October 2000 posts
November 2000
"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."
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.
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.
"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."
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Iniative was disbanded. No place
to put him. What would they do with him?
My question is what happened to Ethan Rayne?
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?
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!)
"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."
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.
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 - 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.
"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."
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.
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.
"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???"
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
is covering up for Glory not for Dawn.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
"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!"
If you eliminate all the years
that Angel was Angelus then he and buffy are like 2-3 years apart
in age
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.
"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."
"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."
"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."
">
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."
"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.
"
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?
"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.""
Yeah!
That's how I hope they end the series... but who knows what Joss
is gonna do.
"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"
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.
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??
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?
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.
...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.
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.
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?
"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!!"
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.
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...
"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."
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.
"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."
"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
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.
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.
Thanks
for the background information. You seem to be knowledgeable about
a wide variety of Buddhist lineages.
"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."
"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."
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.
well liam of galway liked girls so there you have
it. ^_^' not much of an explanation but hey. lol
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.
"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"?
;-)
"
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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. "
"
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.
"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? -_-;"
">
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."
"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."
Buffy
actually got feed off 3 times in season one by the Master was
the first time.
"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.
"
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
"
"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."
"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."
"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.
"
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
"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)"
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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?"
There is no wrong
way to kill a Vamp.
"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.
"
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).
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.
"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"
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.
> 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.
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!)
"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.
"
"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."
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.
"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?"
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?
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! ;)
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.
"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."
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.
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?
"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."
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.
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!
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.
"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..."
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....
"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."
"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-- 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 -
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?
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.
Don't see Kristine
Sutherland in the Opening Credits.
It really could go either way. I think that makes it all the more
realistic.
"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?"
"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."
"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."
"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.
"
"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)? "
"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."
"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."
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.
"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 agree but I don't think
you can give me an answer what Spike is (vampire).
"his reputation regarding railroad spikes appears to have
been based on a misunderstanding." - didn't you ever hear
about sarcasm? Or irony? And remember this is only TV show. How
do you know that he didn't kill people with railroad spikes? Did
you miss a conversation about a killer in episode from 11/14 early
scene at the party? How do you know if the shy William wasn't
a killer? Do you know a lot about William? Or maybe when he became
a vampire he did kill people with railroad spikes?
"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."
- inauthentic? Don't most people run away from themselves? Don't
most people don't want to take responsibilities for their actions?
(stupid example: why there is a need in this country for shows
like "Jerry Springer" or "Jenny Jones"? Because
there is a market an audience for it.) That is real. We don't
find Angel/sensitive man - I underline man - very often but cheating
conniving posers like Spike are all over and that's reality.
"
Spike may be undead but
he seems to be looking for the Final Death by looking for fights
with Slayers and angry mobs.
You mention that most people run away from themselves and that
is very true. Most people are inauthentic. Even on Jerry Springer
the people who come on the show are continually blaming others
and rationalizing their actions. Very rarely does anyone on that
show take responsibility for their actions. Most of the time they
try to argue that black is white and white is black. So sadly
Spike's inability to face himself is a very common weakness.
Most of the time they try to argue that black
is white and white is black. So sadly Spike's inability to face
himself is a very common weakness. word would be not interesting
if everything was black and white thank God for many shadows of
gray. And for people who point out my weaknesses cause I can learn
from it.
When you stand your point propere that not everyone will agree
or some people will disagree to see you stand your ground don't
lower yourself to insults take constructive criticism don't be
a coward.
Your analysis is insightful
and very well reasoned and you may well be right (even though
I'm among those who is wondering whether Spike will eventually
get a soul and attempt to redeem himself).
In terms of interest as a character we are used to Spike as an
evil self-interested creature. The reason I tend to think he may
change basically comes down to:
1. Redemption seems to be a major theme throughout most of BtVS
and even more so on A:tS and the more evil the character the greater
the need for that redemption.
2. As entertaining as Spike's exploits have been if he stays the
same ol' Spike we will eventually get bored with him. One need
look no further than all the fan commentary re: FFL to make that
point.
