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."
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"
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. "

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...


"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

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

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. --

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 "
- 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.

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 Jessica figure? From the group but separated by love?
Duncan forever faithful soldier could be Xander.


Very beautiful OnM
"If you are talking of Buffy as the KH (i'm not even going to attempt to spell it!) I think she is more of a "shortening of the way". (In Dune the chabaska language translates KH as that). And she is she is a human with the powers closer to a demon xshe is capable of being both and i think understanding the power of both"
Darla chose to be vamped Dru was crazy when she became one Angelus wanted it. Do they have a choice? What about those who became vampires and did not want be it? Did Spike wanted to be vamped?
What about one who becomes a vampire and doesn't want to be one? Is that a choice?
"None of them really had a choice.

"Darla" came the closest. She didn't want to die and the Master took that as an invitation.

I don't remember Liam (Angelus/Angel) having a choice. Darla didn't ask him if he wanted to be vamped or not did she?"
Than what was he doing in a deserted alley way with a strange woman? I belive that all of them (except Dru because she was insane) had an idea of what was going to happen to them. They would have stayed inside or wouldn't have allowed themselves to be alone with their sires if they did not have the slighest wish to be imortal. William doesn't scream or run at the sight of Dru's face. Neither does Darla at the sight of the Master's and I don't recall Angel fighting very hard to not drink Darla's blood. Everyone is afraid of death in their own little way. Why else would our culture be fascinated. Life after death is tempting to everyone. Especial those who are already outcasts in society (eg Liam is a drunk William a terrible poet Darla a whore and Drusilla a physic).
Did you see the look on William's face when Dru was biting him? First pain then... peace and pleasure. Neither Darla or William flinched at a vampire face and neither told the creature to leave.

Dru was probably unresponsive by the time Angelus vamped her.
Part of the process of being vamped is the seduction the corruption of good by evil.

Looked at in the cold light of day would anyone choose to become an evil creature of the night that kills and drinks blood? I'm sure there are some and we have seen them portrayed on BtVS (Ford and his followers etc.) But most of us would say no thank you.

Therefore the victim must be seduced. By the time the actual siring happens the victim wants to be vamped at least on some level whether they fully understand the ramifications of their decision or not.

Darla saw it as a chance at revenge. Liam/Angel was looking for excitement. Drusilla submitted because she believed she was evil. William/Spike was despondent over his treatment by his friends. It didn't take much for each of their sires to play on their fears and self-doubts and maybe even their desires.
Sometimes I think it would be cool to be a blood sucking night fiend. Think about it: Barring mishaps involving certain things like stakes or sunlight you are just about immortal you are at the tippy top of the food chain except for a few other elder vampires and demons and of course the slayer you get super strength agility endurance and healing powers night vision a keen sense of smell (at least for blood) an instant martial arts package (as per a previous thread) and access to a demonic underworld and the existence of magick that no one else suspects. You could get back at your enemies and would no longer need to fear mortal muggers rapists gang-bangers etc...I for one would go after all the types of people that I feared or despised while a mortal like neo-Nazis Klansmen militia members fundamentalists skinheads Republicans people who wear plaid etc...

On the other hand I would be barred from the daylight world of children gentleness friendship healthy intimacy and other simple pleasures of life. Even worse I would lose my compassion and empathy for people and I would have to betray or at least turn my back on all those I love: my parents wife daughter sensei friends Sangha and all sentient beings who have enabled me to live and know love in the world. The prospect of a loveless eternity of paranoia and living in the shadows would soon pall and perhaps this is why so many vampires are so eager to take up near suicidal causes fighting for the likes of Adam. Perhaps a part of them realizes that their choice (if they ever had one) was not worth it. In the end I think that anyone who is not a sociopath and has maintained a meaningful life with real human connections and had time to think about it would turn away from the chance to become a vampire.
You're forgetting the surival instinic that most human carry. Almost all of us long to be what we cannot. We want to be smart. We want to be strong. We want to live longer than our enemies and have the ability to do what we please. If someone came up to you and offered you the ability to do whatever you pleased whenevery you pleased to whomevery you please you would not find many who would not jump at the chance. We are infactucated with vampires and immortals for this reason. They have the ability to not give a care about the world or it's inhabatants the ability to look out for number one and not feel that there is anything wrong with it. I know even I wish that sometimes I could just get rid of my conscious and act complety on my impluses.

I agree that when you weigh the pros and cons of being a vampire there seem to be more serious cons than pros. But for someone who has never fit in well who doesn't feel like they belong to the world they live in becoming evil isn't that much of a con. People turn away from their good impulses everyday to belong to be like or at least noticed by others. To those who could never belong no matter what they did the chance to become powerful and (almost) immortal is a chance that most would give anything for.

Even their soul. Because face it with what they're going to be doing they don't need the baggage.
I think this explains alot of the vampires in the Buffyverse. Certainly Darla Angel Drusilla Spike Ford and friends even Harmony (a Cordelia follower not a leader).
Or (which I think is the case) since she died once causing a new Slayer to be called that has been used up and when she dies no Slayer will be called.

But when Faith dies that will be when the next slayer will be called.
Interesting thought. It makes me wonder if Buffy is even the real slayer anymore. Perhaps when she died Faith became the real slayer (although a flawed one) and Buffy has become/is becoming something else.
"If Buffy dies then Faith would have to be the Slayer. If not she'd have to be killed or commit suicide to make sure another Slayer is called. So because Buffy is "dead" means that if Faith somehow dies another Slayer is called. That means that Buffy can let the new gal take over and lead a normal life. "
"I am not sure Buffy would let a new slayer take over. She had the option to "lead a normal life" and opted out. Now the truth is that being born a slayer seems to be part of her the way her eye color is. She was born with it. She can try to hide it but in the end it is still part of her.

Buffy has embraced the fact she is a slayer. She is studying it and training so she can be the best slayer she can. A normal life would leave her without a purpose. The most painful thing in the world is be something at your core and not act on it. Ask many an Art major that has hung up their hat to get a "real job". It is the same thing.

"No no no! I didn't mean 'hanging up her hat'! I'm talking about Buffy becoming the "used-to-be-Slayer" but still a Slayer. And another girl comes along maybe Buffy teachers her the ropes in a Watcher-like role and helps her out. Ya know lets the girl become SLAYER but Buffy still at her hobby of kicking vampire's rears."
Angel is going to fulfill his destiny and become human. Buffy is going to have one gonzo fight possibly the same one involving Angel (and Dawn). In all that she might finally kill Spike and feel real guilty about it and retire all sick of it all. She wants to anyway so her and Angel can make babies. By then Faith has reformed and she takes over giving our favorite doomed couple the best gift she could give them a normal life.

Or not.
"I'm of the party that simply answers:


There was no fine print in the contract that said "only this once and we mean it."

My opinion is that there will now always be two chosen ones.


I think the Mayor's opinion reflects that of He-who-created the show. He had a point too. She is alive when she shouldn't be.

"Your's right there isn't but the circumstances for a slayer dying and reviving probably are next to nothing - I see that as a result of Buffy being a unique slayer. If "good" (God The PTB's) had the power to make more then one why didn't it? That seems to go along with the theme of Balance in the World bewteen Good and Evil. Things are out of order out of balance with two slayers. That's the point in the Mayor's little speech."
Buffy already died calling her successor.

Then she was revived.

So the next time she dies a new Slayer will not be called as that has already happened.

But when Faith dies then there will be a new Slayer called.
a new slayer will be call when faith dies because
when buffy die kendra was called and when kendra
was killed faith was called so aslong as buffy is alive there will allways be two slayers so the answer to your question is no a nother slayer will not be called after buffy dies sorry
the answer to your question is no a nother slayer will not be called after buffy dies sorry

You sound awfully sure of that conclusion.

Isn't it established that the Slayer's Calling passes to the next chosen one upon death? And it did when Buffy drowned yet she still had it when she was revived. So where's the evidence stating that the Calling can only be passed on once?

Sure it's unprecedented but the time in which CPR has existed as a life-saving technique is tiny compared to how long the Slayer's been around...

Allowing a slain slayer to call a replacement multiple times is a bad thing. What if an overzealous watcher decided to start and stop his slayer's heart repeatedly? With modern medical technology and a slayer's preternatural constitution he should be able to create an army of slayers from just one girl. Buffy's death will not result in a second calling -- the implications are too absurd.
When the PTB created the Slayer line I don't belive that they ever thought that anyone Watcher would ever try to create an army of Slayers. I think that there will be two lines till the end of the universe but I don't think that there would ever be an army of Slayers. The PTB would put a stop to that. The scales of Good and Evil must be properly maintained. If one side was to be overloaded the balance would shift and the worlds collapse.
a new slayer will be call when faith dies because
when buffy die kendra was called and when kendra
was killed faith was called so aslong as buffy is alive there will allways be two slayers so the answer to your question is no a nother slayer will not be called after buffy dies sorry
When Buffy dies it's the end of the show. Joss won't likely even kill Faith because it's already been done with Kendra. So sorry to say this but we'll never know.

Ha ha ha ha!
Hmm never say never .... I'm inclined to agree that a new slayer will not be called if Buffy dies again. The result would be too absurd. Intriguing idea from Hauptmann that Buffy is no longer the slayer but something else. I hope that that is the direction this season will explore.
"If "good" (God The PTB's) had the power to make more then one why didn't it? That seems to go along with the theme of Balance in the World bewteen Good and Evil. That's the point in the Mayor's little speech. Things are out of order out of balance with two slayers. Buffy is alive when she shouldn't be. The possibility for a slayer to be revived after losing is probably next to nothing - Buffy's unique situation of having the scooby gang and the Master's choice of only draining her/drowning her. Maybe there isn't a explicitly clause stating that a slayer's death activates only the next in line but that would violate the whole balance theme as well as the slayer's one-and-only claim to fame ;b

"I have to agree with Matthew2.

As Buffy goes so goes the show. Without Buffy there can't very well be a show called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."

Now we may see her come very close to death (or permanent death no CPR). I'm not ruling out that possibility."
"I agree with purplegrrl and Matthew2. As much as I wish that the show would go on forever we all know that it can't. Who else can see a 70 year old Buffy fighting vampires? And of course when Buffy dies the show can't go on unless they rename it "The Vampire Slayer" but I don't think that would bee a good idea.
So when and if Buffy dies there might be a few episodes after to see how the world is without her but i don't think it would be a permanent thing. Here is an idea:
Buffy is supposedly one of the greates slayers that has ever lived. What if after she dies the world is over run with demons?
As you all can see I'm not in the cheeriest mood now but I would still like to hear what everyone thinks."

Personally I wouldn't watch Faith the Vampire Slayer...
OK so a vampire is a human without a human's soul but with traits of human's personality. Do vampires feel? If yes is it only certain emotions? What emotions are those?
"Obviously vampires would feel all the emotions considered negative: greed avarice aggression hatred power-hungry (is that an emotion?) bloodlust joy of corruption/manipulation etc.

But they can also feel affection and jealousy - according to what the Judge said to Spike and Dru.

I think some of the behavior exhibited by the vampires (the soulless ones chipped or unchipped) is not necessarily *emotion.* But rather a behavior resembling emotion based on their original human personality. However this is not to say they cannot grow and change and somehow develop emotions. Obviously Spike has some sort of emotional tie/baggage concerning Drusilla. And there is *something* funky going on between him and Buffy!

A purely "traditional" vampire would not have the kinder gentler emotions just the negative ones. The traditional Dracula (ala Bram Stoker) may be always looking for his bride but it is not really love it is domination. As we have seen vampires in the Buffyverse are much more complex creatures capable of surprising twists and turns."
"If Dru was a "crazy" human girl she will become a psychotic vampire if Darla was a whore she will be a sexual creature if Spike was a hopeless romantic he will be a romantic vampire.
Romantic capable of love those two kind of go together don't they?
People can love even "bad" people. Can vampires love? Darla/Angelus is that a love relationship or more like a convenience arrangement? Two powerfull rulling the world. Doesn't she dump him when he regains his soul? He wants to be with her he doesn't want to kill innocent. If she would love him she would keep him around no matter what.
Vampires may desire may even have what some might call love but there is no way they can have compassion.

To have compassion you must have at least an ounce of humanity within you. And while vampires might have human personality traits all the humanity has been drained out of them.
Remember the episode a few years back with The Judge? He couldn't burn Angelus but he could and did burn Dalton? We never did find out what what would have happened if he had touched Spike or Dru.
"It is clear that Spike feels love the "human" trait he inherited. With love are connected other feelings one of them being compassion. We do not like to see our beloved one in pain. We feel their pain. Spike /William "Fool in Love" Isn't love confusing? When he felt it for Dru it was clear - she made him in to what he was she was as evil as he was. Spikes love for Buff is forbidden. Kill her or Love her? She is above him. Seeing that girl who kicks his aÖ most of the time they meet vulnerable makes him want to comfort her. First time in their relationship Spike is stronger."
I don't think Darla *loved* anyone not even when she was originally human. She had been a prostitute used to being used by men and shunned by *good* people. When she became a vampire she became the user. Using Angelus because with her training he could get her what she wanted - revenge on all the good and decent people (particularly missionaries). When Angelus was re-souled he became useless to her and she dumped him - as men had used and dumped her in her former life.

From Darla's point of view her relationship with Angelus while fun and exciting was one of convenience. Angelus obviously felt differently towards Darla which may have been the *affection* of childe for sire or his attraction to a beautiful and confident woman or respect for her vampire talents. Whatever his feelings were they were strong ones for him to return to Darla and beg her to take him back after he had been re-souled and she had already rejected him once.
Darla loved power and herself.
Who was a leader of the Darla/Angelus/Dru/Spike gang?
Was is it Angelus? or Darla?
Woman supposed to be submissive but was she?
She was his sire she made him Angelus/Master scene didn't you see a look of displeasure on her face? She didn't approve the way Angelus acted but she would rather see his face for an eternity than Master.

I wonder in the writers think this deeply about everything on Buffy the Vampire Slayer? lol
I'm not good with all things philosophical so could somebody explain to me exactly what it means to have a soul in Buffyverse? I've heard many people say that Vamps can't feel compassion or love because they have no soul which would lead me to believe that the human soul is what gives us our emotions. If that is true how can Vamps feel greed or vengeance if those are also emotions? Does the human soul merely allow us to have virtues but vices come from some other source? I'm a little bit confused on this topic. And please don't respond with a 3 page message. Brevity is wit.
"The reason it's confusing you is because it's confusing everyone; they've never concretely stated what the "soul" is. AtPoBtVS has the relevent issues at this page: http://home.4w.com/pages/btvs/metap.html#hs"
souls in the Buffyverse are usually one of three things: the lif energy of a living thing a unit that contains the personality memories etc. that lives on after the body dies and a moral conscience. what a human loses when they are vamped is thier moral conscience.
Soul = Conscience

That was the former concensus I thought. Now I am not so sure. It seems that some Buffyverse demons do exhibit a sense of ethics/empathy towards each other but not towards humans. So perhaps the above might be amended to:

Soul = Empathy for Humans
Soul = Empathy for Humans

If this is true (or True) how do you explain Spike's behavior towards Buffy at the end of this week's episode? A soulless creature with no empathy for humans would not have put down his gun and patted her on the shoulder to show comfort/support/empathy.

I think in the Buffyverse soul=conscience. But with soul or without the most of the creatures we encounter in the Buffyverse are complicated making the soul/conscience area very grey rather than strictly black or white.

"Goodpoint purplegrrl. What we may be seeing is that in the Buffyverse that which we call a soul is not a static "thing" which one can have or lose (barring magickal curses) but something that can be developed and even cultivated over time. This theme has been especially prominent on Angel moreso than even Buffy. For instance how did it come about that a Prio Motu demon (a supposedly souless killer without even a human personality to start with) converted to Buddhism and became a warrior for the PTB. No one has really explored this anamoly yet and it is an even more drastic one than a vampire (who has carryover human traits to start with) who converts.

I would submit once again that we are seeing the mutual possession of the ten worlds in operation yet again. I have harped on this before but for those who haven't seen my ramblings before the "mutual possession of the ten worlds" is the Buddhist teaching that the realms of enlightened beings compassionate beings solitary contemplatives disciples of enlightened beings heavenly beings humanity demons animals ghosts and hell dwellers are all mutually possessed of one another. each possesses the others in some manner. They all shade off into one another and can transform into one another and even derive their very existence from one another. This theory was first formulated by the T'ien-t'ai patriarch Chih-i in 6th century China. I doubt Joss is familiar with it but this kind of dynamic interdependent thinking is indigenous to East Asia and now it seems to be a part of the Buffyverse. I said this in another post but I will say it again here - I believe that Joss's vision is closer to the Chinese worldview than it is to a Christian Zoroastrian or Lovecraftian worldview (though it does borrow from those three as well)."
"I've never heard of the "Mutual Possession of the Ten Worlds" before. What an interesting concept! I wouldn't be surprised if Joss _is_ familiar with it though. He took his name from a Chinese word for good fortune; Joss doesn't seem the type to pull something like that out of thin air so it might indicate an interest in Chinese culture and philosophy (of course _I_ could just be the one pulling things out of thin air).

