animal source.,A. Mazumdar,asmazumdar@my-deja.com

Re: Re: 'Vamp Vegan' defined,Tuesday 28-Nov-2000 20:15:21,63.50.140.172 writes,Mazumdar-- I realize that you are technically correct as to what a real vegan typically consumes as regards to foodstuffs but this was the closest word I could think of to describe my *hypothetical* Sandy for the sake of debating this particular moral quandary.

Note that in my original post I stated that one possible reason someone might consent to Sandy's feeding off of them would be to get something in return such as sexual favors. (I've read stories about actual persons from our non-fictional universe who have a vampire fetish and arrange to taste or drink blood from a consenting human partner so it is far out but not as far out as one might think.)

I do not believe that this was Riley's motive but that isn't relevant at the moment-- the idea behind the 'benign' vampSandy was that she was not the typical vamp who accepted that killing humans was necessary for her to feed but had ethical scruples about killing animal life in general for food. This as I understand is part of the vegan way of life. (If there are any real vegans out there reading this please clue me in if I am wrong!),OnM,

vampire corruptions,Friday 24-Nov-2000 19:11:15,64.20.86.162 writes,"There was a former post that started my thinking on the nature of what a vampire actually becomes in comparison to the person he or she used to be when they were human. I see it that a vampire corrupts what was good in the person before they were bitten.
Take Spike for instance he was a romantic fellow before getting bitten. Then as a vampire we see his romance of a corupt kind. He does not love the beautiful things. He loves darkness the evil in Drusilla. I would guess that what Spike loves about Buffy is the darkness that is in the slayer. Remember Dracula saw and was attracted to the darkness in Buffy.
Next look at Drusilla. She was a wholesome chaste girl who was going to become a nun. Now she is sleeping with tree people because she ""has needs"" that Spike can't fulfill.
I see it that whatever was noble about a pesron the vampire corrupts that virtue. Now also he takes what was evil about the person before and enhances it. It would be interesting to fully discover what Liam was like before becoming Angel. Obviously souled Angel is more noble than Angelus. We see Liam drinking and causing mischief but we don't know why he does those things. Some look at his father as being too harsh. I am not sure I buy that totally I look forward to comments.
",VanMoodySenior,vanmoodysenior@hotmail.com

Re: vampire corruptions,Friday 24-Nov-2000 20:14:49,63.214.9.164 writes,"Perhaps in becoming a vamp the ""brakes"" are lost (the brakes being oh say a ""soul"" most of your mortal associations etc) I think Liam was a bit soft in the conscience even before Darla and William soft in the heart...who else would stay with Dru a hundred odd years? Angel has definitely gained a conscience over the years...he's changed. Interesting.",JoRus,

Re: vampire corruptions,Saturday 25-Nov-2000 08:37:36,216.232.33.7 writes,The word corruption is the best way to sum up what happens to a person who is turned. What was light is now dark. I've noticed alot of people that have been turned are young and troubled and at a low point in their lives. When turned they have power (and we all know what that can do to a person) a non existant conscience and usually a bone to pick with the world. They seem to be trying to capture what was missing in their lives. Angel wiped out his family just to get to his father. William is constantly trying to be admired. Unfortunately killing everyone gets old even to the vampire. Both characters the maturity conscience or purpose in life to care. It will be interesting to see what Spike does now that the chip has set limits on what damage his rage can do. He is getting more human in spite of himself. He eats watches TV and goes to seek out companionship even with the scoobies cause he is bored. He is still corrupt but is the good man still there. If he had had a chance to grow up and mature what would he have been.,,

Re: Re: vampire corruptions,Saturday 25-Nov-2000 08:48:00,216.232.33.7 writes,"Missed a word "" Both characters lacked the maturity...to care. In the BVS world and Angel it has become clear that there a demons of all types and not all are evil. In the case of the vampire they become a corrupt perversion of what they were in life. For the first time one can see that everyone even vampires make choices good or bad. To say without a soul you are evil game over is too simplistic. Numerous times Spike has done good things much to his own disgust and with the chip he has an excuse to turn on his own kind. My question is how do you think the enforced behavior modification of the chip may let the good person resurface?",,