This seems to be a week for having little synchronicities pop
up. Your insights about mirrors and personalities kind of relate
to the initials I sign my posts with-- OnM is shorthand for Objects
in Mirror. It's the name of a mythical psychedelic band I would
have had should I have been born with any actual musical talent
which alas I wasn't!
Many years ago I noticed in the left sideview mirror of a new
car the phrase 'Objects in mirror are closer than they appear'.
I thought to myself-- hmmm... that certainly is true! Of course
the car people were talking about other cars and I was thinking
too much even back then.
(So for whatever that was worth and now here we are talking about
mirrors...)
"Did you ever hear about
a song by Meatloaf called "Objects in the Rearview Mirror."
The course it 'And objects in the rearview mirror may appear closer
than they are.' You should listen to it sometime it's a really
nice song. "
Ah the strangeness
continues... If I get a chance I'll check it out. Thanks.
A thoughtful and provocative theory. It makes
sense to me. I had never thought of Spike as a poseur but it clear
from FFL that he is; becoming a vampire gave him the means to
carry it off. Spike's infatuation with Buffy may cause him to
take a look at himself although we've seen no signs of it yet.
Could be interesting.
"
I think what happened with Spike in the last episode is just one
more step in a progression we've been seeing for a long time in
the series. That is the notion that what we consider to be good
and evil are often coloured from our points of view.
Look at the Watchers' Council. This is an organisation that has
been locating training and guiding vampire slayers -- the chosen
ones -- for centuries? Longer? But pretty much every time we have
had chance to encounter the council it is not acting in the service
of what we would consider good. The council has at various times
seemed to be clueless incompetent inefficient wrong-headed callous
cruel obstinate obstreperous self-interested and outright malicious.
Are these the good guys?
We have seen many occasions the bad guys acting in ways that colours
their evil with a touch of humanity. Spike the mayor the Master
-- even when engaged in totally evil activities they have expressed
some degree of affection or compassion for someone else. Anya
who is largely callous and indifferent towards the emotions and
suffering of others is completely devoted to Xander's happiness
and well-being.
The good guys have also acted in bad ways: Xander and Willow cheating
on their partners Xander's callousness regarding Angel and his
deliberate lie of omission in "Becoming " Giles's betrayal
in "Helpless " Buffy's occasional acts of callousness
towards her friends and occasional lack of sympathy for others.
Demons have fought for "good." Humans have fought for
"evil."
What is this all leading up to? I see an overarching notion that
it isn't that someone is good or evil but that a being can act
in ways that are harmful to others (evil) or beneficial to others
(good). The trick is when an act is both harmful and beneficial
depending on your point of view.
The demons lost control of our dimension and were relegated to
living in what seems to be a rather horrific place. For them to
try to regain control of the world now controlled by humans is
harmful from the point of view of humans but beneficial from the
point of view of demons. In order to survive a vampire must drink
the blood of a living human. Beneficial and harmful.
Look at all the degrees here. Opening up the Hellmouth to let
loose the demons on earth. From one point of view that could be
considered a very good thing. However Angelus's gratuitous emotional
abuse and physical torture of his victims whether he then feeds
on them or not in some sense that's more evil than wanting to
open up the Hellmouth. There's no larger motive there no gain
to be had except for taking pleasure from someone else's pain.
It's my theory that the watcher the slayers the forces of good
have created a mythology about vampires about their natures and
the nature of their evil. They're fighting a war against demons
to keep the world safe for humans. Just like a crusading army
they might not want to consider the nuances of good and evil and
the truth about a vampire's nature. They need to demonize the
vampires.
"You're not looking at your friend. You're looking at the
creature that killed him." (Giles in "Welcome to the
Hellmouth"). That might be the kind of mythology that anti-vampire
forces think they need in order to keep going. But they very well
might be wrong given the evidence we've seen not just in last
week's episode but over the complete arc of the series.
So condemn me as a relativist if you wish but the world is more
complicated than some people want it to be."