Something I liked about the Prio Motu by the way was that he reminded me of some old Japanese figurines of oni demons that converted to Buddhism. ^_^"
So if a soul=conscience then losing one's soul would mean simply losing one's conscience. Losing one's soul wouldn't mean that one couldn't exibit virtues (such as compassion and love) it would mean that one would not feel guilty after exibiting vices (such as hatred anger and revenge). Unless of course I'm missing something else. That wouldn't be a first.
That pretty much hits the nail on the head!

Ryuei has made good points about the Buffyverse being more Chinese or Buddhist than typically Christian etc. While I can't say where Joss got his influences for the metaphysics of the Buffyverse (although he has said 'research is for wimps') I think he is purposely vague about the religious details so it cannot be completely explained by any one religion or world view.
"In the flashback this week's BtVS "South America 1998" it said Spike said that he keeps trying to forget the Slayer but she "keeps punishing" him. This in my opinion means that he feels bad about Dru keep saying he's obsessed with the Slayer. Do you think that this has anything to do with his conscience? He has no soul but he feels like most humans would. Joss has built up this idea of vampires being these ruthless emotionless demons. Then he wraps it all up when Spike does such a simple thing as patting her back. But as Joss has shown before he builds up things then knocks them down just to surprise us."
Well here in Australia we don't get to see these developements yet but I've been trying to follow this Spike stuff anyway.

How about this:

In a vamped human a demon soul sets up shop right? It's something to take the place of the human soul. But in Spike's case is it possible that his particular demon is developing some humanity or at least empathy? Its already established that not all demons are pure evil as Giles once said...

As shown in an episode of Angel the human can sometimes take possesion of the demon inside them. Perhaps they may be able to re-claim their soul as well.
"This is just my theory from available evidence:

Whatever else the Soul seems to contain (1) Any talent at compassion (2) Any conscience the human has at time of "death." A new vampire loses these but retains everything else--memories aptitudes grievances etc. He or she also gets a set of powerful demonic instincts which get reinforced since vampires need to feed.

But (and here's the kicker) some vampires are not overwhelmed by their instincts--as individuals like Angelus Darla The Master Drusilla and even Harmony prove. Spike even seems to have learned to "ride" his instincts rather than be ruled by them. Given time however might not any vampire (or any demon) *learn* compassion and develop a conscience?"
I like this theory a lot. We've already been shown enough times that demons can't be dismissed as just evil and nothing else.
Did they ever consider that there actually hurting the humanAngel and not Angellus. I mean He struggles being a vampire and all that Angellus has done in his time. It really wasn't his fault because it was the demon in him and vampires don't an conscious like humans. They all are like animals you know hunting and feeding.
"> "They all are like animals you know hunting and feeding."

Which is never what human beings are doing."
when Angel was human (aka. Liam) he was a drunkard he picked fights and he was a total psycho. and then when he was sired he turned even more evil and got all scourgey-of-europey. ^_^' i guess the Gypsies' curse was a double punishment thing. not that they could've known that Angelus has always been evil even as a human but hey less is more.
as for my *other* theory the gypsies felt that the punishment they gave angelus fit him. i mean come on if a person had just murdered one's relative would one really care what kind of punishment the murderer gets as long as it's a REALLY BAD punishment?
It was a CURSE! It was meant to hurt Angel! After all the things that Angelus has done the soul was not a gift it was a curse. It was so he would see what he has done and suffer for it. Of course Buffy being selfish had to bring the 'good' Angel back not worrying how it would effect him.
"1. Is there a Hell? Angel remembers it Darla does not. I see two possibilities: First there is no Hell. Angel was standing in front of a portal to a particularly unpleasant demon dimension. He was sucked into this portal bodily after Buffy impaled him. Perhaps he never died and just suffered the torments of this dimension which his Catholic upbringing translated as the torments of Hell. Second there is a Hell. Darla was dead much longer than Angel and her suffering would have been proportionally worse. She could be repressing these memories -- or someone could be repressing them for her. remember Angel's condition when he returned from Hell? He was an animal. It took all of Buffy's efforts to restore his sanity. Wolfram & Hart may not have wanted to wait so long and brought in a sorceror to speed things along. The easiest way? Repress those memories of Hell.

2. Some lives have more value than others. A newly-souled Angelus has little difficulty killing murderers and rapists but cannot bring himself to kill the missionaries or the baby. (Side note: I see the soul as that part which enables us to distinguish between right and wrong and the conscience as the part of us that punishes us for choosing evil and rewards us for choosing good.) Angelus's conscience has considerably more leeway than Spike's chip. People how "deserve" to die can be killed while innocent creatures cannot.

3. Riley: He is motivated by darker emotions this episode. He still has that inferiority complex that compels him to go patroling solo (fortunately in this case for Buffy.) He is contemptuous of the Scoobies -- casually dimissing them as useless (they deserved it in this case -- where were their crossbows stakes holy water and crucifixes?) then returning to take on a nest of vampires alone (out of a mixture of vengeance and pride.) He was right to send the Scoobies home once he decided on a suicide mission but his own plan was better -- wait until morning. Death wishes seem to be common for all of Buffy's friends.

4. How scary is Buffy? There have been moemnts when Buffy has come across as a terrifying force but these tend to be few and far between. Indeed few of Buffy's adversaries ever take her seriously until she stakes them decapitates them or blows them up (only Harmony recognizes how dangerous Buffy is.) Now that Buffy and Spike have had their heart to heart talk on the nature of slaying I expect to see a more serious Buffy -- efficient slaying with minimal punning. "
"I had the impression that Angel referred to the dimension he was imprisoned in as "Hell" only because that is what the legends around Acathla claimed it was. Legends would probably refer to any horrible demon dimension as "Hell" whether that's true or not so I don't think Angel experienced a place devoted to punishing human souls it was just an outside demon dimension that's not comfortable as you mentioned in the first possibility.

As for Darla I suppose it all depends on whether vampires or in fact anyone else in the Buffyverse suffer punishment in the afterlife or if they even have something like a human spirit that survives them. My favorite idea is that they've got the same human spirit that they did before it's just been rendered guiltless and predatory by the injection of demon essence (the Watchers and the Slayers and the vampires call this "losing your soul and getting a demon in its place" but I think they're just being colorful). Even if that's true I don't think and human spirit would deserve punishment if they had been turned evil by vampirism."
"Perhaps the difference between Angel's and Darla's memories/non-memories of Hell are due to the fact that Angel went *bodily* to Hell not just his soul.

Also Darla did not have a soul when Angel destroyed her (unless the demon that made her a vampire had a demon version of a soul but that is a whole other discussion topic). Darla has no memories of Hell because she didn't go there either bodily or spiritually. Presumably when vampireDarla was destroyed her spirit went into nothing the ether (the limbo where her original soul went after being sired) or the demon dimension. Depending on your beliefs these could be termed "hell " but are not the Hell of the Buffyverse."
"When I read the Inferno for the first time I was struck by Dante's explanation of an "unpardonable sin." In Canto XXXIII Fra Alberigo explains to Dante why he is in Hell even though Dante remembers seeing him alive and well: at the moment of the unpardonable sin (treason in this case) "a demon takes the body away -- and keeps that body in his power until its years have run their course completely." Meanwhile the soul descends to hell. I see the same thing happening with BtVS vampires -- the soul leaves the body at the moment of death and the vampire soul enters. There is no evidence that the soul goes to Heaven or Hell at this time however and I prefer the notion that the soul is in limbo until the vampire is dusted (when it is released to its final reward or punishment.)

So who is Darla? She seems to have the memories of the vampire but not the human as you have all mentioned. Which brings up the point: where are memories lodged the body or the soul? When Buffy and Faith switch bodies each retains her own memories -- suggesting that souls contain the memories. Similarly when Angel is re-souled he does not remember the past few weeks. However when he is first cursed he not only remembers everything Angelus has done but he suffers inordinately (or not :) for the actions of Angelus ( and Angelus remembers everything that Liam has done.) I suggest that both the body and soul house the memories of a creature but that not all of the memories are immediately accessible to a possessing entity. Perhaps a part of Faith's redemption is due to having been in Buffy's body a short while with Buffy's feelings and emotions as a sort of background noise.

With this theory it would be possible for Darla to be a reanimation of her body (complete withh all the Darla and VampDarla memories) without either her original soul or the vampire spirit. She must have some sort of soul since she feels pain but it could be a "new" one. I still prefer to think of her as having her original soul back (and is merely repressing the early memories) but perhaps her soul was beyond the reach of the reanimation spell. Less likely is that she has VampDarla's soul (wouldn't this make her a vampire?) and is playing with Angel (Lindsey's just out of the loop) -- her pain and break-down seemed too real for me to be comfortable with this last idea."
"Wesley said that it isn't possible to bring Vampires back from the dead. So what I think Wolfram and Hart did was create a "new" Darla.

In effect it is practically the same thing."
What would Wesley have said to the attempt to resurrect the Master in the first episode of the second season? They seemed pretty sure that they could do it then.
"Is there a Hell? Angel remembers it Darla does not.

The reason Darla doesn't remember it is that she has never been there. She isn't that Darla.

I am beginning to believe that Wolfram and Hart did not bring Darla back from the dead. What they did was created a new being with the physical appearence of Darla and endowed the being with the memories of the Vampire Darla from the moment she was vamped to the moment Angel dusted her.

Creating someone with the same memories and appearance as a dead person can in a way be considered "bringing them back" but not in the way you are considering it. The real vampire Darla is still in hell (or wherever Vampires go when they die if anywhere).

In a way it is kind of confusing but consider it this way. What if the Vamp Darla was still around but Wolfram and Hart made a human with the same memories and appearance of the Darla Vamp? Which one would be the "real" Darla. The vamp? Both?

The best way to sum it up is that she is Darla but she isn't. Since she has all the Vampire memories of the creature that Angel slayed she is practically the same as the real thing. But she wasn't the being that Angel dusted. She was just "born" a few months ago."
"By the way Angel remembers "a Hell". The one that Buffy sent him to. I don't know if it was ever specified if that is where people or vampires go when they die.

I still don't understand what happened to Angel soul. Where did Liam's soul go to when he died? Is that the "soul" that Angel has now And when Angel became Angelus where did the soul?that Angel had go? And when he 'got it back' where was it hanging around all this time?"
"Here is another way to look at it.

Compare Darla to Dawn.

Dawn has 13 years of memories of things that never happened.

"Darla" has 400 years of memories of things that happened to this vampire known as Darla.

Some say we are the sum total of our memories. If this is the case then it would be accurate to call this "just born" entity Darla as she has her memories. But she isn't the same being she just has that being's memories.

In practical effect it basically becomes the same thing. Since this being has all of Darla's memories she has the same passion the same personality so in effect 'she is Darla'. But at the same time she is a separate being.

Forgive me for using a Trek example. But in the episode where Riker finds a "copy" of himself on a planet he once excaped from. What happened was the transporter made "two" of them. At the instant that happened both "Riker's" could rightfully claim to be "Riker". They both had the same DNA. They both had the same memories. But after the accident there became two entities. And as the one who stayed behind began to have different experiences from the one who left they became two distinct individuals.

Or lets use Red Dwarf as an example. Rimer dies the first episode. But the hologram Holly brings back has the personally and all the memories of Rimer. So in a way the hologram is Rimer. But not Rimer as the human Rimer died with everyone else on Red Dwarf (except Lister)."
"The Red Dwarf example is probably the best example.

She is Darla in the sense that she has the same body and she has all of Darla's Vampire memories.

But if Vampires have spirits the spirit of Darla is still in hell. This Darla is a new creation. A new individual. But unlike the rest of us who are born with a blank slate of memories this "new" individual was "born" with 400 years of memories already programmed into her.

No wonder she is going a little crazy.

If anyone saw Blade Runner they would understand the distinction. In that show beings were created with pre programmed memories. They believed that the memories were their own.

I also like the comparison to Dawn. The distinction of course being whereas Dawn's memories were manufactured and never really happened "Darla's" memories actually happened to the Vampire Darla.

As she has Darla's memories she acts she behaves exactly as Darla would. So in effect she is "Darla". But as to what happened to her after she died - she hasn't died yet. She has only lived a few months."
"So what if there is a connection beween Darla and the Key? Think back to the spell by W&H. What is the "big picture" here? Even the spell Lindsey chanted made reference to the beast.
Both are living off manufactured memories. Both appeared about the same time though Dawn came a bit later."
Is there a hell?

Angel's response to that is that there are 'a few of them. I've been to ONE'. It appears that the Buffyverse has many more afterlife options than the heaven/limbo/hell we tend to think of.
"Well I was pretty baffled by Spike's show of compassion for Buffy at first as well but I've now given it some thought.

Comparing Spike's behavior after his transformation to Angelus' is interesting.

Before his change Angel was basically an 18th Century frat boy. He had no real passions he just argued with his father got drunk and had sex. Yeehaw. When he became a vampire he became an artistic killer but the only reason behind his killing was personal enjoyment - it was an extension of the negative aspects of his lifestyle mixed with an unhealthy dose of sadism.

Spike/William had deep passions for a woman and possibly for poetry. When he was rejected by his peers and his inamorata then turned undead he reversed most of his passions.

Spike rejected his class his name his poetry... but he just transfered his capacity for romantic love to two sources. The first is Drusilla the second is his love/hate obession with slayers.

It seems as though little dork though he was Spike was a more complete emotional being before he was turned than Angel was. He somehow carried more of that over with him when he turned. We've had plenty of hints of this going back to second season when the Judge says he and Drusilla share "love and jealousy."

What I'm wondering is has Joss added another grey area to the Buffyverse? Giles has said vampires have no souls Angel has said it lots of people have said it. They've all been wrong before. What if some vampires retain some small shred of their souls and with them a chance for change and redemption?

Much cheese to Joss for the "two hour event." "
"I agree.

So I don't repeat myself here see my "compassionate Spike" posting on the "2-hour event zounds" thread."
he loved drusilla more than anything. what is stopping him from loving a human? drusilla and buffy are both complex individuals - i don't see why someone as deep and sensitive as spike obviously is can't love someone else who has a soul. the only difference is the women's capacity for evil...and buffy does have capacity for evil since she is fighting and killing every night. (of course it can be argued that what she does is good but any kind of killing is rooted in something dark). and since spike wasn't the bad ass we all thought he was before he turned maybe his true character is what we saw before he was vamped and all the rest was just him trying to 1. get revenge for being treated so shabbily while human and 2. trying to impress those around him.

does any of this make any sense? lol
Can we choose an object of a our affection? Can Spike choose to love somone?
"After rewatching the episode Fool For Love I'm even more disturbed about how doomed these two characters are. No matter how much Spike can love Buffy he is still a demon and he wants to be there in at the kill when buffy finally gives into her death wish that all Slayers have when she finally reaches her expiration date for her Slayer gig.

But the journey there will be an intriguing one.
Dru picked William to become a vampire because of his heart and his imagination. Those traits carried over into his becoming Spike the vampire. Spike can love Buffy and he can feel compassion (probably because he has an imagination and it has nothing to do with his having a soul or not.) He will always be "love's bitch" because he can see beyond his own needs and desires. Spike's mind and heart have doomed him to have the taint of humanity cling to him forever."
"Earlier this week when I was playing back my tape and watching 'Fool for Love' the 2nd time something caught my ear. I wound the tape back and played the scene over again a few times to be sure I heard it correctly.

While Spike is loading up the shotgun and preparing to go after Buffy he says "So she *doesn't* have a death wish... bitch won't need it after I'm done with her." (Going by memory here but that was pretty much the gist of it).

I don't think this was a throwaway line-- Spike obviously wanted to shake Buffy up by presenting an idea he felt was true-- and it very probably was. We all know that for some reason soul of the poet whatever Spike has great insight into human behavior.

Now after his confrontation with Buffy he says 'She *doesn't* have a death wish'. Could this idea that Buffy is the exception to the rule be the realization that set him on his quest to do her in only to fail when seeing her in a vulnerable position?

In short Spike loves a fight better yet with a worthy opponent. Now in *not* displaying a characteristic he has come to expect in other Slayers she has become more worthy yet.

Thoughts on this particular spin?

"I heard "Says she doesn't have a death wish " cocks gun and stares straight forward "Bitch won't need one."

So he's saying it doesn't matter whether or not she has one he plans to kill her anyway."
"When I posted this I wrote what I *thought* I heard when I played my tape back several times but it was still a guess to a certain point. Since then I've visited Sayne's Buffy Shooting Script site (www.mustreadtv.com/buffyscripts/) to see the exact line (which by the way doesn't mean JM might not have ad libbed a different version!). According to the script:

SPIKE: "Hasn't got a death wish?"

(He snaps the shotgun shut.)