Re: Re: Re: vampire corruptions,Sunday 26-Nov-2000 13:36:12,24.4.252.12 writes,The basis of psychopharmacotherapy is that emotions are affected/determined by the behavior of chemicals in one's brain (GABA and the regulation of anxiety norepinephrine levels and their hypothesized connection to depression and manic episodes etc.). Wouldn't it be interesting should it be revealed that the aim of the Initiative in controlling the vampire population was twofold: to not only neutralize a vampire's human killing potential (stage 1) but to rehabilitate them through the chip's ability to stimulate different neurochemicals thus replicating a superego or conscience (stage 2)? Could Spike be growing an (albeit chemical) soul?,maudlyn,

Biochemical soul - what an intriguing idea!,Sunday 26-Nov-2000 13:55:01,63.50.141.16 writes,While I doubt the Initiative thought this far ahead - they probably were mostly interested in the 'stopping the killing' part this is a great concept - it even has the benefit of being scientifically plausible. (At least as plausible as it gets when vampires are the subject! ;),OnM,

Re: Biochemical soul - what an intriguing idea!,Sunday 26-Nov-2000 18:25:33,152.163.204.22 writes,The idea of a biochemical soul may not be too far off the mark. If I remember my readings in neuroscience sociopaths and other criminals have brain lessions and areas within the brain that are less developed. In other words there is an organic basis for their inability to empathize with others are control their impulses. Neuroscientists are even now working on ways to cure these problems. In a sense they are looking for pharmaceutical and/or surgical ways to restore/heal someone's soul. The metaphysical implications of this are rather exciting/horrifying depending on how you want to look at it.,Ryuei,

Re: Re: Biochemical soul - what an intriguing idea!,Sunday 26-Nov-2000 18:55:40,209.245.166.76 writes,"I like the idea of a ""biochamical soul"" a lot....the idea that the Initiative could have done such a thing so intentionally is delicious.",JoRus,

Re: Re: Re: Biochemical soul - what an intriguing idea!,Sunday 26-Nov-2000 22:23:04,24.4.252.224 writes,An irony worthy of the Twilight Zone. Immoral Mother creating demons that could turn out to be moral. She who supposedly had a a soul but acted like she didn't would give one to those who didn't have one.
It opens up bizzare posibilites: e.g. an anti-Faustian bargain where a demon making a deal with some demon's version of the devil in which the price being he has to accept a soul. ,gds,

Re: Re: Re: Re: vampire corruptions,Tuesday 28-Nov-2000 04:45:16,216.232.33.7 writes,This is a big if. What if the idea that a persons soul leaves when vamped isn't totally accurate. Could we have a case of a demon possessing a body and their soul becomes suppressed and unable to do anything about what the demon does to their body. Talk about continual tourture. To still be in there aware but unable to police the actions of their body. Then comes the Initiative with the chip. Maybe the chip serves as an artificial mood or demon suppressor. Now the trapped soul has more power over the actions of the demon. Or the chip is just a straight behavior modification tool. But why does Spike act more human than Angel who has a soul?
,Rufus,

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: vampire corruptions,Tuesday 28-Nov-2000 16:28:29,216.164.249.115 writes,"An interesting ""If"" ... that being ""turned"" leads to a dissociative condition where your Self is split into two (your impotent pure soul vs. your demonically-possessed body)... However when Angel recounts his time as Angleus he does not speak in such terms (""I vs. Him"" or ""Me vs. It."") Rather he says things akin to ""you could never know the harm *I've* done."" While Angel's memory of the events supports the idea that his soul was present (incarnate) the whole time and not whisked away into some otherwordly dimension awaiting restoration it's his genuine remorse for *his* actions that implies an accountability for his deeds as opposed to laying blame on a demon temporarily in residence...

Could it be that being ""turned"" leads not to the suppression of a soul but to its corruption? In other words though we consider the ""soul"" to be perfect in its innate goodness perhaps it exists rather along a continuum... and the act of turning leads to a vilification of one's soul to the extreme.

It could then be entertained that Spike's soul through its exposure to a more human/humane lifestyle of late could simply be sliding closer to the other end of the spectrum.