Good point. I think that a quote from a story
prity much sums up my feelings about the issue.
'Good done by evil hands is good. Evil done by good hands is evil.'
A.Lite
"When concerning
good and evil nothing in the world is completely black or white
just varying shades of grey.
I think what Joss has been doing over the arc of the series is
slowly adding more and more shades of grey - without us really
noticing. Until we have a vampire that shows compassion to his
mortal enemy and we all go "Huh?" and wonder where that
came from.
Nothing is as black or white right or wrong good or evil as we
would like to think/believe. And labelling something one or the
other *does* depend a great deal on perspective.
Once again I marvel at realism of the characters as they are written."
"ìAnd there were
other worries: Would she sense [his] doubts? She was a Bene Gesserit
witch
graduate of the Sisterhoodís deepest training and a Reverend
Mother in her own right. Such
females were acute and they were dangerous.î
-- Frank Herbert: *Children of Dune*
I have taken notice of quite a few suggestions throughout the
past four years of BtVS that imply
that Buffy may be more than just the latest in a very long line
of ëChosen Onesí. Last Tuesdayís
episode ëFool for Loveí has really provoked my interest
in whether or not the writers intend to
eventually turn our heroine into a messiah.
Iíll start off by explaining the thread title to those
who have not read Frank Herbertís classic SF
trilogy *Dune*. The basic premise is that a messiah rises and
takes power in a far corner of the
galaxy the rise of this messiah being guided by/engendered by
a group of powerful women known
as the Bene Gesserit. The messiah whose appearance (as always!)
is foretold by ancient
prophecy is known as the Kwisatz Haderach. (Thatís about
as short as I can make it-- the written
version is thousands of pages and chock full of all manner of
social and political intrigue).
The pivotal event in ëFool for Loveí that brings me
to this wondering mode is the very end of the
show when Spike approaching Buffy in a murderous rage suddenly
becomes becalmed by her
obvious display of sorrow and vulnerability and then does what
no vampire pretty much by
definition should ever do-- he shows honest genuine compassion
for her and even attempts to
comfort her in her misery.
The question is why? Have the writers messed up as one other poster
succinctly stated? Are they
trying to blur the lines as to what emotions/actions vampires
are capable of and thus play with our
heads? Is this the revenge of the liberals? (Note: I consider
myself one so there ;) .
Or as I have come to believe do they intend to futher play with
*Buffyís* head by turning her
character into the ëKwisatz Haderachí with a greater
ultimate destiny than merely being the latest
in the long line of (rather short-lived) warriors for the PTB.
Some of the evidence for Buffy Anne
Summers Messiah are as follows:
1 > In direct parallels to Christian (and other) theology--
Buffy is killed and then resurrected.
She is initally frightened and unwilling to face her death at
the hands of the Master but after
seeing the threat to the entire world in the microcosm of her
friends she chooses to accept death
in the hope that her personal sacrifice will save her friends
(obvious metaphors for humanity/the
world).
2 > After being resurrected she feels not weakened but has
ëa renewed strengthí
3 > In ëHalloweení and ëWhatís My Lineí
Buffy is still having serious misgivings over her
seemingly fated role as the Slayer but in each case when the alternative
is presented she realizes
that her duty is of greater importance than her own personal desires
for a ënormalí life. Were
these (and other) instances accidental or fated or even planned/orchestrated
by outside forces?
4 > The appearance of Kendra reinforces the notion that Buffy
is special since as far as we know
at this point in time there has never been a case where two Slayers
have lived simultaneously.
Buffy soon befriends Kendra and so is all the more devastated
at her death at Drusillaís hand. Did
the PTB sacrifice Kendra to guide Buffy in affirming the importance
of her destiny?
5 > In ëTedí Buffy expresses genuine grief over
the taking of (apparently) a human life even
though that life was apparently that of an evil man. This acts
to confirm her moral compass and
could also be seen in retrospect as another test of her worthiness.