SPIKE: "The bitch won't need one."

Interesting that we both heard a "s.." word at the beginning of the line which apparently wasn't in the script. I heard "So" and you heard "Says".

One might reasonably question whether two otherwise rational people (I'll assume for you if you'll assume for me ;) would have a serious debate over a single word in a TV show but such is devotion... (-sighs-).

For me it was important that Spike affirms that Buffy does *not* have a death wish because otherwise the following scene where he expressed compassion for her wouldn't ring true. If she *does* have a death wish then she isn't different from other Slayers. So he would not be able to maintain his ongoing (albeit reluctant) respect for her."
"(quote from Hamlet)

I do not see Spike as being "in love" with Buffy. Vampires are ruled by lower emotions. He is obsessed jealous passionate vengeful -- but this is not love (except in the Charlotte Bronte sense of the word.)

Spike was a bit quixotic in life and has continued his romantic delusions as a vampire. I think he gave Buffy a slightly censored version of his past -- leaving out the areas that might portray him as weak or pathetic and exaggeration his own importance. Specifically he tells Buffy that after he was turned he had to get his own gang. Then we see him with Angelus Dru and Darla -- definitely the junior member. Darla referred to him as a drooling idiot while Angelus blames Spike's rash stupidity (inciting a riot) for causing them to seek shelter in a mine shaft after a near death experience. I suspect that Spike was entirely responsible for the riot that nearly killed Dru (without the experienced vampires to bail him out he got in over his head.)

Spike has built up an absurdly romantic fantasy that the Slayer loves him. The truth was revealed by Buffy's reaction to him when he tries to kiss her -- she is disgusted by him. There is no respect only contempt."
I would be willing to accept this viewpoint as plausible all the way until the last scene. The only explanation under your rubric would be that Spike was acting the way he was in order to fool Buffy into thinking he was something more than obsessed jealous passionate or vengeful.

But it was all in the eyes.
"To assume that Spike is capable of genuine love is to throw out everything we "know" about vampires. I think Spike has come to identify himself with the Slayer (a romantic delusion). His feelings in the last scene are motivated by self-pity -- he feels sorry for Buffy because he sees himself in her distress -- and feels sorry for himself.

Perhaps this explanation is a little forced -- but I belive it is more reasonable to assume that the motivations of a single vampire are misunderstood rather than to assume that the motivations of every other vampire that ever existed have been consistently misunderstood -- even by those best in the position to understand them (Watchers Slayers Vampires.)"
Why not throw out a lot of what we know about vampires? Joss has let the Watchers Council who know more than any other humans be wrong before. About Angel to pick a big example. There are gaps in their knowledge. Joss seems to be moving both shows into shades of grey rather than a black and white world view. Maybe there is room for vampires to be redeemed or to love.
If Spike can be redeemed why can't all vampires? Has Buffy been guilty of the genocide of a sentient race of creatures capable of all the feelings and emotions of humans?

I have heard it said that the Angelus demon is particularly strong -- thus the ability of Darla Buffy and designer drugs to bring out the beast. Perhaps Spike's demon is much weaker and is therefore corruptible -- capable of being influenced by the human memories left behind.

However it seems as though the influences of the memory would be strongest immediately after the turning rather than after more than 100 years of nothing but negative influences.

If Vampires are capable of positive human emotions it shouldn't take a century for these emotions to develop.
"We must remember that spike has had an experience that other vamps can't imagine. Having a chip in your brain that keeps you from eatting. Spike has had to change everything about the way he thinks of people. They are no longer just "happy meals with legs" He must rely on others for his existance. Especailly money. It's not like he can go out and get a job. Now he must pay the butcher like angel did. This whole experience has to have changed the way spike thinks and feels. Maybe this chip has civilized the beast within and made him capable of human emotion."
Hmm. Interesting take on the chip in Spike's head.

If this is not *the* reason for Spike's show of compassion it may at least be a contributing factor.
"okay this might be totally out-of-the-blue here but when Lindsey visited Darla's place and they started talking Darla said something along the lines of...
Darla: "...a girlfriend a *boyfriend*...someone special?"
and then in Lindsey's office when she was kissing him she was like "but it's not me you want to screw...it's *him*..."
now the second could be interpreted in different way. the first and probably most obvious explanation for Darla saying that is that she means that Lindsey and the firm want to screw Angel over...
as for the weirder explanation...maybe they were hinting that Lindsey really would want to screw Angel...literally...
this could be the fever and headache talking but i'm curious to see this turns into another whacked out love-hate thing like spike/buffy...BUT then again that's just TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO unlikely. lol
...this is what happens when you're a slash fan...you start seeing things in a *very* weird way... ^_^'"
"Heh when she said the "it's HIM" line I didn't catch the obvious interpretation at first. I just thought "Whoa! Lindsey's gonna show him a new kind of happiness!"

And the fact that he didn't deny it is a nice pearl of hope for slash fans everywhere. ^_^"
"what are "slash fans"???"
Slash fans are fans of fan fiction relationships that are non-canon romantic pairings. For example: Buffy/Faith Angel/Xander etc.

The term slash comes from the slash symbol used to connect the two character names.
slash IS related non-canon romantic relationships. but that's only half of it. lol slash is also the about a character being romantically/erotically paired with another character of the same sex...
"i misread purplegrrl's entry. yes her explanation is right. i must've mixed the "Buffy/Faith Angel/Xander" part she wrote. ^_^'"
"i practically went psycho when i heard that "it's HIM" line. lol it was really a shock..."
"Speaking of the Master the trip through memory lane treaded on the history we already knew very from reference. These nuances are pathetic but i am compelled to harp on them. I thought the master respected Angelus somewhat in that "he was the most vicious creature". I thought Spike and Angel had more of a Skywalker/Yoda relationship as mentioned long ago too. And speaking of Spike I cannot reconcile to myself Spike's sudden onset of mercy and concern when he saw Buffy in great pain. This really complicates the extent of the question on Vampire emotions. Ideas?"
"To say that I am in awe is an understatement here. I've watched the original broadcast and played back the tape once already and all I can think of at the moment is that I never thought any ep would ever be better than *Becoming Pt2* but this one was. Wow...

Congratulations to Doug Petrie Nick Marck (has this guy directed any other eps to date?) and of course James Marsters and SMG.

As to reconciling the last scene I believe Spike's words from a few years ago were "I may be love's bitch but I'm man enough to admit it".

Perhaps that wasn't just an idle boast.

I might post some more tomorrow night after I have a chance to ponder this but the wow is still with me too much to think philosophically at the mo.

"I loved the 2 hours as well. But some parts did leave me lacking.

Spike still doesn't have a soul regardless of what that chip does to him. So why is he acting like he does?

I though Spike was an evil killer as a human. But I guess I can reconcile that with the fact that sometimes the history books get things wrong.

But I did think that Spike hung around with Angelus and Darla longer than 8 years. Must have been an intense eight years.

I believe the Darla they brought back is the Demon in human form not the human who the Master turned into Darla. That human soul is probably still in Hell.

Still leaves the question. What happened to Liam's soul while Angelus was using his body?

Another question:

Why did it take Spike so long to find another Slayer to kill? 77 years is a long time must have not been looking hard.

What "exactly" is a pure moment of happiness?

(If I was Cordy I would get a water bottle of holy water ready - just in case.)"
I too thought Spike had been a killer before he became a vampire but last night's history lesson demonstrated that Spike had the soul of a poet before he was turned. If vampires adopt the personality of the person they occupy then Spike's behavior towards Buffy makes sense to me.
He didn't go after Cecelia for rejecting him and he couldn't really go after Buffy when she rejected him with the very same words. Spike is a romantic. When it comes to women I believe he is doomed to let those feelings that love engenders rule his heart as well as his head.

I never thought that Spike could envoke pity from me for him but the rejection scene with Buffy certainly pulled at my emotions and I felt compassion for that poor damned creature.

The last scene between Spike and Buffy was a masterpiece of acting. Neither went over the line to make it sappy. That simple gesture of touching Buffy's shoulder spoke volumes. Bravo!
"I'm still a bit confused as to how Spike Got the nickname William the Bloody. One guy mentioned it had something to do with his "bloody" aweful poetry but I took that as a jest. He didn't seem like the type of person to merit such a gory title. Any clarification would be appreciated."
Perhaps it was a play on William the Conqueror one of the early rulers of England.
"We had heard from the Watchers' Diaries that Spike got his name "William the Bloody" and "Spike" because he tortured people with railroad spikes. Now we discover it was because his poetry was so bad that a listener would rather be "tortured with a railroad spike" than have to endure listening to it.

I suspect both are true. After becoming a vampire it seems reasonable that Spike would have visited a little poetic justice upon his former persecutors (typical vampire behavior) by killing them with a railroad spike (maybe even forcing them to listen to a sonnet or two during the proceedings.) The watchers would only have become aware of him after his turning (and maybe not until he had killed a slayer) so would tend to believe his press releases.

The transformation from Poetry-Boy into Danger-Boy is not unprecedented. Owen from the first season was a brooding poet who only felt alive when the adrenaline was coursing through his veins and his life was at risk. Spike is just Owen taken to an extreme. His philosophy of killing differs radically from Angelus' -- for Angelus every death is a work of art. Angelus does not want risk -- we wants only to engender terror and hopelessness in his victims. Spike wants to get to close to death as he can -- when he tells Buffy that she has a death wish he could have been talking about himself. This philosophy of killing also helps explain why he didn't kill Buffy at the end of the episode -- there would have been no sport in finishing the broken and helpless slayer. Angelus would not have hesitated under such circumstances -- in fact the situation would have been exactly what he would hope for.

"Actually I think that the guy who mocked William's poetry said "I'd rather have a railway spike through my head than listen to his poetry." You should be careful what you ask for. ;-)"
"I suspect both are true. After becoming a vampire it seems reasonable that Spike would have visited a little poetic justice upon his former persecutors (typical vampire behavior) by killing them with a railroad spike (maybe even forcing them to listen to a sonnet or two during the proceedings.)

I kind of was disappointed that they didn't show that scene. But you are right I am sure that was one of the first things Spike did as a vampire earning him that name.

Remember when Angelus first became a Vampire he killed his father - the source of his human torment. (Actually he killed all of his family- "tasted like chicken" I believe is what he said.

His sister let him in there house thinking her dear departed brother came back as an "angel". Probably were he got the idea of for his name."
"I believe the Darla they brought back is the Demon in human form not the human who the Master turned into Darla. That human soul is probably still in Hell.

I believe they really didn't "bring Darla back."

What they did was create an entirely whole new
entity all together. The Human "Darla" has been dead 400 years the vamp Darla is still dust but this person that they created has all of the Vamp Darla's memories from the moment she became a vamp to the moment she was dusted.

So this new person "thinks" she is Darla as she has all of Darla's memories but as an individual she is someone who has really been alive only a few months. Kinda like Dawn who can remember her 5th birthday even though she didn't really have it (This wasn't in the show I was just making an example).

Therefore this new Darla isn't responsible for what the Vamp Darla has done as they were just memories of another creature's experience. It is also why this Darla can't remember what the human Darla's real name was (the spell probably didn't go that far back) nor can she remember Demon Darla's afterlife.

The best example I can think of is the replicant on Blade Runner who was only a few weeks old but was given the memories of a lifetime that she thought she really experienced.

So Darla isn't Darla just a human with all of Vamp Darla's memories. She isn't 400 years old but few months old except she has the memory of 400 years. So with Darla's memories in a sense she is really Darla but at the same time not.

Do memories make up a person? Or is there something more. Some independent driver? A separate identity? A soul?

"Are we the sum of our memories?

What happens if you put the memories of something evil into someone with a good soul?
What wins out?

This isn't Darla but since she was created with the Darla template (all the memories of the experiences of the Vampire Darla) in a way she is.

Darla and Dawn both were created "out of thin air". Where do human souls come from (any of our souls even those of us 'created' the normal way and where do they go after)?"
She was a vampire longer than she was a human. Of course she wants to be a vampire more than a human. As a human she has to deal with feelings and past memories of her kill. Last night episode she acts as a human - kissing whatever his name is (don't remember) acting as a whore and trying to bite him as a human she got her was by acting sexual as a vampire she just took whatever she wanted. What is she? She doesn't even remember her human name so she would rather be a powerfull Darla than a whore who was almost died of disease. She is a creature who was brought back for a wrong reason. She doesn't belong in this world. For her sake someone should make her a vampire (and the show would be more interesting) is Spike going to LA anytime soon?
"What I find really interesting is Spike's new-found compassion for the slayer. It begs the question: what happens when a creature who is meant to kill is no longer able to? Spike has been chipped for almost a year now -- is he becoming more like a human?

Just an aside: I loved the chaos demon -- "all slime and antlers!" So hilarious!
"Spike's compassion for the Slayer isn't "new found" he felt it before (scene with Dru "all I see is Slayer") but now it is becoming clearer. Also the chip has nothing to do with it if you watched last night's episode you saw him as a vulnerable human a poet rejected by object of his affection. Traces of humanity stay with those who become vampires so that's an explanation for his actions. "You're beneath me" that's what he hears from a girl right before he meets Darla "you're beneath me" Buffy tells him. "You have a death wish" is what she learns from him. Even if you don't have a death wish I'll kill you now - and he sees a little girl crying on steps of her house. Him carrying a gun her not trying to protect herself is she wishing for death at that moment? He could kill her and of course his "human" side came out. He comforted her."
When Spike came up to Buffy with the shotgun I think that the reason Buffy didn't defend herself was because she didn't honestly think that Spike would do anything to her. She still sees him as a neutered vamp who couldn't hurt a rat. Of course it could also be that the prospect of her mother possibly dying has driven her into self-doubt about her mission and whether she can continue. I don't think that she has a death-wish yet though.
I think Buffy is getting too cocky in her slaying she may not have a death wish but she isn't very careful when she patrols. Last night's episode - she played with the vampire smart comments etcÖ and what? She was almost killed. Spike said "your mother and Scooby gang is what keeps you alive." Is slaying a gift or a burden? Exploring her "roots" enjoying the kill isn't that enough to confuse this once "normal" girl? How long before she WILL get the death wish?
"Maybe this is Buffy's "dark side" (as Dracula called it) coming out. I don't think she is supposed to *enjoy* the actual killing. Perhaps just enjoy the end result - fewer vampires/demons/evil things in the world. Like Luke Skywalker maybe she needs to explore the darker side of her destiny as Slayer before she can come fully into the light again.

But if she's not careful she's going to get more than a stake in the stomach.
she has always played with the vampires smart comments etc. It's just what she does. When spike said it's the scooby gang that keeps her together i think he meant without them she would be like faith used to be. Killing slaying and partying. Not really caring what happens to her or any of the inocents that get caught in the crossfire.
I agree but with that self doubt comes the point that if she can't keep her mother safe how is she supposed to protect herself.
An example from star trek would be a hologram (although I loath the concept).

Someone programs a being with a whole set of memories of experiences. In essence becoming the person who had the memories while actually not being that person.

Darla can't remember being the pre vamped human because she never was the Pre vamped human. Nor was she the Vamped Darla but by having all her memories she is practically like the real thing.

Darla might think she is 400 years old. And she does have 400 years worth of memories but in reality she is only a few months old.

Hollow Moriarty was able to break past the template that was set for him. Can Darla?

"I have read what everyone said on the subject. I am going to have to agree that they made the story to neat and tidy. Druscilla was not into Angel enough and he into her. I am taken back to their conversation in the schoolyard in "lie to me" or even his torture in "What's my line". There is no hint of the depth of their relationship. A big complaint. Spike's relationship with Angel was weird. Druscilla just submitted to Darla's whim. Angel challenging the Master was laughable. The Master most certainly would have killed Angelus for his arrogance.

I have to say I think the Buffy episode was better than the Angel episode. The way it was shot especially with Spike on the Subway being in the past but talking to Buffy. That was great.

"What an amazing two hours!! Joss and company pulled out all the stops last night. I loved how certain scenes in BtVS were the setup for the explanation in Angel.

Spike's transformation from Bad Poetry Guy to Vampire with a 'Tude could have used a little more explanation. But I've gotten used to not all things being explained in the Buffyverse - some things you just have to take on faith for a while.

Spike may be right about Buffy having a death wish - whether she is conscious of it or not. Her behavior with the Bushy Haired Vampire at the beginning of the episode is an example. He was a match for her physically. But instead of getting down to business and dusting him Buffy chose to taunt him. Although this tactic has worked in the past (usually against weaker/smaller/less intimidating vampires) it nearly got her killed last night. Afterwards Buffy kept harping that she was in the best shape she's been in. But her attitude hasn't changed - she still sees slaying as her "day job " not who she really is.

As for Darla not remembering her human name. After 400 years of someone calling me something that was not my original name I might forget what it had been too! :-) Since Darla clearly wants to be a vampire again maybe she really doesn't *want* to remember. Besides she isn't really originalhumanDarla. She has the memories of vampireDarla. I would imagine that her original life was pretty abusive. A prostitute in the 1500s or 1600s was probably only slightly above someone who cleaned out horse stalls or latrines - even if she had done well herself ("a woman of some property" and she was clearly in some sort of home or convent or possibly hospice not just left to die in the streets).