It also adds an interesting twist to the morality of dusting vamps as I see others have been discussing in another thread.",maudlyn,

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: vampire corruptions,Tuesday 28-Nov-2000 17:58:05,216.232.33.7 writes,When I talk about the soul I mean that it represents a persons strengths conscience and control over actions. When a person is vamped all their weakness insecurities and darkness are in the drivers seat with the goodness suppressed and along for the ride. So when Angel got his soul(control)back he was able to remember all that he had done. The term soul in BVS has been used as a word for good where I think it was more appropriate to think of a soul as being a conscience and control. So this chip may have the unintended effect of allowing the conscience and control to slowly return.,Rufus,

Re: vampire corruptions & soul as conscience,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 00:36:52,63.50.140.226 writes,The 'soul as conscience' seems to be the most likely interpretation of just what the soul is in the context of the Buffyverse. There was a fair amount of debate on this very subject in various threads on this board quite some number of months back. As I recall most people leaned towards this concept as opposed to the more traditional Western religious belief of the soul as some kind of spiritual entity in and of itself.

Another possible way is to consider the 'soul as conscience' as a function of our forebrains the more highly developed (and newer on an evolutionary scale) part of our gray matter.

The older part of our brains way back there near the top of the spinal cord is pretty much concerned with the basic essentials of life-- breathing eating reproduction not getting killed. It doesn't really much care about anything else. Sound like your typical vamp?

So perhaps the demon takes over the forebrain suppresses the 'soul' that has evolved there and then juices up the rearbrain. The 'soul' is still there it's just extremely suppressed as others have suggested in this thread. (Over time especially 100's of years you would get creatures like the Master). On the other hand some vamped forebrains might be highly resistant to this takeover and eventually fight back if external conditions permitted.

It may not be perfect neuroscience but it isn't totally ridiculous either. Way to go maudlyn!

,OnM,

Re: Re: vampire corruptions & soul as conscience,Wednesday 29-Nov-2000 16:12:08,63.77.240.186 writes,Therefore when a vampire is dusted the demon part of him returns to the ether and the soul part which has been trapped and repressed is set free. Very much like the slaying of Lucy in the original Dracula.,Brian,

Time in Season 5,Thursday 23-Nov-2000 09:52:20,209.195.64.41 writes,"I just noticed that this season seems very concerned with time. A lot of the episodes follow each other as if they are day to day (like in Tuesday's episode the events of last week happened ""yesterday""). Then there's Glory going on about ""Tic freakin' Toc."" Can't help but wonder if Little Miss Muffet's countin' down to 730...",Heather

counting down from 730 theory...,Thursday 23-Nov-2000 12:40:19,209.183.143.66 writes,you guys have probably discussed the meaning of 730 to death but since i wasn't around for that (i'm new) i was wondering if anyone would care to enlighten me on their theories? the only one i've heard is that 730 is 365 x 2 (ie 2 years) which would mean that a big bad or some big event would happen at the end of season 5 - 2 years from the end of season 3 when faith uttered those words....,snarky

Re: counting down from 730 theory...,Thursday 23-Nov-2000 17:52:21,212.219.8.189 writes,"My personal theory is that the 730 is counting down I originally thought it was till the end of S5 but in Graduation day dream when Buffy looks at the clock ""its not right (730)"" and they were still waiting for dawn. In Restless the dream has Tara say something to the effect of ""the clock is right"" and next ep along comes dawn. But maybe there is some big surprise at the end of S5 something no one could be prepared for.",AdamC

Re: Re: counting down from 730 theory...,Thursday 23-Nov-2000 22:24:37,63.15.171.21 writes,"I have to disagree with you AdamC. I unfortunately do not have my tapes with me (visiting family for Thanksgiving) So if anyone can confirm or deny the following I'd appreciate it.

I believe Tara said ""That clock's not right""

I know Joss has enjoyed having us guessing but with the Season Finale for Season 5 also being the 100th ep for the show one can only hope that Joss has something huge in mind. With the mystery of what Dawn is the key for. We just have to twiddle our thumbs and wait.",estefena

Re: Re: Re: counting down from (to?) 730 theory...,Friday 24-Nov-2000 00:07:35,63.50.132.80 writes,estefena-- I believe you are correct I recall Tara saying the same phrase.