6 > In ëSurprise/Innocenceí the line by Joyce ìDo
you really think youíre ready Buffy?î takes on
a whole additional level of meaning. Needless to say the entire
story arc with Angel reverting to
Angelus Buffy killing him in ëBecoming Pt. 2í and
her eventual decision to protect him when he
returns unexpectedly from hell could be seen as fated. There has
been much (quite probably
justified) commentary that Buffy showed poor judgement in protecting
Angel. I have come to
think of it as a test of ultimate compassion-- Buffy goes with
her heart defies her friends family
even the Watcherís Council to save Angel. Was there some
unconscious part of her that saw this
as the outcome the PTBís wished to see realized and the
ability to *sense* that wish confirmation
that she is messianic?
7 > In ëAnneí that great line after Buffy escapes
from hell (with several other kids) and says
ìHey Ken wanna see my impression of Ghandi?î (Baffled
look from Ken-- whack!!) ìGhandi?î
says Lily. ìYeahî replies Buffy ìif he was
really pissed off.î
8 > Angel returns and Buffy protects him but eventually he
wants to destroy himself out of fear
that the demon will take over again and he will again become a
creature of unrepentent evil . She
attempts to talk him out of it and despite baring her soul in
her words to him is losing the fight.
Suddenly it begins snowing a miraculous occurance in Sunnydale.
Most would agree that the
snow is a sign from the PTBís that her words are to be
heeded. Angel relents and eventually sets
himself on the path of redeeming others now his major purpose
in life.
9 > The entire story arc regarding Faith. (How could any name
be more appropriate/ironic?)
Faith is a mirror a warning to Buffy that she has a dark side
that enables her abilites to fight evil
effectively and how easy it is for that dark side to take over
her soul. In her ultimate fight with
Faith we see that despite Buffyís anger she immediately
feels remorse after stabbing the woman
who was previously her friend and fellow warrior. Yet again a
crucial test of a central moral
compass. Eventually Buffy redeems Faith without realizing it when
the body switch takes place
and Faith lives her life as Buffy for a few days. (And I think
often overlooked Buffy lived as
Faith for a few days. What must have her emotions been when the
hit squad man from the
Watcherís Council spat in her face his contorted with contempt
for her? Later in her fight with
Faith just before the and after the return to the original bodies
the level of Faithís hatred of
herself. Later in A:tS Angel (previously redeemed by Buffy) continues
her work by forcing Faith
to confront her past sins and stop the cycle of denial she has
participated in for so long. Faithís
soul appears to have been saved though she may face a difficult
road ahead.
10 > One other item from ëAmendsí-- Buffy confronts
ëThe First Evilí and rather than cowering
in fear (as any rational being or even Slayer might) gives the
snappy and assertive ìAll right
youíre *evil* we get it already!î Arrogance or an
unconscious sense of destiny?
11 > In ëHelplessí Buffy creatively survives the
Cruciamentum test the Watcherís Council forces
her to take (unknowingly to her another example of the possible
manipulating efforts of the
council). The use of Holy Water to defeat Kralick? Interesting...
Also in this episode Giles
decides that Buffy as a person is more important than acceding
to the desires of he council and
loses his position with them-- he goes against his sworn duty
as Watcher out of compassion for
her. With respect to ëFool for Loveí isnít
this further evidence that Buffy somehow engenders
this emotion in others who interact with her?
12 > In ëEarshotí Buffy saves Jonathan (a metaphor
for any and every very ordinary soul who
feels insignificance). What brings her to this is the ability
to *experience the thoughts of others*.
(Side note: Ozís thoughts that since Buffy is now hearing
his thoughts he is now Buffy he no
longer exists as Oz-- * ìNo one else exists either. Buffy
is all of us. We think therefore she
is.î*) Experiencing the thoughts of others nearly kills
her as their presence overwhelms her own
(she no longer exists she is everyone in the world). Again her
friends (disciples?) save her she
then symbolically saves Johnathan/humanity in turn.
13 > In ëChoicesí Buffy elects to give up the Box
of Gavrok to the mayor to save Willow. Logic
dictates she should not do this the fate of the world again is
at stake but she chooses her heart--
she somehow knows instinctively she can save both Willow and the
world and proceeds to do so.