I thought the emotional roller coaster on BtVS last night was great. From Spike taunting Buffy to being devistated by her to wanting to kill her to comforting her. From Buffy grudgiingly wanting Spike's knowledge to beating him up to rejecting him to accepting his comfort. Whether they end up as a couple is beside the point. The journey is the good part (at least for the audience)."
"Hmmm...Slayer#1 was an incredible fighter probably better skills than most slayers (including Buffy). Yeah she was "all business" but she still was dancing like Spike called it. She had the opportunity to decapitate Spike but she was revelling in the combat. Spike was an inch from being staked but an explosion knocked the slayer down. Meanwhile slayer#2 had that brutal creative fighting style. Spike might not have won if she wasn't asking for a brawling fight. All the slayers in the episode were enjoying the battle which seemed to be the Slayer's nature according to the first Slayer (and everyone else). The message of the death wish is that they were completely absorbed into slaying and making war with Death-in-carnate. Buffy was almost to that point what with her hunting vamps out of bloodlust. She got staked out of luck by a lesser-skilled punker vampire after a using a risky showy staking maneuver(i mean regular Riley staked him later)."
"Well I was impressed by last nights event. It sure answered some continuity questions. I was a bit disappointed by a few things that others have picked up on as well:

1. I wanted to see the "Yoda - Luke" relationship between Angelus and Spike. I think we only got a glimpse of why they eventually split up but perhaps there was a time when Angelus was showing Spike the ropes. I hope we get to see this in the future.

2. I did not really get the sense that the Master was impressed with Angelus. He didn't even bother to kill him for his impudence!

3. I was a bit disappointed that we have not seen more of Angelus's relationship with Dru after her turning or after Spike's turning. The jealousies and mutual antagonisms between Angelus Darla Spike and Dru would make for great television. Maybe we'll see more in the future.

Aside from these critiques I was astounded to see Spike before being turned. His shyness uncertainty and genteel nature reminded me of Wesley in a big way. In fact just as Spike became a kind of rebel/tough guy Wesley also tried to take on a tough guy/anti-hero persona during his Rogue Demon Hunter days. It is almost as if Joss is purposely setting up these too as reflections of each other.

I was astounded by Spike's show of compassion at the end of Buffy. However it was foreshadowed numberous times when Spike kept coming to the rescue of the Slayer or the Scoobie's. In fact I think this really started in Where The Wild Things Are last season when Spike almost charged into the haunted house to rescue Buffy. At that moment I realized that Spike's assistance was becoming gratuituous and not just mercenary.

Also I too really felt sorry for Spike when Buffy told him that he was beneath her. I appreciate that she won't kill him because he can't fight back but does she have to be spiteful and mean? Perfect compassion should make no distinctions between friends and foes. Strangely enough I would think she would be justified in staking him even if he is helpless because as we saw a couple episodes back he has not reformed is still a danger and could possibly dechip himself somehow. On the other hand I think that she is not justified in treating him in the cruel and sadistic manner (both physically and emotionally) that she has. Even if he enjoys it in a perverse way and definately deserves it I do not think it is right that she bullies him and takes out her frustrations on him.
Even if he...definately deserves it I do not
think it is right that she bullies him and takes out her frustrations on him.

deserves but not right? eh? Well Spike's story elicts a lot of compassion but he is still an unrepenitant murder who revels in other people's pain and death. She can't know about the gallant/twisted ways he has been acting around her or the ways he was tortured as a mortal. The only things she knows is that he STILL is a murdering creature that reminisces on killing or torturing on Humans.

Let me see he is a vampire isn't he?
I think he has changed alot for a murderous demon without being able to feel guilt or by heavens have a SOUL!
again I agree however It took angel what a hundred years and a lot of pressure to change. And that is with a soul and a lot to feel guilty for. Spike considerably younger than Angel yet just as bad has NO SOUL! I believe it will take him a few years to do a complete 180 from the way he acts now(which has been his way for 100+ years)If at all. I think he is changing and will continue to change if Buffy will be nicer to him if everyone would just treat him more as a friend and less as the neutered puppy no one likes. If she would give him a chance I think he would change alot.
I agree with Kellen. Angel took a long time to turn *good*. But as we heard in the Angel after last night's BtVS he did it alone. Just saving souls alone. BUT Spike might be able to change in a way if he had help. I think that Spike craves some type of companionship of some kind ever since Dru left. He even tried with Harmony. But Harmony sucks at everything so he can't find much there. Spike said something along the lines of 'I'm love's bitch but at least I'm man enough to admit it'. Maybe he is pulled by his heart from his past personality. Even James Marsters himself has said on how Spike does have a romantic side. I mean Angel even with a soul is a vampire and he fell in love with Buffy. Why can't Spike?
I mean Angel even with a soul is a vampire and he fell in love with Buffy. Why can't Spike?

Because Spike has no soul.

He can lust after Buffy but he is a vampire. A demon. An evil creature of the night.

When you look at Spike you are not looking at a human.

The human William that Dru met in that dark corner of London is dead. He has been dead for over a hundred years. And he is still dead.

I know how easy it is to view Spike as a human. He looks human. He talks human. He even act in ways sometimes that seem human. But he is not human. He is a vampire.

Angel might be a vampire but he has a human soul. And yes that makes all the difference.

If she would give him a chance I think he (spike) would change alot.

Vampires can't become good.

Angel of course being the exception as the result of the human soul within him.

Spike is a Vampire. Therefore he will never be good.

I really believe Josh messed up here. I try to give the guy a lot of leeway as he has never dispointed us before but this time there is no getting around the fact that the writers messed up.

A souless vampire showing compassion. Can't happen. Vampires are wholely evil creatures despite the amusing human character traits they may have. I like Spike as a character but Buffy should have slayed him long ago.

Slayer meets vampire -> Slayer slays vampire. Somethings are really that simple.
"I disagree with you Max on the idea that "soulless" vamps can't show compassion. Obviously they can since Spike did to Buffy and I don't think that's a slip-up on the writers' part. Vamps appear capable of all sorts of positive human emotions such as love and loyalty. However that doesn't make them good people or capable of becoming good people. Whatever positive traits they have will always be tainted by their predatory and sadistic evil. Spike may be kind to Buffy because he's falling for her (and may help her friends out of love for her) but he'd still murder anyone else without remorse. Spike will never be a good person no matter how much we may want him to be. So I don't think the writers messed up in allowing the vamps to have nice emotions in addition to their evil ones they just made the issues even more difficult for Buffy and upped the agnst exponentially.

I agree with you in that even though I love Spike as a character he's a great villain he's funny and James Marsters is one hot little piece of melba toast Buffy should still stake Spike and do it NOW. Seeing him kill two Slayers and talk about it nostalgically just made me want him dead even more. And I was glad when Buffy slammed him with "You're beneath me". "
I agree Buffy was definately wrong when she said he was beneath her however as you can see he loves her. And I think she will eventually realize that they were made to be together. Not only that but I believe he has always loved her he just wouldn't admit it. I think the second Riley leaves joins the Navy or whatever Buffy will be left yet again without a man. She will feel vulnerable and she probably will give Spike the chance I think he has earned this season.
"They were made to be together wrong that's so wrong.

"Vulnerable and she probably will give Spike the chance I think he has earned this season" will never happen.

I enjoy the tension and sexual innuendo but let's be realistic they can't do it!!!!

Maybe (let's fantasize) Buffy will have a crisis Faith type crisis and will turn bad? One thing I don't want to see is a "good" Spike.

I love Spike great complicated character so to explore and play with so much in him!!! And who would expect to see him as a shy poet!!!

Anyway back to the subject BUFFY/SPIKE - IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN (maybe a small fling yummm)
I was astounded by Spike's show of compassion at the end of Buffy.

I believe that Josh has just violated a supreme rule of the buffiverse (there aren't that many to violate but this is a serious one).

Vampires (and that is what Spike is) can't show compassion. It isn't in them to do so. They are pure demonic evil. The only reason Angel is the way he is results from the fact that he has been 'cursed' with a human soul.

Spike (as much as I like his character) has no soul. So what happened in last night's episode couldn't have happened.

Sorry Josh I don't mind a kid sister appearing out of nowhere as the buffyverse is flexible enough to handle most things (and I do think the kid sister thing was handled masterfully - I like Dawn) but a vampire (one without a soul) showing compassion. Can't happen. Not in the universe you have set up Josh.

Sorry I find the whole Spike showing compassion thing lacking credibility. Spike is a vampire. It just can't happen.
Just wanted to say that it's Joss not Josh.
"1. "Yoda-Luke"
Spike completely reinvented himself after turning -- right down to the accent. While Angelus and Darla were openly contemptuous of William Spike must have admired the two confident older vampires. He watched and mimicked Angelus even to the point of wanting Dru. For Spike there was a Yoda relationship -- Angelus was just unaware of it.

2. "Why didn't the Master kill Angelus?"
I had problems with this as well. I think it can party be explained by the Master not being in the same desperate situation as he was in Sunnydale -- where every moment of incompetance jeapordized his freedom. Allowing Angelus and Darla to depart caused him no inconvenience and proved to be the right choice -- as Darla eventually returned to him more devoted than ever.

3. Angel & Dru
I liked the fact that Angelus had lost interest in Dru after her turning. She was merely a plaything he had wearied of. This did not stop him from stealing Dru away from a wheelchair-bound Spike -- but he did this not out of passion for Dru but out of spite.

4. The Compassion Thing
Actually I think Spike's compassion for Buffy goes back to Becoming 2 when he looks at Buffy and Angelus locked in mortal combat with Angelus winning and mutters "He's going to kill that girl..."

Is this behavior out of character for a soulless vampire? Maybe... Looking back at Somnambulist we see that Vampire Penn is still obsessed by the same thing that troubled him during his life -- his father. Thus he kills his "father" over and over in gruesome manners. Spike was obsessed with an unattainable woman -- he desperately wished to show the world he was not "beneath her." He has continued this obsession with Buffy. (Btw we just how far beneath her he is when she tosses the money at him and instead of indignantly refusing it out of wounded pride he scrabbles on the ground to collect every dollar.) Was Buffy wrong to reject him so emphatically? Spike had been regaling her with the deaths of the slayers -- he clearly "got off" on the stories. For Buffy to have done other than reject him as forcibly as possible would have been too perverse. And I believe part of his "compassion" is really self-pity. He sees a kinship between himself and the slayer (even if one really does not exist) and comforting Buffy is really just a way of making himself feel better.

As a side note -- why has no one commented on the origin of Spike's duster? -- A trophy of a slain slayer..."
"This episode confustion aside was the best I've seen. The way we acually saw William not Spike. The depths of Spike not just his tough bad-ass appearance. Yes Spike is bad. Yes Spike is ruthless. But he can be very human at times. When a human becomes a vampire the same characteristics are there but the soul isn't. That explains Spike's change from Horrible-sensitive-poet to Slayer-thirsty-bad-ass. The soul William left. So he changed. No more pity no more compassion. Or so we thought..
Spike clearly showed he could feel pity compassion or even grief. When Buffy rejected him he was heartbroken and cried. It even tore my emotions apart when he tried to grab his money to not look like a fool even to himself. But like he was like before (Remember? In the flash-back he runs out of the house bumping into someone who we later find out was Angel very upset)after he's put down his anger bubbles up. He gave a nasty look and seeked revendge with grabbing a rifle and going after Buffy. So as he approached her finally getting the chance to kill her he sees her face and his evil grin disappears. Why? Compassion. He sees her so broken down so sad. He's acually concerned. So he can feel. It tugged at my heart at how silent he was. He wasn't cracking jokes like he was when Riley was in danger. He acually shut up. Even his akward body movements and things showed how much he cared. Then after he sit down next to her and patted her back she obviously seemed relieved somehow... when you're sad and someone comforts you you tend to hang your head when you cry. But as Spike patted her back her head raised. That in my opinon meant that she felt somewhat comforted. Then he just put his hands in his lap and sat there. Complete silence. Which to some degree is loyal. Even though he's a killer he still has his common sense. He didn't make her feel worse he didn't know what was wrong but he sensed her depression. Buffy doesn't cry often either. All and all this ep was the best. The "Billy Idol" look alike scene where he talked to Buffy in his flashbacks acually creeped me out. I loved it! I can't wait to see what happens next between Spike and Buffy now!!

"Again I must say that we saw last night after all we have learned about Vampires in the Buffyverse can't happen.

They really messed up here.

Spike is a demon. A vampire. He can't show compassion. He can't show concern. It just isn't in the make-up of a vampire.

I found the whole scene totally without credibility. It would have made more sense for Spike to go there and finding her totally broken decide not to kill her because it wasn't enough of a challenge. (His back wouldn't be up against a wall as he said to Angelus that is the way he likes to fight.)

What should have happened was that he goes up to kill her sees her crying and then turns away saying that she isn't worth him killing. "She is beneath me." That way would have left the door open to all this "Spike loves Buffy" talk while at the same time not in one scene totally destroying everything we know to be true about vampires."
Max-- At the risk of stating the obvious vampires are fictional creatures and Joss (not Josh by the way) can pretty much write them anyway he sees them.

This Buffy/Spike thing is hardly out of the blue there has been plenty of foreshadowing it is now only starting to make some sense.

Your idea of him walking away after saying to himself 'She's beneath me' is a good idea but it wouldn't be consistent with Buffy and Spike's past interactions.

If the Buffyverse can have a vampire with a soul it can have a vampire with compassion even if that compassion is for one certain person. If there is one single overriding theme throughout all of Joss's creation it is that redemption is possible even if one has previously performed great acts of evil.

It's late as I write this and I haven't had time to compose it yet but I want to do a post on what I again see as a messianic image for Buffy. We tend to view her as a warrior in the fight against evil but I think there is a future for her that goes beyond just the endless physical battles with demons and this incident with Spike is foreshadowing to that future.

Goodnight all be back later. (tired but still wowed...)
Joss has been very specific in his universe about Vampires. There are not human although they have the memory and even the personality traits of the person whose body they inhabit.

They have no compassion. No Mercy. They are evil demons who thrive on killing humans.

Joss did throw in Angel as the exception. But the only reason he is the way he is comes from the fact that part of him is human. Remember he is cursed with a human soul.

The writers threw out the last five years of Buffy with one scene. I have to agree with those who believe that the writers really messed up here.

When a vampire turns a human into a vampire the demon presence that is born into the body kills or banishes the human soul from the body. Human dies but the body becomes undead.

Within Angel there are two presences. The Demon and the human soul. But in Spike there is only the Demon.

There can be no redeption for Vampires. Only the human soul within Angel can be redemned. But as for Spike he has no soul - therefore no redemption is possible.

I can just see Buffy going around cemetaries holding a sign - Demons Repent. If she does do that I just hope the end of that sign is pointy.
Pardon me for taking a stand her but I am anti Vampire. If that seems intolerant - sorry.

The only reason for Buffy to keep Spike around is for the inteligence he can give her about the underworld. But the longer he stays around - the more chance for him to somehow free himself from the restrains of the chip and start killing people again.

And as much as I love Angel and think his show is great Buffy should have really slayed him when he turned to Angelus. We have no idea how many people died after Angel turned back into Angelus - but I am guessing quite a few (included Miss Calendar). And Buffy is responsible for each and every one of those deaths even more responsible than Angel. She had her chance to slay Angelus - but didn't. Gunn on the other hand did not hestitate to slay the beast his sister turned into.

As one person on this board said I believe paraphazing Faith - Slayer sees Vampire Slayer slays Vampire. Some things really are that simple.
"Again I think I wouldn't watch the show if it wasn't challenging. If we have a season start out with karaoke bar singing demons don't you think that's "humanizing" (aarugh...bad pun alert). Looks to me like Spike's smitten and romantically...he was sniffing her sweater in her room. He only stole the underwear on his way out. And he's definitely challenging Riley for Buffy."
"In the Buffyverse there are good demons and bad demons and half breed demons (Doyle) so the idea of a vampire with the ability to have compassion doesn't seem out of context.

Spike has been a "different" kind of vampire from the beginning. He seems to be the only vampire other than Angel (who has a human soul) to doubt himself and to reflect on his role in the world.

Another support for Spike being an unusual vampire is his keen insights into human nature.
Most of his pronouncements and insights about people have been completely accurate. "
"A compassionate Spike (or other vampire) is not completely out of character in the Buffyverse.

If I remember correctly beginning with "Doppelgangland" we learned that a vampire's basic personality is determined by the human they were before they were sired. Which is how we got Dalton the bookish vampire that was burned by the Judge. Dalton was not some big evil creature of the night despite being a vampire - he was a snivelling whining toady.