This is not a very happy thought but with Joyce's apparently serious illness is it possible that 7:30 is the time a doctor calls out for the record as a time of death?

Perhaps Tara's statement of the clock being wrong means that such an outcome is not a certainty and (once again) Buffy will be called upon to find a way to deflect a prophecy.

Is anyone wondering if there is a tie-in between the Monk's spell and Joyce's brain tumor? Remember Giles and Willow discouraging Buffy from using magic to heal her mother saying it was very risky?
,OnM

Re: Re: Re: Re: counting down from (to?) 730 theory...,Friday 24-Nov-2000 11:53:06,63.26.114.220 writes,OnM -

Ooooh now there's an possibility. And from what some fans think an acceptable possibility. Some feel Joyce is a unnecessary character.

Anyone agree or disagree?,estefena

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: counting down from (to?) 730 theory...,Friday 24-Nov-2000 13:29:47,64.40.44.122 writes,Joyce certainly is at risk.

We can't take it for granted that some magical solution will save her.

Or that a medical solution can save her.

I think that makes it all the more interesting.

Remember Jenny.,

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: counting down from (to?) 730 theory...,Friday 24-Nov-2000 14:23:46,64.40.44.122 writes,Don't see Kristine Sutherland in the Opening Credits.

It really could go either way. I think that makes it all the more realistic.,Jill

B:tVS is not about good vs. evil,Wednesday 22-Nov-2000 15:31:34,207.105.12.254 writes,"I was just thinking that if the theme of Angel is redemption than what is the theme of Buffy? In other words I no longer think Buffy is about good and evil since we have been shown how relative those concepts can be. What seems to be the constant theme however is that selfless compassion must win out over callous self-interest. For example:

When Jonathan changed the world in superstar he didn't do it out of evil but out of callous self-interest.

When Buffy had to close the gate to hell by stabbing Angel through the heart what she did was not just good but an act of selflessness and compassion for the whole world.

Spike helped Buffy save the world from Angelus and Acathla but it was not a good act it was merely an act of callous self-interest. He simply wanted Drusilla back and the maintenance of the status quo for his own convenience (happy meals with legs etc...)

Thinking about these and other examples it seems to me that while the lines between good and evil are not always so clear cut the lines between selfless compassion and callous self-interest are much more apparent even if those lines shift between the good and bad characters. All of the Scoobies have shown self-interest and some of the demons and other ""villains"" have shown compassion (even if of a limited variety).

I would suggest that whether in Buffy or in the real world the distinction between good and evil is an abstraction that does not do justice to what is really going on. The dichotomy between selfless compassion and callous self-interest however seems to be a much more helpful way of looking at things. Maybe someone might ask what is the difference? Aren't you just giving different names to the same polarity? I don't think so though. Good and evil is a way of measuring certain acts to an abstract standard of right and wrong. Compassion and Callousness however addresses motivation and intention as well as the outcome of the acts performed and allows for the ambiguity of real life. So like Spike someone could do good out of self-interest; or like Buffy someone can do something bad like send a lover to hell or later betray one's friends (which she did by hiding Angel from them when Angel returned from hell) out of compassion. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?",Ryuei

Re: B:tVS is not about good vs. evil,Wednesday 22-Nov-2000 17:28:37,128.218.111.104 writes,"Good analysis. Even apocalyptic demons are acting in their self-interest. They don't want to ""destroy the world"" in any literal sense they want to gain it back for the demons and take it from the humans.

Even Angelus when he was getting the world sucked into hell was acting in a form of self-interest or at least self-centeredness. I always saw his actions as being his final collasal revenge against the Slayer Angel loved a sort of mad ""murder-suicide"" thing some people do when they cannot obtain power over the people they had a relationship with. Only his was aimed not merely at the Slayer but the people she had a personal responsibility for the human race.",Masquerade

Re: B:tVS is not about good vs. evil,Thursday 23-Nov-2000 12:28:47,152.163.204.203 writes,"Selfless Compassion/Callous Self-Interest leaves as many (if not more) ambiguous cases as does Godd/Evil.