14 > In ëThe Promí Buffy is rewarded psychologically
by her fellow students who admit that
they do not *really* know her with the class protector award.
Since past Slayers have
traditionally been loners working undercover and unknown is this
a little boost from the PTB to
encourage her developement as a Boddhisattva? (btw Much Thanks
for placing that concept into
my consciouness Ryuei-- OnM)
15 > In ëGraduationí Buffy (yet again!) saves Angel
by when all else fails risking her own life
by offering him her blood. The Christian references to Holy Communion
certainly seem applicable
here-- ìThis wine is my blood this bread is my bodyî.
If Faith had been killed (was she saved by
the PTB?) there would have been no psychic/dream connection between
her and Buffy and the
means to the mayorís demise not revealed.
16 > In ëA New Maní Buffy sees through Giles outer
appearance as a demon and avoids killing
him. That inner awareness again?
17 > Angelís asking the PTB to fold time so that Buffy
will not be distracted from her destiny.
Buffy saves Angel Angel saves Buffy for the benefit of humanity.
18 > Throughout Season 4 there is the long story arc and subplots
involving the Initiative Riley
the growing apart and eventual coming together of the Scoobies
and the chipping of Spike. We
are starting to pay greater notice to Spikeís growing realization
of his relationship to the Slayer
(such as when he momentarily wants to save her from the evil frat
house in ëWhere the Wild
Things Areí). At the seasonís end Buffy in joining
with her friends and calling on the power of
the First Slayer enables a level of power far more Godlike than
human suggesting she really
doesnít yet understand the eventual power she may wield.
The fact that she turns Adamís
weapons into birds ripples of water (things of beauty/purity?)
may have significance (turning dark
to light). Another test to see how she handles this potentially
dangerous power?
19 > ëRestlessí has been pretty thoroughly analyzed
on this site and on many others so I wonít
go into details here but I think the visions presented in the
various dreams of the main characters
generally support the possibility of Buffy as eventual messiah.
(One idea-- the scene with Buffy in
the sandbox and later in the desert with the First suggest a raising
of consciousness from
ëplayingí as a child to the responsibilities of adulthood/accepting
destinyís call. Also Buffy rejects
the Firstís simple concept of evil=action=death and essentially
states that she will use her heart
and mind to confront evil not just her hands and body. This complexity
of thought is necessary to
become a compassionate/enlightnened being for good and evil are
now harder to clearly define
then the primitive time when the First held sway.
***Summary and Thoughts on Whatís Next:***
ìSometimes the road leads to dark places / Sometimes the
darkness is your friend.î -- Bruce
Cockburn Canadian songwriter/poet.
Xanderís soliloquy from several seasons back-- ìWhat
would Buffy do?î Substitute Jesus or
Buddah or any great philosopher/messiah for Buffy and that could
be a phrase used by millions of
religiously devoted people. Was Xanderís comment just his
normal irreverence or was it
foreshadowing?
So now we are in Season 5 and Buffy still doesnít kill
Spike despite numerous opportunities.
Why? Is it possible that Spike is what she would be like if she
was vamped? There were shades of
this in the VampWillow confrontation. (Willow as Vamp-- not purely
evil due to Willow
influence). It seems likely to me that the PTB have had plans
for Spike all along just like they
seem to have had for Angel.
Spike keeps teaching Buffy lessons about herself usually to her
dismay when they turn out to be
very accurate. Most recently the idea that her own dark side could
lead to her own death when
she becomes so tired of the endless battles with evil that she
longs for release by death. She
doesnít deny it - is it a sign of her growing maturity
when she accepts the unpleasant truth instead
of denying or rationalizing it?
Buffy has acted to redeem people she feels compassion for but
has not really made the step
towards redeeming people she does not feel compassion for. This
is understandably more difficult
(Angelís comments that ëthis is what we do we save
souls hasnít fully sunk in yet. Spike is now
that opportunity. At the moment she feels only contempt for him
but this could change. The
situation with her motherís illness is going to be another
test perhaps with yet another still harder
choice to make as in the past. (You have no idea of whatís
to come you have only just begun. --
ëRestlessí).