Therefore it is not such a stretch to think that Spike could show some compassion. As a human we saw he had "the soul of a poet." As a vampire he no longer has a soul but he still has the poet part. After William was sired (and eventually became Spike) he decided to re-invent himself become the Big Bad. He was running around with at least two of the most notoriously evil vampires in history. He wanted to show them he could keep up with them especially Angelus. Maybe it was to attract Drusilla. More likely it was to bolster Spike's own fragile ego. Before Liam/Angelus was sired he wasn't necessarily evil just a rebellious drunken wastrel. Darla taught him to be cruel and sadistic. I seem to remember Darla saying something about Angelus out-doing even her.

With the heart of a poet Spike would have (or believe that he had) more insight into the "human condition" - witness his speech to Buffy and Angel in "Lovers Walk." And just his general way with words: "I don't fancy spending the next month trying to get librarian out of the carpeting." and his voice-overs (talking about "Nancy-boy hair gel") from the roof of a building when he goes to L.A. to get the ring from Angel.

Another example is his passion for Drusilla. This is more than just the affection that a childe would have for their sire. Even Darla didn't have all the pet names for Angelus that Spike had for Dru.

True as a soulless vampire being compassionate - especially towards the Slayer - seems out of character. But I think it is very much in the character of Spike. And this ambiguity this cross purposes - the Big Bad with the leanings of a poet - is what makes Spike the great character that he is."
I agree. So what if Spike is a vampire? You're missing my point. Why can't demons love too? Yes he isn't human. He's a demon with a human body. But an example of Vampires loving are Spike and Drusilla. He was completely hers and would do anything she wished. Another is in the flashback scene last ep where Dru was found with the demon with really big slime antlers (donno the name). Even the weird demon was looking for love. So even though demons are demons they still can feel. If they couldn't they'd be robots. And as we're seen many times before they aren't. They turn on each other get angry and so on. So that shows that isn't very strange of Spike to act as he did.

Also Malandanza commented about how Spike took the black duster off the Slayer he killed. I think he was proud of his second Slayer kill and wanted to keep something to remind himself of his kill. I mean if you were a vampire that just killed your second Slayer wouldn't you want to grab something to brag about? So she had that long duster and he took it. I think it was clever of the writers to think of this and acually add a past to his duster today.

And a little hint of reality: Yes I love the show to death but it's a show. Joss tries his hardest to put things together smoothly but we have to remember that he's only human. Plus common sense James Marsters has a contract that he has to shoot until Season 7 which is the last season. So that says he's gonna stay. There's not going to be any Spike-killing very soon.
I keep telling myself: It's just a TV show it's just a TV show.

But we do get very wrapped up in these characters. Just means it's a *good* TV show!

Spike wears his black duster as a trophy from the killing of his second Slayer. He also wears a trophy from the killing of his first Slayer. Unlike the duster which he had to take from the second Slayer this trophy was given to him by the first Slayer the scar on his left brow.
"Since vampires have pretty good healing powers I'd say he kept the first "trophy" on purpose as well..."
Plus James acually has the scar from getting mugged in London.
"Obviously they had to explain that scar *somehow* !! - just like how Harrison Ford's chin scar was explained in "Working Girl.""
Thank you purplegrrl... nicely reasoned. Another example of ambiguity towards demons/vampires in the Buffyverse would be the bar that Willy the snitch runs or the Karaoke bar in Angel. If the attitude towards d&v's is supposed to be that they are always and unremittingly evil why do the writers create these establishments?

Mindy-- I can't really disagree with your logic here but logic can't always win out or the show would be a lot less interesting.
"If Joss wanted to make evil mean vampires then why'd he create Angel? I think even Joss likes to make a vampire with feelings with or without a soul. Whether or not the vampire has a soul each is different. Each can love or hate. Live and die. Personality upon traits and then there's the whole thing of the personality and skills of the human before. Vampires can grow (not physcially) and change. As Spike got more and more near-death thirsty he changed more and more tough. He changed his accent to fit his idea of himself and even took the black duster as a trophy. He changed and got a bad-ass attitude from a romantic poetic one. He worked so hard to form this huge "BAD ASS HERE" title above his head and got it. In the last ep. we saw he brought all his barriers and lies down just to comfort Buffy. The Spike most people know would have laughed in her face cracked rude remarks about her and shot her in her moment of sadness and heartbreak. But did he? No. He sat down next to her and patted her back. If you're still going "No! Spike is a vampire! He can't feel good emotions! He's bad bad!" then I suggest you watch a recording of that episode because it's right there infront of your face. "
is evil a given with humans or vampires. When one is turned they are shown how to behave as a vampire by other vampires. After a period of time why can't the compassionate side of the original person re-assert himself. The things Spike has done have shown how he has evolved even without a soul. He didn't want the world to be destroyed by Angelus. He has helped mortals to that end. He may have also come at some level to realize how pointless killing was in respect to who he is. He can't stop but has shown that he can choose who to kill or not to kill. I feel because he was a good man as a mortal he may be the first soulless person to redeem himself because he may choose to continue to do the right thing. Loving Buffy he could find his humanity and help her retain hers.
"I agree...the 2 hour had William saying he may not be a good poet but ..."I'm a good man"...not accidental wording there in the jossuniverse."
The Billy Idol look-alike scene where he talked to Buffy in his flashbacks actually creeped me out

Me too -- I got goose-bumps :)

I thought the most effective scene was during the Boxer Rebellion when the Vampires are stalking away from a burning city in Angel's wake. This episode is the first time I have been able to imagine Angelus as the vicious killer the watchers claim he was. It was also interesting to see the scenes flipped around in Angel.

I agree. The little strut they did the fire blazing behind them? The slow-motion with Angelus's furious glare Darla's unsure look watching Angelus Spike's swagger and jump from the barrel or whatever and Dru's proud look as she watches Spike. lol Then Spike's carrying her and kissing her as Angelus leads the pack. I loved it! And the satisfied bad-ass look on Spike's face as they walked though chaos. Loved it!
I agree that was a very intense scene but it was also very disturbing to me. Before we mostly heard what a terrible creature Angelus was but now to see that scene it brought on all these feelings that he was a cold blooded murderer.
At the school where Joss went to in England the story is that Giles was based on the school librarian (which looks pretty plausibal) does anyone know who other charactres are based on?
"Buffy herself was modeled after the stereotype of the typical superficial "valley girl" one sees at any mall in the Southern California area or in America in general for that matter.

Of course she has developed greatly from that but that was the original template.

Gag me with a spoon (do they still say that?) For sure.

And Riley he is modeled after the stereotype of the All American Wholesome farm boy from small town Middle America.

Many of these characters are stereotypes but what makes the show so great is that although they begin that way they develop into more complex and interesting characters breaking away from the orginal stereotype."
... was originally modeled on Whedon himself.

Though as the show progressed Xander's character headed off in a different direction becoming less Whedon-like.
When a character if first introduced it's like meeting them in real life for the first time and Joss presents a first impression of that character. If too much was explained before you met the character you would have a totally developed (right or wrong) impression. I love the way the characters change and grow just like real people. Giles has probably changed the least. Any thoughts?
"It was my impression (I think I read or heard an interview with Joss) that Buffy was to be the antithesis of all the dumb blondes who get bumped off at the beginning of the second act of slasher movies - a smart sassy blonde who kicks bad guy butt. Which of course makes SMG's appearance in "Scream 2" the bigger inside-joke."
Giles has changed quite a bit. He's much more easygoing and treats Buffy and the Scoobies as equals. Of course given his age versus the gang's ages it is in character to have him change less than B W and X. They don't call them formative years for nothing!
Hey just for fun consider how many heavy blows to the head Giles has taken over five seasons. Not for nothing but by all accounts Giles should be talking like Joe Frazier by now.
And he should have that dazed Troy Aikman look too.
"From her actions in recent episodes I think that Darla would like Angel to re-vamp her. She obviously enjoyed their relationship the first time around and would like to return to it - even though the roles of sire and childe would be reversed. The re-vamping of Darla may even be what Wolfram & Hart are aiming for as part of Angel's "fall from grace." They are definately using psychological warfare here - they have learned that a full-frontal obvious attack does not work (or at least does not work well). Whether the act of re-vamping Darla would actually mean Angel was sliding towards the dark side or not (from the viewpoint of the Powers That Be) Angel would certainly see it as a step in the wrong direction."
I think if Wolfram & Hart wanted Darla re-vamped they could have paid some vamp to bite her when she was still in a weakened state. I can't believe that they would think that Angel would do it. Although she did convince them that having sex with her would make him re-vamp and loose his soul. I think we're all getting the message that sex without love just doesn't lead to perfect happiness. I'm anxious to see what Wolfram & Hart do with Darla now she seems pretty much useless to them.
I don't think it is so much that Wolfram & Hart *want* Darla re-vamped. They probably don't care one way or the other. They want Angel taken down and will go to whatever lengths to that end. So if Angel can be seduced into re-vamping Darla then that will be the beginning of Angel's downfall. However I don't think they have taken Angel's strength of character into account. I don't think Angel will re-vamp Darla but I think he will be sorely tempted. (He already came very close to biting her.) And not because he wants Darla as a vampire (the big NO to that!) but because he fights the demon that makes him a vampire all the time and Darla has basically offered herself to him on a silver platter. This is not like when Buffy forced him to feed on her.
{an Yorick}
Darla won't like being human. If Angel is correct that eventually she'll feel pangs of conscience then she like being human even less. It'd be a good thing for contrast with Faith and her struggle with conscience to show someone failing -- Lindsey wasn't really enough in this regard.

Angel will be tempted to vamp her but I doubt he actually will.

Darla has too much pride to allow just any vampire to sire her. She might let Drusilla or Spike do it though - eh?


Spike and Darla what a great idea. If Darla can't get Angel what better revenge than go to Sunnydale and team up with spike and kill Buffy. Would Angel come back to sunnydale to rescue Buffy? Would Spike want to bite Darla because he knows the Darla-Angel relationship and he may do it just for revenge on Angel. It sure would be interesting to see if Spike would take Buffy's side against Darla.


Well it isn't exactly a spoiler but anyway in the most recent episode Angel tells the fake a swami that they didn't bring the human Darla back. (It's complicated).

I believe they brought the Darla Vampire back in human form. Not the Human Darla. Of course Angel hasn't ever known the human Darla just the vamp.

If Darla doesn't have the human Darla's soul in the same way that Angel has Liam's soul then I think that Angel may be wrong about the Demon being bothered by her concience. Although perhaps since the Demon has now become humam perhaps he thinks that would include a human concience.

If that is the case then Darla should feel guilty for what she has done. Angel on the other hand shouldn't be blamed for what the demon within him has done.
I believe Darla is in a much more peculiar position than has been noted. Apart from W & H's ambitions (which can still work btw since no one is better qualified to manipulate Angel than Darla) she is not what she wants to be.

Darla *thinks* of herself as a vampire. But she no longer has demonic powers or instincts. As time goes by she'll feel herself increasingly part of the human world. She has no choice because her body now does everything human bodies do--age breathe need food etc.

And I suspect she'll start to make human emotional connections as well (i.e. Lindsay!!!)

But--if she *does* have a soul then she *loses* it and becomes someone else if she's revamped!
"I like the way the writers are going about this relationship. It's never been the main focal point of an episode rather a smaller side story.

With the exception of Buffy's initial reaction and Xander's perverted fantasies they don't appear to be making a major deal out of it (in last year's season finale they never showed Tara and Willow kiss on the ice cream truck you could only hear smooching).

In last year's season finale Xander cracked a veiled joke about how Willow and Tara practiced spells together and how he sometimes thinks about it and then practices a spell by hisself. But other than that they don't seem to make to many jokes about it (like the writers of Ellen did).

They never seem to discuss whether or not homosexuallity is right or wrong. Instead they just seem to say "Like it or not Willow and Tara are a couple and that's that!"

It has been done with class and taste (with the exception of Xander's masterbation reference) and they didn't make a huge deal out of it."
And the Xander's masturbation reference was part of Willow's dream so the Xander can't be held responsible for it.
So that probably stems from Willow's unrequited love for Xander.

But Willow and Tara and Xander!?! And Willow thought her doppelganger/vampWillow was a little skanky. ;-) Maybe Willow likes it both ways.
">I like the way the writers are going about this
>relationship. It's never been the main focal
>point of an episode rather a smaller side

Agreed It's done in a good way: not afraid to show it nor overdoing it.

>With the exception of Buffy's initial reaction

What's wrong with her initial reaction? If my friend told him he was bi (she's bi-sexual right?) I'd be suprised and maybe even shocked even if it's only because of the fact it had never crossed my mind nor notice it.

>and Xander's perverted fantasies they don't
>appear to be making a major deal out of it (in
>last year's season finale they never showed
>Tara and Willow kiss on the ice cream truck
>you could only hear smooching).

The mind of men contains relatively more sex than woman (at least that's what all the psych's are saying). So I'd say it's realistic.

>In last year's season finale Xander cracked a
>veiled joke about how Willow and Tara practiced
>spells together and how he sometimes thinks
>about it and then practices a spell by hisself.

See above.

>But other than that they don't seem to make to
>many jokes about it (like the writers of Ellen

It would be weird if they wouldn't make jokes about it because they make fun of all whether it's a touchy subject or not. It's one of the things that makes the series so good.

>They never seem to discuss whether or not
>homosexuallity is right or wrong. Instead they
>just seem to say "Like it or not Willow and
>Tara are a couple and that's that!"

Wow! You are actually asking a question like that? What on earth could be wrong with homosexuality? Just because you and me fancy the other gender doesn't mean that "different is wrong"! It's so obvious nothing is wrong with it they aren't discussing it.

>It has been done with class and taste (with the
>exception of Xander's masterbation reference)
>and they didn't make a huge deal out of it.

Class and taste I agree.


"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."
- Verbal Kint The Usual Suspects"
">>They never seem to discuss whether or not
>>homosexuallity is right or wrong. Instead they
>>just seem to say "Like it or not Willow and
>>Tara are a couple and that's that!"

>Wow! You are actually asking a question like
>that? What on earth could be wrong
>with homosexuality? Just because
>you and me fancy the other gender doesn't mean >that "different is wrong"! It's so obvious
>nothing is wrong with it they
>aren't discussing it.

I can't say you've really thought that out too well. [Important note first: I'm not anti-gay or homophobic or anything else I just don't like the way you're approaching it.] Firstly for most hard-core Christians (and other religions I believe) there is no doubt that homosexuality is wrong (it says so in the Bible; along with a bunch of other stupid stuff yes but it still says it). That's a point of discussion for people whose lives depend on the holiness of the cross. Secondly some people would say that homosexuality is a violation of the evolutionary breeding imperative. Another point to discuss.

Now I'm not saying that homosexuality is wrong. I think any logical person who examines it should conclude that. I also don't think that there was anything wrong in how the Scoobies have dealt with Willow and Tara. Plain acceptance of a friend's decision is very in character. All I'm saying is that just because you believe something doesn't mean that there can be no argument possible.

A final note on your logic of "we must accept everything which is different." I sure hope you apply this selectively. Sexism is different from your norm probably. Cannibalism is different. And so on. Some things are just different some are bad some are both. Judge everything but do it by logic."
"Saw this at the Bronze just thought I'd share:

willow's gimp says:
(Fri Nov 10 17:37:51 2000
Ryder McCourt
Oh my god that really does suck! I'm glad that my parents are pretty open-minded.
I'm really sorry that I can't help you with the episode guide side of things but I was sent
this email the other week which you might find useful/interesting:

An American radio 'personality' recently tried to justify her bigotry against gays by
quoting the Bible - to be precise Leviticus 18:22 which states that homosexuality is an
"abomination". This reply has been posted onto the internetÖÖ

"When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice I know it creates a pleasing odour for the
Lord (Lev.19). The problem is that my neighbours complain that the odour is not
pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day
and age what do you think would be a fair price for her?

Lev.25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves both male and female provided they
are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine says this applies to Mexicans
but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states
that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I
admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20 or is there some
wiggle room here?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same
field as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread
(cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we
go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16).
Couldn't we just burn them at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep
with our in-laws?

Thank you again for reminding us that God's world is eternal and unchanging..."

As for homosexuality being contrary to evolutionary fitness as I state on one of my "Angel" episode pages (http://home.4w.com/pages/btvs/a21.html#203ma) the notion of fitness is completely relative to the environment you're in. In ancient Israel homosexuality was a a threat to a society surrounded by enemies bent on genocide of each other. You needed your people to add new pups to the population en masse.

In this day and age of 5 billion people choking planet Earth's resources it is more fit to have say 10% possibly more (but notice I didn't say 100% nor does anyone else who makes a pro-gay argument) of the population not procreating but expending their sexual urges elsewhere.

It really is beginning to take all the enjoyment out of it.

And all the sex (on all sides). First season there was none of that and those episodes were great.

I think all the sex (buffy and riley buffy and angel willow and Oz willow and tara ) just distracts from what made the show so fun to watch in the first place.