Consider Buffy's slaying of Angelus -- was this not an act of self-interest? To do otherwise would have doomed the world to destruction (in particular Buffy herself would have been the first in the path of the Brave New World.)

Then there are characters whose actions are guided neither by self-interest nor compassion:

Ethan Rayne: under our (Western) concepts of good and evil he is definitely in the evil column. Yet his actions rarely are in his own self-interest. In fact he is in a government facility undergoing reeducation because he failed to act in such a manner.

Willow's hatred of Faith: One might argue that her dislike of the slayer stems from Faith's attempt on her life -- but remember Anya also tried to have Willow killed (in Dopplegangland) and Willow bears no animosity towards the ex-demon. Rather Willow's hatred of Faith is irrational -- driven by base emotions (specifically jealousy -- of Faith's ""relationship"" with Xander and of the growing friendship between Faith and Buffy in the pre-Bad Girls era.)

Spike's return to Sunnydale: Was the quest for the Gem motivated by self-interest? Spike's purpose in gaining the gem was not to insure a long life but to enable him to defeat the slayer. He is willing to place his own life at considerable risk merely for the opportunity to wreak vengeance on the Slayer.",Malandanza

Re: Re: B:tVS is not about good vs. evil,Thursday 23-Nov-2000 13:35:04,205.188.198.38 writes,"Certainly there will always be ambiguities no matter what contrast or dichotomy you use. I just think that the compassion - self-interest polarity is not as arbitrary and black and white as the good - evil polarity. Also I have frequently said that I have never had a pure motive in my life but I've also never had a totally impure motive either. So selfless/selfishness is more of a continuum rather than two total opposites. As for the examples you cited:

I think having to kill Angel was hell enough already I don't think she was even considering what would hapen to just her if the gate opened. I really think that was one of Buffy's most selfless acts. She sacrificed her own personal happiness to save the world.

Self-interest does not have to be far-sighted or wise. In other words acting out of self-interest does not necessarily mean acting out of self-preservation or even self-benefit. I think Ethan and Spike were both seeking only to gratify their own desires no matter what the cost. I would certainly agree that they are both very self-destructive characters. That doesn't make them selfless however.

Willow's example actually makes my case. Willow's feelings for Faith can't really be classified as good or evil so much as self-interest (jealousy) and an inability to feel compassion for her enemy Faith (understandable but we are called to even love our enemies). If Willow was truly selfless and compassionate she could overcome her own jealousies and fears in regard to Faith.

Angel BTW did just that and even tried to help Faith right after she tortured Wesley and tried to kill him. One could say that killing Faith would have been the ""good"" thing to do in those circumstances but instead Angel did the compassionate and selfless thing and gave her sanctuary.

",Ryuei

Re: Re: Re: B:tVS is not about good vs. evil,Saturday 25-Nov-2000 01:48:23,205.188.192.178 writes,"First I would like to say that I always look for your posts -- they are always well-reasoned interesting and polite :)

I misunderstood your original post -- I had thought the dichotomy was compassion vs self-interest rather than selfless vs selfish. I agree that Buffy's killing of Angel was her finest moment but I also believe that if there had been any other way to stop the apocalypse even a delaying tactic or half-measure Buffy would have spared Angel's life. Buffy was torn between compassion and duty and chose duty (perhaps this is more in keeping with the dharma/adharma concept you and A. Mazudar mentioned in a previous post -- I am still a bit unclear on the meaning) I cannot see Buffy's actions as selfless however. Her personal happiness had already been sacrificed -- no choice she could have made would have been able to repair the damage. Her choices had come down to either sacrifice the world (including herself and Angel) or sacrifice Angel -- she was driven by necessity. (The ending was a surprise to me -- I thought all along they were going to save Angel at the last possible instance.)

Ethan/Spike/Willow did act in petty selfish fasions (and it is the pettiness that prevents their behavior from being ""Evil "" I think) but not out of self-interest. Self-destructive behavior is antithetical to self-interest. I think selfish is a better phrase in many respects -- although I wonder whether many ""good"" actions might have to be reclassified as selfish. Specifically when I help out someone I get a warm glow inside and feel good about myself for quite some time -- the desire to feel good may be the impetus for my ""selfless"" acts -- i.e. my own selfish desire to feel good compels me to behave in a manner that is ostensibly consistent with selflessness. I think we saw similar behavior with Faith. When she was in possession of Buffy's body she saved a girl and for the first time realized that saving people could give her as good a natural high as her adrenaline had. Her return to save the church might be interpreted as a selfish desire to feel good about herself.