Gaining true Knowledge of her ëkillerí instincts--
exploring them now to master them? Rise
above them? The theme of harnessing that part of herself in order
to rise above it? Choosing the
path of the warrior or of the messiah?
The remark by Spike as he loads the shotgun in ëFool for
Loveí-- ìSo she hasnít got a death
wishî. This seemingly insignificant line is actually very
important.
Spike could show his love for her by allowing himself - willingly--
to be re-souled even though he
enjoys being a vampire. This would start his path to redemption
he in turn could save others. This
is in keeping with having yourself change by way of a spiritual
awakening-- you recognize the
spiritual superiority of the messiah. (Buffyís words that
ìYou are beneath meî seem cruel but
Spike *is* beneath her he has his interesting points but he is
*still filled with evil*. If he doesnít
repent he is lost and Buffy is the way. His love for her impure
and corrupted at the moment
could eventually rise to a higher plane. (ëRestlessí--
the Spike as Watcher segment-- Buffy is in
the sandbox the sandbox is the universe Buffy is God playing creating
changing...)
Can a warrior become an enlightened being? We shall see. Thank
you for reading my thoughts on
this please feel free to contribute your own-- long or short!
Sincerely he who thinks too much "
"whoa....
- Keanu Reeves
Very deep and sensible. Also very "I see the light"
too. I'll be chewing on that one for a while."
"Buffy seems more like an Old Testament kind
of girl -- smiting the wicked rather than offering them redemption.
But back to Dune: The Bene Gesserit were a group of cynical atheists
who manipulated religions to suit their own interests. They created
their own ancient prophesies and sought to fulfill these teachings
through selective breeding -- each generation got a little closer
to perfection.
But perhaps Buffy is a dark messiah. We have seen hints this season
and in the latter part of last season that Buffy's source of power
may not be a force of good (there was nothing light and airy about
the first slayer.) This season Buffy has become increasingly in
touch with her predatory instincts (although this began with Bad
Girls.) Her first real step towards evil however was her willingness
to sacrifice Faith to save Angel's life. More recently under the
thrall of Dracula she acceptshis blood with all the ceremony of
a sacrament (unlike Angel's near rape of Buffy when he fed off
of her.) Yes she's been willing to sacrifice herself to save the
world -- but then so was Kali (a scary Indian demon-goddess.)
And why does the Watchers' Council spend so much of its time trying
to kill off slayers? Not just during the Cruciamentum but also
by sending out their in-house assassins on more than one occasion.
Maybe there are ancient prophesies about slayers that only the
inner sanctum of the Council know about -- prohesies so dire that
young slayers are routinely killed off or sent to their deaths
before they have a chance to fulfill their dark destinies. Spike
tells us that all slayers (except apparently Buffy) have deathwishes.
Could this mindset be partly the fault of the watchers who indoctrinate
their impressionable charges daily with the expectation that their
lives will be short in spite of all their best efforts?
We had a glimpse of what Buffy would be like without a moral compass
-- when her roommate Kathy was stealing her soul. Buffy became
very serious and very homicidal -- yet still retained her native
intelligence (pretending to be tied up as Xander and Oz approached.)
Even when in full control of her facilities there are times when
Buffy assumes a terrifying aspect: "Killing" Ted sending
Angel to hell after a goodbye kiss the intervention veiled warnings
to Oz when Veruca was running amok hunting Faith to L.A. a physical
confrontation with Dawn and her initial response to Tara when
she discovered Tara was responsible for the blindness spell.
Anyway prophecies are sometimes ambiguous -- look at Whistler's
disappointment when he realized what part Angel was "destined"
to play in his end-of-the-world scenario. But I wouldn't mind
a season where the main bad guy was Buffy -- overwhelmed at last
by the forces she serves -- while the scoobies desperately try
to stay alive long enough to conteract the condition. She's much
scarier than Angelus.