I'm no prude but I am no voyeur either.
The show certainly has some risque moments now like that scene where Buffy is telling Spike that she is coming and in the next scene Spike is doing the deed with Harmony who is climaxing. I must admit I find these scenes humorous. On the other hand I really don't find them gratuitous or prurient either. I say this because the scenes are simply portraying mature relationships and the typical thoughts and feelings that accompany them (like thinking of someone else during sex). The bedroom scenes have almost always been used to reveal something about the characters and to move the plot forward not simply to show steamy sex scenes. They haven't really been excessively graphic either.

If you want gratuitous graphic and prurient watch Entertainment Tonight. That's just embarrasing. For that matter check out the new Charlies Angels movie. According to Drew Barrymore's character in the move Charlie's Angels are a full service agency. Now that's prurient!
"Gee you aren't looking for any controversy are you M? (Not that there's anything wrong with that of course...) ;)

Your coment about overpopulation reminds me of an SF story I read back in my late teens. The basic plotline was that the world had become so severely overcrowded that the government was forced to come up with new and innovative (?) ways to combat the problem.

One of the funnier lines was one used to actively encourage the practice of homosexuality in the hopes of curbing the birth rate-- "It's *sapiens* to be *homo*!

Almost right up there with "This is your brain...etc. etc".

The arguments against homosexuality are not arguments I am making or would make. For starters I personally see nothing wrong with it. Secondly I find the arguments I mentioned flawed (indeed I pointed out the many dated things in the Bible in less detail than Masquerade yes but I did mention it). I was NOT making arguments against homosexuality merely raising the point that a great many people think that there are arguments. I don't like someone using their own opinion to prematurely say that there can be no argument whatsoever.
"Isn't that what liberals do though.

Immediately label the opposition "evil" and demonize them.

Liberals can't acknowledge that there are honorable people out there with opinions that may be different than their own. Part of it is their own arrogance and part of if is their fear of rational debate. After all liberalism is fueled on emotion not reason not principle.

In the end liberalism is fueled by hate. Although they claim to support 'diversity' see what they do to people who don't think exactly like them. Perhaps before they start criticizing the beliefs of others they should look in the mirror.

Another thing about liberals. They are rude. They always have to get their point across regardless of the social situation. It's all about how "they" feel whereas others might drop a discussion to avoid 'friction'. You can expect no courteous change of subject from them - no it's always IN YOUR FACE whether it's a work setting or a social setting. They have a chip so big on their shoulder and they go around daring people to knock it off.

It is sad to see yet another aspect of American culture politized. Come on. Give it a rest already."
"Isn't that what liberals do though. Immediately label the opposition evil" and demonize them."

You mean _all_ those dirty liberals make hasty generalizations about people who disagree with them?

Sigh . . ."
Detouring to another tv show - West Wing - in this show the President (played by Martin Sheen) confronted a Dr. Lauraesque type radio personality who was visiting the White House for a party.

If you ever get to catch the rerun it is a great scene and pretty much blows away those who try to hide behind the bible.
">What's wrong with her initial reaction? If my >friend told him he was bi (she's bi-sexual >right?) I'd be suprised and maybe even >shocked even if it's only because of the fact >it had never crossed my mind nor notice it.

I didn't say that anything was WRONG with her reaction just that it was one of the few reactions that were made. Along with Xander's doubletake when Buffy mentioned Tara was Willow's girlfriend when the three of them were argueing due to Spike's planted seeds of mistrust.

>The mind of men contains relatively more sex >than woman (at least that's what all the >psych's are saying). So I'd say it's realistic.

I agree. I won't deny that I too have had perverted fantasies about Willow and Tara. I can't help it I'm a guy. Plus I love redheads.

>>They never seem to discuss whether or not
>>homosexuallity is right or wrong. Instead they
>>just seem to say "Like it or not Willow and
>>Tara are a couple and that's that!"

>Wow! You are actually asking a question like >that? What on earth could be wrong with >homosexuality? Just because you and me fancy >the other gender doesn't mean that "different >is wrong"! It's so obvious nothing is wrong >with it they aren't discussing it.

There was no question involved. It was a statement. I don't believe there is anything wrong with homosexuality but there are many people in the world who do. The writers were wise enough to not even touch upon the right-or-wrong subject and create a debate amongst viewers. I've yet to see a character on the show say "I can't believe Willow likes women! That's soooo wrong!" or "I'm glad Willow had the strength and courage to come out of the closet. Good for her!" Instead they behave the same way as they normally do (which is how they should) and never cause that controversial debate.

Also I didn't mean to cause such a commotion. I realize this is a site dedicated to BtVS and Angel and not homosexuality arguements. Sorry for the tangent."
"I loved the sceen where Tara and Willow were in bed together. Nothing sexual but you could tell they really care about each other. I love how the whole Tara story is going. Hey Willow has botched plenty of spells! so for her to forgive Tara for her spell just seems right. Buffy should say "Never do that again!" to Tara but I loved the way they all stood up for a young girl in trouble. How many of us would stand up to someones dad just because he wants her to come home? Would they have stood by her if she was a demon????? Now that Tara has pissed off her family who pays her college tuition?"
"Would they have stood by her if she was a demon?????

They did stand by her AS a demon. Remember they were all sure that she was one until Spike hit her on the nose.

In Sunnydale if someone says they are a demon you usually take their word on it.

If by that question you mean would they stand by her if she had "her Demon face on" al la Doyle. Now that is a very interesting question. They seem pretty concerned with outward appearances. Willow dated a warewolf so I think she could deal but the others well Buffy I don't know after that short crack."
"I think Dawn would. They are good friends and I don't think she would be too freaked out by the change.

And it goes without saying that Willow would.

Then the others would be drawn along.

If the "demon" appearance was permanent and unlike Doyle she was unable to "pass" by changing appearance Tara would have had to leave school. They would have probably had to call Angel in to find her safe-haven like he did with the Lister demons.

This would have broke Willow's heart. First Oz now Tara.

But since she is fully human everything works out OK."
"If would have been interesting though to see if Tara would be able to contain her "evil side". She doesn't seem to have an evil bone in her and the personality change would have been quite disturbing to say the least.

But Josh has already done that with Angel and Faith and Oz. To go on the "internal struggle with your more evil and animalistic nature" path with Tara would be just be going over old ground.

By the way different subject but it looks with "doctor in training guy" in the wings Riley isn't going to be around too much longer. If they don't turn him into Vamp (al la Angelus - again been there done that) I hope they kill him off. The whole 'rejected lover' thing would be pathetic and as someone who likes the character I just feel he deserves a more heroic end than the - "I just can't keep up with you are becoming too strong" cry baby stuff we are seeing from him now.

By the way I am not too impressed with what I have seen from "doc" so far. I am still a Riley fan. I just hope they don't do with him what they have so often done with Zander.

By the way ZANDER IS BACK. Did you see how he rocked. How he stood up to farm boy. If you want Tara you have to go through me. Now we see the true Zander. The one Willow fell in love with. (and I loved his outfit at the birthday party)."
"Just to mention an option...

If Riley did become a vampire that doesn't follow he would be anything like Angellus. One possibility that comes to *me* (fanfic writers take note!) is to have his psyche nearly shattered by the change. He could swerve between a kind of childish naivete (a la Lenny in "Of Mice and Men") almost remembering who he was and rampant bestial fury."
Yeah Vamp Riley!!! Riley could go to LA an kick Angels #*%%!!!! Then it would be a fair fight and if Angel wins (and we know he will) then he would have to explain to Buffy why he staked Riley!!!! This would be great entertainment I would be glued to the TV.
"There are days that I think I am the only one who *likes* the character of Riley!!!

Vamping Riley isn't really the answer - unless they tie him up before someone sires him (the big question is who would do it?) and then Willow performs the spell to return his soul to him so they don't end up with evilvampRiley. The vamping of Riley would definately do nasty things to his psyche. And how would that interfere with the prophecy about the "vampire with a soul" if there were two of them?

Maybe Riley will rejoin Special Forces and go fight terrorists. Maybe he'll go back to Iowa. Or horror of horrors they could kill him off ala Doyle.

I really liked the seen in the last episode where Riley is in The Alibi having a drink and a woman puts the moves on him and he tells her he doesn't date vampires."
"I like Riley also. He's a good guy. But right now he isn't doing very much for the story of "Buffy." Myself I hope his character takes an interesting turn.

As to who could turn him--just about any vampire if they got the drop on him. Remember vampires are very strong. If more than one ganged up on him that would be *bad* news for Mama Riley's little boy.

Of course any really powerful vampire could do it--like Drusilla.

heh heh heh"
Just when you think you have Riley pegged he surprises you by staking the vamp that hurt Buffy and wiping out a whole nest of vampires without even breaking a sweat. Ah that initiative training!
would they give Riley his soul back?
"How did Spike's assault on Tara's nose prove that she is not a demon in any way shape or form? Spike is inhibited internally from attacking anything human not externally. The chip in his head does not have a demon sensor in it but places a mental block in his brain so that whatever Spike believes to be human he cannot hurt without being hurt himself. In other words Spike's headache proves nothing except that Spike does not believe Tara to be a demon.

Also what does Joss have against fathers? In this episode not only is Tara's father revealed to be a "controller of women " but a mention is made of Buffy's father having a fling in Spain with his secretary. I dare Joss to put a strong father (note: not "father-figure") in the show. A father who really cares for his children and does not abandon them or act like a total idiot. Just once would I like to see this on national television (if the WB can be considered national)."
" I think it has been noted before that fathers are often portrayed negatively on the show. Actually though I don't ever remember hearing anything negative about Buffy's father until this episode. Buffy even spent a whole summer with him at one point.

You know though mothers on the show by and large aren't the greatest either. Joyce Summers is a bit of a gawd-help-us. (Joyce: "Have we met?" Spike: "You hit me with an axe once. You remember? 'Get away from my daughter'?")

Both Xander's mother and father -- and his mother's brother apparently -- are not ideal role models.

Amy's mother was evil but her father seemed to be portrayed as a good guy even though we never actually saw him and he hasn't really made an appearance to find out what happened to her.

We know Willow's mother is rather distant but we don't know anything about her father except that he would object to Willow's watching "A Charlie Brown Christmas."

But last night's show makes the point that the Scooby gang is more than just a bunch of friends. They consider themselves a family of which Giles is the father not just the father-figure."
" Some more ... Wesley's father belittled him. Faith's father was absent but her mother was alcoholic and neglected her. Angel's father was harsh and cold in an 18th century disciplinarian kind of way but abusive?

I can think of one father on the show who is shown to be caring and trying to protect his family ... it was the "Angel" episode about the little sociopathic boy who was also possessed by a demon."
"Agreed. But until the boy was shown to be possessed I thought that father seemed abusive at least verbally also. Yes he was frustrated and he was trying to protect his family but you would have thought that he would have latched on to help when it was offered. Or is that a "guy thing" to try and solve your problems yourself no matter how bad they are without any outside assistance?"
We're not talking just regular problems here. We're talking about a child with (1) serious emotional problems (2) who has committed reprehensible acts of violence and (3) is possessed by a supernatural creature. Whom would you trust to help you in that kind of a situation? Maybe a family member maybe a trusted professional. But some stranger in black? I don't think so. And anyway denial is a very common initial response to problems of great magnitude. It is to a great extent human nature.
"I bet Riley has a good father :)

As for Joyce it is only after Buffy ran away that she began behaving like a real mother. I remember her telling Buffy not to set foot in her house again if she walked out the door to save the world (with the ever-present glass of Scotch in her hand.) Buffy's response? -- "have another drink." Now that Buffy's all grown up Joyce wants to be mother of the year. I guess it's better than continued neglect."
"We don't know much about how Spike's chip works. It's never been made clear. But we do know one thing. Since the Initiative made the technology it doesn't work by magic. It has to work on purely physical and psychological principles.

My guess has always been that it ties into the various sensory-motor functions of the brain. Spike is out wandering around getting sight taste touch smell and sounds from his environment. He encounters another being. He is getting a multitude of sensory information from them. Humans have a very distinct profile of smells visual appearance etc from demons. Do you remember how Cordelia said Doyle "sometimes smelled funny"? Even those most human demon give off subtle cues that normally humans and vamps probably don't pick up on but they're there telling us the difference between species food and non-food danger and safety.

The Initiative were experts at these kinds of differences--they'd done extensive research on the pheremones demons let off on their own human soldiers etc.

So Spike's senses take in this information his brain processes it the chip collects it and if it's circuitry determines all the various criteria for "non-demon" it sends a signal to his motor functions not to make any violent moves or else zap! So he can't even pick flowers.

I think it's quite plausible if the above is true that Spike could be a "human detector" and prove Tara's non-demonhood."
Another thing to take into consideration as a human detector is Tara's spell. She thought it would only mask her alleged demon characteristics while leaving her human side completely visible but it didn't seem to work that way. If you consider Spike to be even partially human then that would mean that the spell made anything demonic invisible regardless of what measure of humanity it possessed. If that's the case then Tara would have been invisible if she even had a trace of demonic essence. Or at least translucent.

I suppose she could have had some dormant demon aspect that hasn't arisen but the fact that the family hadn't seen a demon before doesn't lend a lot of strength to that idea. Whatever happened to her mother must have happened when Tara was absent or too young to remember. I do hope they go further into that story.
Since Tara was introduced last season and she mentioned her Mom I too was interested more so from last nights ep but not holding my breath. Joss doesn't seem big on going back (not counting next week) for backstory.

Still would love to know the deal about Wesley and his father.
"Yes we only get backstory when it serves to further illuminate what is going on in the present. But it would be nice to get a few more details on Tara's mom. This is just my thought but somehow I think that she is no longer alive. Maybe she killed herself after "the demon in her was awakened." Or maybe she couldn't take the oppression from her husband and other male family members. Maybe that's why Tara seems so sad all the time.

Definately need some back story on Wesley. My guess is that he had a domineering father - similar to Angel. But instead of rebelling he worked extra hard to try and please his father (notice similar behavior towards Angel). I really liked last night's episode where Wesley is seen as sort of bumbling in the beginning but when he is forced to impersonate Angel he pulls it off and gets the girl too! (Go Wes!) It seems all that Wesley needs is to have someone believe in him as a person - and not just for his research abilities or shooting skills. Something that Angel should take note of!"
Totally agree with you purplegrrl!

Wesley and Angel do have that in common other than being demon hunters. The torture of being raised by domineering dads. (Joss at work again!) .

They both took different routes in dealing with this treatment.

Wesley a brilliant scholar who spends all his time questioning himself and sure that those around him are unimpressed or aren't pleased with what he's doing.

Angel became a drunk.

But I think Wesley can overcome this. With postive reinforcement from those around him and self-esteem which he'll hopefully get from Virginia We just may see a new Wesley on the rise!

As for Angel if he hadn't been turned into a vamp probably would have died in a few years from the drinking and the whores.
Hmm. It just occurred to me that Spike's chip and the spell only confirm Tara's status as a non-demon. That doesn't necessarily mean she's a human.
"Just a thought.

Perhaps the chip *does* have some kind of detection device sensing some residual signature (hormones? a curious pattern in the EM spectrum?) which reads "demon."

Myself I suspect it isn't even in Spike's head but near his spinal cord (about where Riley's chip was)."
"Ok you remember that Faith is also aware of "little sis" now its probably quite likely she'll be on Buffy again is there going to be anything between her and dawn as their is with the Buffster?"
"Would Buffy tell Faith about Dawn? I don't think so. If Faith did come back to town which I think is highly unlikely I think Faith is the last person Buffy would tell that Dawn is "the key". Unless Buffy needed help protecting Dawn from some great evil and only Faith had the stength to help her."
" I don't think it's clear that Faith is "aware" of Dawn. Faith had a possibly prescient dream which may be common for chosen ones in which she mentioned "little sis is coming " but I think it's probable that she doesn't really know what that was in reference to."
"Because she was in a coma isn't it possible that Faith said things that she had no knowledge of (her reference to "little sis " which we assume means Dawn)? In that neurological state perhaps she was open to some element of the universe (such as the Powers That Be) and they could speak through her - much like a spiritual medium or someone in a trance.

"The dream segment with Faith was BUFFY's dream. So it wasn't "Faith" speaking in it but Buffy's subconscious.

I don't know what Faith knows about Dawn if anything.

Nor do I know what Angel knows about Dawn. I would assume though that they were affected by the spell as well. I don't think the spell was limited geographically.

All they would "know" is that Dawn is Buffy's little sister.

I don't believe Jonathan's spell was geographically limited either. I believe the whole world was affected by it not only Sunnydale.

"I'm going to have to agree with Nan here. I think Faith has to know about Dawn without really knowing she didn't exist before. It seems likely that a blanket "memory wash" was done so that everyone that knows Buffy would be aware of "little sister."

At least that seems to make the most sense...so that they are all accepting and "protective" of Dawn."
Those three monks sure whipped up a powerful spell if it covers the whole world. Giles should research this ability to put a spell on the whole world especially after the Jonathan thing.
Is it possible Buffy feels for Spike? Enyone sensing weird energy coming not only from him?