Now a question: Does the selfish/selfless criteria settle any of the morally ambiguous cases where Good/Evil failed to do so(and which ones)? ",Malandanza

Mirrors,Wednesday 22-Nov-2000 15:10:16,207.105.12.254 writes,"I was just struck by the discussion about mirrors in the ""Darla"" episode. Wesley and Angel are talking about the fact that Darla smashed all the mirrors in her room. Angel suggests that she did it because now she has a conscience and doesn't want to have to look at herself. Wesley asks Angel why he doesn't smash mirrors and he responds that he doesn't have to because he can't see himself in mirrors. It never occured to me before but the lack of being seen in a mirror is a brilliant metaphor for the vampire. It is said that an unexamined life (self-reflection) is not worth living. The vampire however is not really living and can not reflect upon themselves - thus no relflection mirrors. Perhaps the vampiric loss of a soul is not merely the loss of conscience but the loss of the ability to reflect upon the true nature of one's actions the inability to take responsibility for one's own actions. The inability to face oneself and live an authentic life. Of course Angel now has that ability but the physiological/metaphysical sign of his vampire nature remains.

Now contrast Angel with Spike. I do not think Spike has really come to terms with himself. He does not reflect on his own actions - he just acts. He is ruled by his impulses (both good and bad) but he never tries to make sense of them. He is very good about making sense of the motives and actions of others but he is blind to himself. For instance he sees Buffy's death-wish but not his own. He saw how destructive Buffy and Angel's relationship was but can't see his own co-dependency. He schemes lies cheats and equivocates but never ever takes a stand. He seems to live from one adrenalin rush to the next (seeking mobs and slayers to fight) so that he won't ever be bored and have to be alone with himself. He reinvents himself to be a tough guy cockney and then a punk which is not what he really is at all. Even his reputation regarding railroad spikes appears to have been based on a misunderstanding. In the end he is nothing more than the clever poseur seen in Gile's dream.

The more I think about it Angel is one of the most self-authenticating characters on television in that he is always facing himself making difficult choices and taking responsibility for those choices. Spike however is one of the most inauthentic characters on t.v. (in an existential sense) in that he is always running away from himself is co-dependent self-destructive and totally incapable of taking responsibility for his own actions.",Ryuei

Re: Mirrors,Wednesday 22-Nov-2000 16:01:19,209.48.144.34 writes,"Oooh! Great take on the meaning of Spike in the dream sequence!

I like your explanation better than the school of thought that makes the interpretation Spike-will-get-a-soul-and-become-a-Watcher. Perhaps this ""posing"" also accounts for his disturbing dreams (disturbing at least for Spike) about Buffy.",purplegrrl

Re: Re: Mirrors,Wednesday 22-Nov-2000 16:16:43,128.218.111.104 writes,That explains Spike in Giles' dream but the Spike will be a Watcher thing comes from Xander's dream--Giles and Spike on the swing. I always thought it was meant to be Xander's own idle thoughts of following in Giles' footsteps or the dismissal of those thoughts seeing them as frivolous like the idea of Spike doing such rather than being any real representation of Spike or Spike's future.,Nancy

Re: Mirrors - Spike/Angel contrast,Wednesday 22-Nov-2000 18:28:44,38.218.216.124 writes,"For instance he sees Buffy's death-wish but not his own. - he is dead already

""He schemes lies cheats and equivocates but never ever takes a stand."" - I think he stands for himself only not matter which side he has to ally with the ""good"" or ""bad"" side

""He seems to live from one adrenalin rush to the next"" - correct what he has to loose or look forward to? Family? Wife? He is a vampire creature without a soul looking out only for himself and he likes to have fun

""He reinvents himself to be a tough guy cockney and then a punk which is not what he really is at all."" - what is he? If you are calling him a poseur I agr