"
"Malandaza-- Appreciate
your thoughtful response and I got a good laugh from your 'Old
Testament kind of girl' line! That would be a great line for a
character to use on the show sometime...
"But back to Dune: The Bene Gesserit were a group of cynical
atheists who manipulated religions to suit their own interests.
They created their own ancient prophesies and sought to fulfill
these teachings through selective breeding -- each generation
got a little closer to perfection."
Right you are I was hoping someone would pick up on this. The
post was long enough so I didn't go into more detail about the
Watcher's Council aspect but I have often wondered about whether
the Council's *real* purpose may have more to do with promoting
it's own interests (whatever they are) rather than the Slayer's.
Paul Atreides didn't turn out to serve the Bene Gesserit quite
they way they had hoped so Buffy's past and present altercations
with the Council are yet another parallel.
(To anyone out there if you find this Council-as-manipulator topic
interesting please feel free to start a thread on it.)
"
"> Yes she's
been willing to sacrifice herself to
> save the world -- but then so was Kali (a
> scary Indian demon-goddess.)
Okay I'm going to go off topic here to provide some clarification.
As an atheist Hindu I'm going to have to object to this characterisation
demon-goddess. There's no demon in this goddess.
It's true that Kali is scary looking. I mean how could you deny
that about a goddess depicted as a naked four-armed woman with
fangs tongue hanging out and disheveled hair wearing a belt made
of severed arms a necklace of skulls and carrying a freshly severed
head. Okay so scary looking.
The mythology behind Kali is that the gods were losing a war against
the demons and so they combined their power to create Kali. Only
after Kali defeated the demons somewhat like a berskerker from
the Norse myths she started destroying the rest of creation. To
stop her her husband Shiva lay down in her path. When she stepped
on him she stopped and stuck her tongue out in shame.
So Kali destroyed only demons she was created by the combined
energy of the gods and the shame she felt from touching her husband
with her foot stopped her. No demonic qualities here.
Going deeper Kali is supposedly the embodiment of time. Time gives
you life and time takes it away. By the Bengali Hindus who worship
her she is most often referred to as "Ma Kali " "mother
Kali." She is time and she is mother. She gives you life
and takes it away. She presents a fearsome visage but does you
no harm. One of the messages is that it is illogical to fear death
because death is given by the same thing that gives you life.
Without death there is no life.
Among the Kali worshipers of Bengal are some of the most devout
"shakti" (devotion) sects. The famous musical Bauls
of Bengal most of their songs are hymns to Kali. Ramakrishna who
founded the order in the 19th century that was expanded by Vivekananda
was a Kali devotee at the Dakhineshwar temple in Calcutta.
Of course there is also the darker side of Kali cults the thags
for example and some of the Tantric sects. This goes along with
the idea of equating life with death. That doesn't change Kali
into a demon.
"
"Kali is not A demon-goddess
-- she's THE demon-goddess -- the standard by which all other
demon-goddesses are measured :)
Speakly purely from a Western perspective of course. By hyphenating
the words "demon" and "Goddess" I meant that
Kali has both demonic and divine aspects (Evil and Good -- we're
allowed to separate the two.) Her appearance alone is enough to
satisfy the demonic qualifier. However there are other indications...
First her most famous legend (saving the universe from rampaging
demons) -- you left out how she managed to defeat the demons.
"The demon Raktavija produced 1 000 more like himself each
time a drop of his blood fell on Earth" (Encyclopaedia Britannica).
To save the world Kali drank his blood before it hit the ground.
Blood drinking generally falls into the demonic catagory.
And then there are all those human sacrifices (some of which have
continued into modern times.)
I think comparing Buffy to Kali is appropriate since Buffy's ability
to do good like Kali's comes from her power to destroy evil. The
first slayer even shares a superficial resemblance to the demon-goddess
(the necklace of skulls and belt of severed hands reminds me of
the first slayer's bed of bones.)