"Spike is obsessed with Buffy but Buffy is disgusted by him ("I just saw you taste your own nose blood.") She barely notices him these days -- he's more of a mascot than a threat.

Angel excepted Buffy's choices in men are those she thinks can help her lead a "normal" life (she dumps Owen because he's too interested in danger; she was attracted to Scott Parker and Riley because they seemed like normal guys.)"
"Spike is obsessed with Buffy but Buffy is disgusted by him (I just saw you taste your own nose blood.") " - Yes cute she is aware of his every moveÖ

"She barely notices him these days -- he's more of a mascot than a threat." - Are you sure? Let me see her mother is sick she needs help and where she goes? Spike ("it's like she's spying on meÖ) more of a mascot you say? - did you forget about the chip?

"Angel excepted Buffy's choices in men are those she thinks can help her lead a "normal" life" - OK Angel was a biggest love of her life - agree? I think so and what is he? an EXEPTION

(she dumps Owen because he's too interested in danger; she was attracted to Scott Parker and Riley because they seemed like normal guys.)" Forget about Owen and Scott let's talk about Parker and RileyÖ What does Parker do? Screws her over (pardon my language) and she gets with Riley the normal guy. Is he normal? Hmm what about the Initiative meeting him on patrols before they became official is that normal? And what about the recent Rileys concerns - I would rather die than loose my "special power" I love you so much and you won't want me if I'm normal?

Conclusion: Buffy can't lead a normal life because she is a Slayer. Her friends mother are familiar and involved in her life. Would a normal guy understand her? Would he keep her satisfied? Buffy's life is slaying is that normal?
"She is aware of his every move. -- You attribute this watchfulness to love -- is it not possible that the Slayer watches Spike so carefully because he has tried to kill her and her friends on more than one occasion? Remember he has killed two slayers before and when he thought his chip had been removed he tried to kill Buffy not court her.

"...she needs help and where does she go? Spike." -- she used to go to Willy for help -- beating information out of him when she was at a dead end. Now she beats on Spike. Rather than assume that Buffy used to have a weird crush on Willy now replaced by Spike I think it more logical that Buffy chooses to beat Spike because she has moral qualms about treating a fellow human being so badly.

"Is [Riley] normal?" -- No but she thought he was normal when she first met him. It was not until "Hush" that she realized Riley was part of the Initiative. When she did become cognizant of his true identity she tried to escape from the relationship -- it was only Riley's determination and perserverence that enabled the romance to continue. each of these other men in her life have seemed normal. Furthermore at least outwardly all her boyfriends have been sensitive and understanding: Owen was poetry boy Angel had his philosophy and poetry Scott Hope fumbling and nervous around Buffy (shy) Parker took great pains to appear to be a very sensitive young man and Riley has a Psychology degree.

"Buffy can't lead a normal life because she's the slayer..." Okay Buffy will never have a normal life. Does this mean she should jump into bed with a psychopathic souless demon who can't figure out if he wants to kill her or have sex with her (or both and not necessarily in that order)? All evidence suggests that Buffy wants a normal guy -- not a superhero -- someone who can make her feel like a normal girl.

"Angel was the biggest love of her life" -- It seems I have angered the Buffy/Spike faction -- at the risk of angering the Angelphiles let me address by feeling about the "eternal love" of Angel and Buffy...

Remember that Buffy was 16 when she met Angel. Her duties as a slayer kept her from dating and the only boy in her immediate circle was Xander (almost from the beginning Buffy was aware that Willow had a crush on Xander.) It is natural enough that she should have "fallen in love" with the mysterious brooding Angel. Were they soul-mates? I have had trouble with a teen-age girl "knowing" that she had met her perfect match. I never felt that they were the perfect couple -- by any definition. Nevertheless I accepted that Buffy and Angel were soul-mates because it seemed to me that Joss & the writers wanted us to believe that they were meant for each other and put aside my skepticism. The 4th season however shook my "faith" once more -- when Faith awoke from her coma. Faith has had an uncanny ability to see through people to discover their darkest secrets and insecurities in a single glance. She berated Buffy for abandoning the great love of her life -- she was willing to murder Faith to save him but now is shacking up with the first college jock she came across. Is this eternal love? When Buffy is in LA she deliberately hurts Angel taunting him with her stable honest relationship with Riley. Again not the actions of faithful lover pining away from love. Angel's love for Buffy is pure but Buffy's love is that of a self-indulgent spoiled very pretty very young girl.

I'd say right on! to pretty much everything but the last sentence.

I do not think of Buffy as being self-indulgent or spoiled she strikes me as being pretty responsible for a YOUNG woman. I emphasize YOUNG because self-indulgence and a desire to spoil oneself are the hallmarks of most young people male or female.

In fact if one's life is difficult or demanding on an ongoing basis that tendency to be indulgent on one's own behalf is pretty likely to stay as at least a temporary escape from reality. ('We saved the world-- I say let's party!')

I'm willing to cut Buffy some slack on a lot of things but *in love with Spike??* GitOUTTAhere!! She might be impulsive but she ain't brain-dead!
"You are correct -- I was way too hard on Buffy. I made my spoiled etc. statement general when I had meant it to apply to a specific incidence -- her treatment of Angel in "Sanctuary". I think this was her worst moment (right ahead of the "mating dance" with Xander in "When She Was Bad".)

She is spoiled -- as an only child and a child of divorce this is to be expected. We see examples of her selfishness with her first roommate with Dawn and with her reaction to Faith when she first arrived in Sunnydale (concerned that Faith was moving in on MY boyfriend MY friends MY watcher and MY french fries -- Joyce's line that "It's probably best you were an only child" is one of her best lines.) Add to that Buffy is beautiful charismatic intelligent and surrounded by a throng of ardent admirers (her "groupies " as Spike said) and it is amazing that she is a humble and down-to-earth as she is. To paraphrase Douglas Adams It's one thing to think that you're the center of the universe (as she did before becoming the slayer) -- it's another thing entirely to have this confirmed by an ancient prophecy.

Buffy has been a good friend to Willow Xander and Giles -- better in fact than they have been to her. Cordelia and Oz have some room to complain though Buffy abandoned them after "Lover's Walk " siding with Willow and Xander when Cordy and Oz were the injured parties. Plus she's made veiled threats to Oz."
Your points are well made. I don't think it is much of a secret that people relate so well to the character of Buffy because she is all too human and exhibits the faults we all share to some degree or another (those of us who are generally non-delusional of course).

I believe I read in an interview with Joss that he intended from day one for Buffy to be imperfect because he always had trouble relating to the 'traditional' superheros who were inevitably and tiresomely infallible.
"Not to mention that Buffy learns something about herself in almost every ep and therefore matures and grows as a character. I do not however think that buffy has been a better friend to Will Xander and Giles than they have ever been to her. I feel betrayed by this statement. I think Willow Xander and Giles have stood by Buffy way past where she has stood by them. Buffy has really put them through all sorts of un immaginable horrors and still they don't tell her to get away from them and never speak to them again. I might have taken Cordilia's approach and just walked out on the whole bunch of them if every time they were around my life was flashing before my eyes. Giles didn't have to stay after the council fired him but he did. Xander is tired of being the "butt monkey" yet he won't leave. Willow has had all kinds of things happen to her and yet even for Tara she won't desert Buffy. I think Buffy is a losy friend some times but they stick together and taht's what true friendship is all about. "
"The friendship issue (actually I didn't think my comment that Buffy is a better friend than Xander Giles and Willow was contraversial so I hadn't given it much thought...)

Xander: Serious betrayal when Buffy was going off to slay Angel -- he should have told her that Willow was attempting to re-soul Angel. He also hated Angel from the beginning and never let Buffy forget it.

Giles: Betrays Buffy by drugging her (taking away her powers) and feeding her to a vampire. Also last season he spent much of his time in an alcoholic stupor when he should have been helping her -- he is the adult in the group.

Willow: I admit that I don't have much of a basis for thinking that Willow is a bad friend to Buffy -- I think my problem with Willow stems from her repeated mistreatment of Oz (from the very beginning of their relationship.) I can name a few minor instances with Buffy: after Buffy returns from running away from home (the most traumatic period of her life) Willow distaces herself from Buffy and ends up accusing Buffy of not being there for her (when she was going through changes -- with her boyfriend and her magic.) All three of them participate in the "intervention" when they discover Buffy has been hiding a returned Angel (did anyone expect her to turn Angel over to Giles and Xander for a summary execution?) Willow also pushed Buffy into the relationship with Parker -- without this impetus Buffy might have waited long enough to discover what Parker really was like. Individually these instances are trivial but I think they show a pattern of behavior for Willow.

As for putting her friends in danger each of them chooses to put himself in danger. Buffy has tried before to discourage them but (like Riley and Spike) they need their adrenaline fixes (remember their vigilance committee while Buffy was gone for the summer?)
Xander's lie in Becoming is a very debatable issue. Personally I feel it was the right decision because Buffy might have waited too long if she had know there was a chance that he would turn back. Xander saw that she was ready to kill Angel finally ready and with the whole world riding on her actions he couldn't afford to have her falter. Maybe choosing the world instead of Buffy made him a bad friend to her maybe not considering what would have happened if Buffy had lost that fight.

Xander made the only decision he could. Someone else might have chosen differently but for Xander it made the most sense.

Plus he has done a lot for Buffy. They all have. People say(have said) that they could turn their backs but they can't. That's not who they are they don't fight for a adrenaline rush they fight because they make a difference. Which can be a rush all on its own but that's really beside the point. They have at so many times thrown their everything into fighting evil and while they all have their faults they are still exceptional human beings who risk their lives for the greater good.

All of the Scooby gang are wonderful role models in regard to will brains and heart. They try to support each other and can be so selfless at times. Any of us are lucky if we have anyone like them in our lives.

Sorry I get a little passionate about these four. I love 'em so much.
Diana michelle we all love those guys and we love it when one of us gets passionate about speaking up for our guys.
Thanks I guess a lot of my passion comes from wishing I had that kind of friend.
I think even those who don't want Buffy and Spike to get together can still admit that the two characters have great chemistry together with a lot of underlying sexual tension. Don't know if anything will come of it but it sure will be fun to watch.
"Watching the rerun last night of the 1st Halloween episode I was surprised when Buffy's first words to Spike were "Hi Honey I'm home."
The words really echo a hint of a special relationship between them even back then.

But I still can't imagine them getting together as Buffy has stated "I'm over that bad boy thing."

However perhaps Buffy senses tht there is something redeemable in Spike. It may be that awareness that draws her to him."
"Just because Buffy SAID she's "over that bad boy thing " doesn't mean that she actually is. She may just be lying to herself or she may WANT to be over bod boys but deep down inside she can't help yearning for them. Maybe she's addicted to them."
" I think this thing between Spike and Buffy has been a long time coming. Just as the Xander-Cordelia thing was.

And like that previous relationship there's no possibility of there being a happy ending here either. Which is fortunate for us viewers because well Spike and Buffy living happily ever after -- that would be pretty dull. Spike and Buffy driving each other nuts -- now that's good television.

We know that Spike craves companionship and not just from anyone from someone frankly who scares -- and has the ability to beat -- the crap out of him. Look at his relationship with Drusilla whose psychic abilities made her more powerful than your run-of-the-mill vampire.

Love and hate. They might be the same emotion applied differently. The more you hate your enemy the more like him you become. Studies show that homophobic men are more likely than other men to be harbouring repressed homosexual desires.

And anyway Spike's hate has never been pure. He likes the world. He likes people. Sure he likes to kill them and eat them. But he isn't quite as sociopathic as Angelus Darla or Drusilla.

He was never quite as into the torture and pain for its own sake as they were. Sure he employed Marcus to torture Angel but that was in pursuit of another goal.

Spike's sensitive more sensitive than a lot of people are. Fantastic irony.

The irony is delicious. The Big Bad is helpless before the little girl he at first dismissed then scorned then hated. All his powers have deserted him -- his ability to commit physical violence his talent with verbal attacks his minions his lackeys his companions.

And you know there has to be a reason why Buffy hasn't killed him yet. Well before the Initiative got to him Buffy had had several chances to finish him off. In some cases she didn't even try (such as in "Halloween " which was rerun last night).

Of course we know that the real reason is that they couldn't just finish off a great character like Spike so quickly. He's half the fun in the show.

But this Buffy infatuation may spell his doom. If it doesn't lead to his demise though I can see him setting up shop as kind of an Angel Investigations of the Dark Side. He gets paid; he gets to fight and kill (okay so it's monsters and not innocents but you can't have everything)."
Well said! I couldn't agree more. I'd like to see Spike stay a regular on BTVS but not if he has to be like he currently is defanged and helpless. I'd like to see an uneasy truce struck with Buffy and the gang and I'd like to see him operate with the chip OUT. I know this would meansome sort of reform for Spike but not too much please-who wants a nice Spike? And if the writers can't find a way to do that believably then I'm with you in hoping they'll cross him over to Angel permanently and let him join their gang somehow. But I'd still rather see him with Buffy.
"Are you forgetting that William the Bloody got his nickname "Spike" because he liked to torture his victims with railroad spikes?? They've never said exactly *how* this railroad-spike-torture was induced. I'm thinking something along the lines of crucifixion - whether that means actually on a cross or just nailing them to the ground."
"I think they originally wanted to make Spike a lot more nasty than he actually turned out to be. It seems to me the Spike we've gotten is a torture-when-it-gets-me-what-I-want Spike a pragmatic emotional hot-head who does whatever he needs to to get what he wants rather than a torture-for-fun Angelus.

Remember when Giles reported why he was called "Spike" he also reported that Spike was "a little less than 200 years old" which they've also changed to 126. So maybe Giles was just reading out of a faulty Watcher's diary or something when he read up on Spike. Or maybe Spike got a hold of that diary and rewrote the parts about himself to make him sound more menacing and older than he was to make future Watchers and slayers shake in their boots.

What struck me last night during "Halloween" was how mooney and doting Spike was toward Drusilla. Spike hasn't changed as much as people think he has although I for one would like to see him be de-chipped again. It makes us know he is doing things because he wants to not because he has no other choice.

"I can sense some serious sexual tension between Buffy and Spike. Like in "Something Blue" when Buffy was feeding Spike who was tied up in a bathtub. He kinda looked at her lustfully in a neck-biting way.

I think it's the whole sexual thing not emotional like with Angel. Angel LOVES Buffy. Spike I don't think doesn't love Buffy. He more of craves her. As we've seen in the past Spike is a very sexual vampire. Examples: fling with Harmony and Drusilla. So since Drusilla is gone he only has Harmony to fufill his guilty pleasures. Harmony seems to not be as tasty to Spike anymore which may be the cause of his attraction to Buffy.

Something I just noticed and remembered was in the most current (new) show. Spike said "God knows you need your satisfaction after shagging Captain happy up there!" (that was merely on memory...) He sounded slightly jealous when saying as though trying to tell Buffy he could do better."
"And you know there has to be a reason why Buffy hasn't killed him yet. Well before the Initiative got to him Buffy had had several chances to finish him off. In some cases she didn't even try (such as in Halloween " which was rerun last night)."
-- LOVE IT - YOU COMPLETLY GOT ME why didn't she kill him? isn't that her job? since when is Slayer having second thoughts on killing vampires? Remember Riley's surprise when he find out she was friends with Spike?
Spike needs a "challenge" in his partner he is romantic and wants to the ultimate love high forbidden fruit (aren't those the best) - Drusilla was challenging (psycho did she care about him as much as he cared about her?) - but Buffy is an ultimate challenge - there is no one else like her sexy strong and smart. Why wouldn't he want her?
Exactly. I think that's what scares Spike... she's so tempting. Plus she could kick his ass ANYDAY...
"There is a tag line in a print ad for "BtVS" that I think sums up Spike's attraction for Buffy quite nicely:

"What is about dangerous women?"

Just as a lot of women get off on "bad boys " maybe Spike gets his real kicks from dangerous women. And who would be more dangerous to a vampire (chipped or not) than the Slayer??"

If some of you have NO idea what picture ad that we're talking about go here to see it:



"I want to see more of Spike's fantasies about Buffy. It would be interesting if it were the same chain game he played with Druscilla or if it purely passionate. I almost get the feeling by his "I love you Buffy" in his first dream that he might even go for the slow longing kissing. I just curious as to what Spike would like to happen. "
"Yeah it'd be fun to see "romantic" Spike instead of "grouchy betraying" Spike. Who knows? Spike is about as predictable as a bull. Who knows what he'll do next?"
" "Spike is as predictable as a bull." -- I grew up in the suburbs. Not having much knowledge about bulls I don't know whether that means he's very predictable or very unpredictable.

I think that Spike is very predictable. Angel(us) and Buffy always seem to be able to figure him out very quickly.