If you still have trouble thinking of her as in the least demonic
type "Demon Goddess" into your favorite search engine
and see how many Kali websites you pick up :)
"
"> Kali is not
A demon-goddess -- she's THE
> demon-goddess -- the standard by which all
> other demon-goddesses are measured :)
Uh okay. That leaves me a little speechless.
> Speakly purely from a Western perspective
> of course.
I should have known.
> By hyphenating the words "demon" and "Goddess"
> I meant that Kali has both demonic and divine
> aspects (Evil and Good -- we're allowed to
> separate the two.)
Yes I understood that's what you meant. But from the Hindu point
of view although Kali -- and indeed all the other gods and goddesses
(cf. Shiva) as well as creation itself -- contains both dark and
light aspects that is not the same thing as saying she contains
both divine and demonic aspects.
From the Hindu point of view there is nothing demonic about Kali.
Kali as a goddess is a creature of dharma (sometimes translated
as "duty"). Dharma can sometimes be seen as amoral from
the western point of view of bifurcating good and evil. A demon
however is a creature of adharma "not dharma."
A person who worships Kali sees her only as the benign mother
not as a
> Her appearance alone is enough to satisfy the
> demonic qualifier.
And this is exactly the kind of reasoning that I fear. The whole
point about Kali is that her fearsome appearance is not what is
important about her. By and large the worshipers of Kali do not
worship her as a dread mistress and take an existential attitude
towards life.
With regard to the Kali cults who engaged in ritual murder and
perhaps necrophilia I think it is fair to say that (1) nearly
every religious system produces offshoots that might be seen as
non-benign some of them might be quite large and (2) even those
cults don't see Kali as a demon.
> Blood drinking generally falls into the demonic
> catagory.
That's a rather broad statement. Is that categorization with reference
to any particular school of thought? Or are we still just talking
from western prejudices?
> And then there are all those human
> sacrifices (some of which have continued into
> modern times.)
I don't think we're talking on the same plane of reference. I
see a "demon" as a creature at odds with the forces
of order which make human life possible. While Kali is depicted
with a horrific appearance and is shown engaging in acts that
seem without context to be destructive all the evidence is that
Kali acts for the forces of order (dharma) and is considered a
beneficial goddess by all her devotees.
> If you still have trouble thinking of her
> as in the least demonic type "Demon Goddess"
> into your favorite search engine and see how
> many Kali websites you pick up :)
Well who could argue with this evidence?"
"A. Mazumdar has said someting very important
when he points out that the dischotomy in Hinduism between Dharma
and Adharma is not exactly the same dichotomy as Divine and Demonic
that you find in Western religions. Buddhism also has many fierce
beings like Kishimojin who I have kiddingly called the patron
demon of the Buddhist Order I belong to. The fact is Kishimojin
was a former creature of Adharma who devoured children (symbolizing
SIDS I believe - much like Lilith in the West). Kishimojin then
learned the meaning of compassion due to Shakyamuni Buddha and
she then became a compassionate protector of the Dharma and children.
So now she is a force for Dharma but she still retains her "wrathful
aspect" (fangs glaring red eyes etc...) and even bestows
protective dharanis (spells) to devotees of the Buddha Dharma.
Personally I find the Dharma/Adharma dichotomy much more spiritually
mature than the rather naive Western dichotomy of Divine and Demonic.
I believe that Joss is also trying to move into this more mature
"Asian" view as well in Buffy and Angel."
I think part of what turns newcomers off to Dune
is the inherent trouble they have with accepting a lead character
who isn't just styled as messianic but who actually IS proven
to be a genuine messiah.
Wow! Really thoughtful and intriguing
posts by all above. OnM that is a fascinating theory and darkBuffy
would make an excellent storyline. I agree that she would be scarier
than Angelus and scarier than Faith as Buffy has (as far as we've
seen) always had a much dstronger moral compass than Faith. The
bigger they are the harder they fall.
Beautiful.
What more can be said?
It was thought-inspiring and very philosphically deep. There are
many similarities...
In the thoughts of Dune:
Would Giles be the Jessi