He's bent on mayhem. He's bent on acquiring power. He's bent on quenching his desires. He's was also as loyal as a dog to Drusilla.

He hasn't had any other companion like her. However indications are that his feelings towards Buffy are more along Drusilla lines than Harmony lines."
"Does anybody remember Angel saying " To kill this girl - you have to love her." Maybe Spike isn't so dreamy after all."
"I mean the "predictable as a bull" thing for us the audience. We don't know Spike's tactics or the way his mind works. He usually surprises me or at least impresses me somehow with cleverness. He may be stupid enough to take on the Slayer but isn't brain-dead."
"Sorry about posting the empty message

** When Wolfram and Hart brought back Darla they brought her back as human. "But " says Darla "I'm still me." She has all of vampDarla's memories feelings and attitudes. Angel assumes however that as a human Darla has a soul. There
has been some question as to whether all Buffyverse humans have souls (e.g. Anya Ryan Anderson) but let's assume he's right. So what is Darla? **

Darla is a souled mortal now but that doesn't mean that she had a conscience or was a good human being before being taken. The resurrection brought her soul from Hell. It is as possible that her soul was condemned to Hell and then returned as the demon soul returning. My bet is that her soul has been corrupted in Hell from its initial evilness as well as from her experience as a demon. How does this strike the rest of you guys?
I didn't think that the soul of a victim of a vampire went to Hell?

Does it?

As for Darla I think Angel is wrong about her having a concience. Not everyone can be redemned. Not everyone wants to.
In one episode Angel says a demon takes over your body but your soul is just gone. I believe when a person is bitten by a Vampire and an exchange of blood takes place the soul of the human is forced out of the body and the demon (that may or may not already exist in that person) takes over. If that vampire is staked then only the demon goes to hell. The original soul is still gone. A drift in the universe maybe a ghost.
" According to the show (I'm sure Masque could cite the specific episodes) when someone is embraced by a vampire her human sould goes to the ether a kind of limbo where it is not conscious of anything. As far as I know no one has mentioned hell.

When a vampire is killed I think both the demon soul and the human soul are released to go wherever they go after death. If there is a hell in the Buffyverse in the Christian mythology sense (that is other than the demon planes of existence) then the human soul would go to hell if it otherwise were meant for hell based on its human existence.

There is no indication of what happens to the demon soul. That's exactly why I thought that Darla would turn out to be completely human. I would seem too difficult for the Wolfram and Hart people to go through all the steps of assembling the elements and conditions necessary to recreate a dusted vampire."
"Angel's (Liam's) human soul had to be brought back from the ether. That's the origin of the idea that the human soul of someone who has been vamped goes to the Ether. Angel (Liam) had no memory of the ether either from 1753-1898 or in 1998.

It's supposition but after the vampire is killed one assumes the human soul leaves the ether and goes to it's final resting place in heaven or hell. Since no mention of heaven has EVER been made on the show that's pure speculation.

The mention of hell in relation to where things go after they die comes from the ritual to bring Darla back in "To Shanshu in L.A."

"As it was written they shall prepare the way and the very gates of hell shall open. That which is above shall tremble for that which is below shall arise. And the world shall know the beast and the beast shall know the world."

An odd thing to say when as we know they are bringing back a human soul. So it's quite possible that they are bringing back Darla's human soul from hell. And it would be there only if (I'm assuming) Darla the human before she was vamped deserved to go there once the vampire was killed.

The other possibility is they are creating a brand new human soul for Darla and getting it from hell so it will be bad. I don't like this theory much. It goes against the Jossian idea that all human souls can be redeemed (although not the original sin concept of Catholicism).
"re:"As it was written they shall prepare the way and the very gates of hell shall open. That which is above shall tremble for that which is below
shall arise. And the world shall know the beast and the beast shall know the world."
So did W&H accidentally bring the beast into the world when they brought back Darla? Is Glory (and where/who picked up that name from?) connected to the Angel storyline?"
"I didn't mean to suggest that being taken sent the victim's soul to Hell. I don't see the actions of the demon damning the previous soul/mortal which is another dilemma to ponder (Ex.-Angelus's sins are not truly the actions of mortal Angel his soul was not present. He still feels complete guilt because he remembers what was commited using his body personality and memories and his reveling in those sins). My point was that Darla as a human might have been well bad. Consequently her place after being taken would have been Hell although i remember the mentioning of the ether.... In which case the soul would go into limbo probably until the death of the vampire releases it to migrate to its final destination. I'm inclined to think that the Demon dimension and the "Hell" of souls are the same too."
Is it right for the Monks to have messed with Buffyverse to protect the Key? On a purely moral level is it right to manipulate someone's memories in order to protect this energy?

I understand the importance and the safety of the key to the degree we have been shown. However was there a better way to have done this. Shouldn't the Slayer have been informed of what her mission was before now? If they could set the key up in her home messed with everyone's memories and established physical objects (like a bed for Dawn) why was there no time to give a little background to Buffy? Why wasn't the orb left with the key rather then separated from her?

"I find it interesting that despite Joss's claim of being an atheist there are numerous Christian overtones.

One of these is the monks making the Key human. Very similar to the Bible where "the word is made flesh" in reference to Jesus. Any similarities in their ultimate "mission?" I have no idea. I just found the coincidence interesting.

In other places in this site there is a discussion of what the snow in "Amends" means. I was watching "Snow White: A Tale of Terror" last night. In the end it snows and you presume that the lovers unite and everyone lives happily ever after. In both "Amends" and "Snow White" the snow is a cleansing an end to the torment and horror that has been visited on the main character. The source of the evil has been vanquished (although in Angel's case this may be temporary or semi-permanent). Not necessarily any Christian overtones here."
"Just a Joss reference from my page (response to the snow in Amends):

...I'm an atheist but it's hard to ignore the idea of a "Christmas miracle" here... The fact it the Christian mythos has a powerful fascination to me and it bleeds into my storytelling. Redemption hope purpose Santa these all are important to me whether I believe in an afterlife or some universal structure or not. I certainly don't mind a strictly Christian interpretation being placed on this ep by those who believe that -- I just hope it's not limited to that (joss Dec 15 22:17 1998).

A little while back when I learned that Joss professed to atheism I was a bit surprised since I had often seen what I thought were Christian overtones (and sometimes entire chords and even whole measures) in BtVS. I suppose it can't be helped if you are raised and spend your life in a profoundly Christian culture which of course the U.S. is.

In fact for quite a while my thoughts were that on some level Buffy was a Christ figure and the Scoobies were her apostles. After all in the end of the very first season Buffy first wants to deny her destiny (i.e. certain horrible death at the hands of The Master) and run away. When she sees her friends threatened she chooses to face her fate in the hopes of saving her friends and maybe humanity as well.

So she faces her enemy in fact *does* die *and then is resurrected*!! I mean gee how much more of a parallel do you need? (Also great parallels to Scorcese's *Last Temptation of Christ* with its depiction of an uncertain Jesus facing and eventually accepting his destiny).

I'm sure if I thought about it further (and who knows since I tend to think too much I probably will) there are many other examples.

Final item unrelated to BtVS directly but interesting and provocative work of fiction from 1990 James Morrow's *Only Begotten Daughter*. If you can find this book give it a read.
"The Christian overtones in BtVS are somewhat sad to me. In Joss's Buffyverse forgiveness is earned. It is sad that Angel tells Faith that no matter what good she does it cannot balance out "cosmically" what evil she has done. To live in a world of no hope no forgiveness and no grace is hard to watch sometimes especially when all those things are real and obtainable.
"He didn't tell her that the good things she'd done wouldn't balance out the evil. He told her that not matter what good she does some people would never forgive her for the evil. Redemption is a real thing in the Buffyverse; otherwise what is the point of the whole "Angel" show?"
As I understand it part of being forgiven is being able to forgive yourself. Not dismissing the evil you have done but accepting it and dealing with it (and the consequences) and moving on determined to learn/grow from your experience. I think most humans have a hard time believing that they can be forgiven through grace without having to earn it or pay for it in some way (punishment good deeds etc.) I think this is the side of human nature that Joss is portraying in the Buffyverse - not that we aren't forgiven (assuming that we ask for it) but that we are unable to accept it when it is given.
On a not so serious topic: Anya working for Giles. How funny is that going to be?

Xander is teaching Anya interpersonal skills. Anya knows how to gift-wrap?!? Weird. She is good at the running of the shop (what to increase in price and such). Plus Anya and Giles have never really gotten along well. I will love seeing them interact. Just as long as Joss doesn't do anything weird like have Anya develop a crush on Giles I think it will be hysterical.

I agree. I just like the idea that two people whose people skills are poor (Giles as a reculsive librarian & Anya as an ex-demon) will have to work with the public at large. Of course a public with an interest in magic. The interreactions should be quite amusing.

On another note it seemed to me that many of the people including couples looked like yuppies out on a hunt for an object d'arte.
I'm not sure about this whole Anya working for Giles thing. Anya is back to her annoying cranky self that she was last year - I thought she was over that but I guess since she came to the full realization that she is mortal she is unhappy with her condition again. Get over it girlfriend!!

I kind of feel sorry for Giles in this situation. I'm not sure he's completely comfortable with his new job as a shopkeeper - especially of a shop where the owners tend to get killed by demons. Or maybe he's hoping that the demons will take Anya instead!! (Oooo that was bad! ;-) )

Maybe T'Hoffran wouldn't change Anya back into a demon because she was annoying then too!
My original theory is that at some time in the past a scorned woman asked Anyanka to remove various body parts of her ex-lover giftwrap them and send them to his new mistress. This theory is problematic however as it would have been easier for her to just zap giftwrapping onto the body parts. It is possible that the wording of the wish required her to do the job manually or that she wanted to do so because she relished the nature of the task.

Theory two: Anya has had no visible means of support. Her needs are likely meager (when she was a first human there was no running water indoor plumbing electricity etc.)so she could live in the worst slums of Sunnydale and count her condition as a step up from medieval peasantry. I suspect that bad neighborhoods in Sunnydale have some bargain rents. She probably has Xander pay for her meals when they are together -- cutting down on her grocery bill. Thus she could maintain her existence with a minimal cash influx -- odd jobs for a few days at a time -- like season Christmas jobs wrapping presents (and dressed like an elf :)
I hadn't thought of it before but I rather like the idea of Anya turning into a lust bunny for Giles ... if for no other reason than to free up Xander for a relationship with someone else. I think this couple has about run its course. I would like to see Xander become involved with someone who could provide more depth like ... Faith? Okay before you start groaning think of the balance that these two could provide each other. And they certainly have the chemistry...
Methinks the last time we saw 'chemistry' between Xander and Faith was when she was busy depriving him of oxygen.

Actually it seems to me that the Xander and Anya relationship is growing closer not apart.

One last comment re: Anya. Is it my imagination or is the 'I Hate Anya' crowd getting less noisy? I seem to see more positive comments about her character this season than last.
Chemistry? NO!!!!!!!!!
If Xander ever thinks that he and faith can have a relationship he is either very stupid or is lieing to himself
Okay we have a season baddie...the Abomination. Anyone frightened?

No me neither. She's strong but clearly not as strong as Adam. Buffy actually was able to land blows and hurt her which means when she's prepared she's going to kick her overdressed butt. Nor is she as smart as any of the main baddies we've seen yet...the Master Angelus the Mayor or Adam. In fact she seems downright dumb. Amusing in her way but not as funny as the Mayor was. Her biggest threat seems to be that she's going to aim her crosshairs right at Dawn and that's going to cause Buffy to think with her heart instead of her head which always causes problems.
The woman we saw may not be the Abomination itself but only a representative. I agree that she seems pretty lame as a villian and I have to believe that the writers have better things in mind to challenge Buffy. Hope so! Since we are only one ep into this part of the story arc plenty could happen yet. Keeping in mind that the Key (Dawn) was once pure energy and supposedly very powerful in that guise perhaps the woman/Abomination is only a weaker mortal/human embodiment of the greater evil energy/whatever.
Perhaps The Abomination/Beast is not frightening -- but imagine what would happen if during a struggle with Buffy she wrapped her hands around Buffy's brain and turned her insane (like the security guard et al.)
"I don't think the danger she poses is physical. Did you see that babe? She's a TOTAL LOON. And I think she's turning humans into loons--the cat guy on the street who accosted Dawn and said she "didn't belong here" the security guard at the factory who was perfectly sane the night before and a blithering but insightful madman the next day. And the security guard trapped there with the Monk survived being zapped by her. My prediction he's going Loon too.

More to this gal than meets the eyes."
"The monks call some thing the Abomination and girl the Beast. At least that is what I picked up but maybe I am wrong.

I agree that she is a total loon. But it seems that when she gets anxious and psychotic she has to put that energy into a human to get it out of herself. At least that was my impression.

I think she has the potential to be a good villain if they play up on the insanity thing. I mean I loved Druscilla as the insane vamp ("it makes pretty colors").
...she was new to this plane of existence and physical reality in particular. She didn't seem to really have the hang of material actions did she?

I'm betting that if you kill her body all you're going to be left with is one pissed off God/Demon/Old One.
I actually found the new villian interesting. She reminds me of old-Cordelia and perhaps how Buffy would have turned out if she didn't become the Slayer (the personality minus all the evil homicidal psycho stuff of course).

She is so self-absorbed. I loved when she was tormenting the monk. (Why are you doing this to ME? she says.)

The battle between Buffy and the Beast will be more than just physical. What I envision is a tug a war for little sis.

The Beast to Dawn - they can't understand you the way I can. (That is the type of things I see her saying to Dawn when they finally meet).

I just loved the scene when the Beast was sneaking up on Buffy. A classic.
"She's strong but clearly not as strong as Adam. Buffy actually was able to land blows and hurt her which means when she's prepared she's going to kick her overdressed butt.

Hmm. I got the impression that she was much much stronger than Adam but she's just not as good a fighter. I mean she knocked down giant iron doors with a few well-placed punches easily dented brick walls with a few well-placed Buffys and destroyed concrete pylons by accidental pouty-stomping. Buffy managed to punch her several times but she seemed more surprised than injured.

If she's indeed going to be the Big Bad I hope she gets a little less whiney and a little more sinister. Although she was funny in a "Joan Cusack from Addams Family Values" way."
"I wasn't too impressed with her as an "evil" one. She obviously needs the key to unleash her real power and leave her mortal coil behind. I got the impression she was fairly new at being mortal and female. She knows who buffy is and that buffy can get her the key. Too bad the monk had to die he could have anwsered alot of questions and I liked him. If the lady in red can realease the energy that is now a mortal girl she can absorb that energy and evolve into her big bad self and end the world perhaps. How long can buffy hide Dawn from the big bad and how long can she hide the truth about Dawn from Dawn? Or Joyce?"
Joyce's knack for denial can be mindboggling. I think whenever anybody is out to pull the wool over her eyes whether it's Buffy Dawn vamps or Dracula himself count on Joyce meeting them at least halfway.

Denial that which the town of Sunnydale is postively steeped in.

Maybe Joyce doesn't want to believe because some part of her still thinks that Buffy can stop being the Slayer and be a normal young woman. And despite how strong Joyce is maybe it's just easier to not think about the possible evil all the time. On the other hand maybe Joyce believes that all people (including vampires since they look like regular people unless they are in grr-face mode) are basically good and is willing to them the benefit of the doubt - even on the Hellmouth. Foolish perhaps. But easier to deal with than acknowledging the evil all around you knowing you can't do anything to stop it and waiting for it to get you. Depressing.
"It would have to be something like that after Joyce had to HIT Spike over the head to protect her daughter from him in School Hard then after Buffy invites him into their home in B2 and they argue about who killed who Joyce treats Spike to hot chocolate in Lover's Walk. Can we "say not smart enough to live anywhere much less Sunnydale"???"
I agree the Cherry-dressed Beast seems as strong if not stronger than Adam. His occasional strength acts consisted of decapitating vampires or throwing Buffy around but i wouldn't hold it above his brute force to do most of the things that she did.
Enjoy him ladies. When Riley leaves this will be Buffy's new love (well like a lot) interest. At least that's my guess.

We already know he doesn't have a problem with the traditional gender roles (he's a bloody nurse) and I think he'd be fairly effective in with the Scoobies if for no other reason than he'll have a talent for first aid that they've been lacking. Which is good because it'll keep him out of the actual fighting...doing something useful while he looks cute and kitteny.
"I think he also called himself an "intern". My guess is intern because he ordered medication on the crazed security guard which only a Nurse Practioner type Nurse could do and most nurses are not NPs but RNs or LVNs. I think he's an intern--an MD-but-still-in training type doc"
I didn't like him. There's something annoying about him.
He seems like a perfectly nice guy to me but I get the creepy feeling they're setting him up as the next boy du jour for Buffy and I heard she was going to do the single thing for a while later this season.

I just don't see Buffy with this guy any more than Riley. But then you know Angel's going to be uncursed and human some day....
"I agree with no Buffy and Ben coupling. It's probably just an attractive-member-of-the-opposite-sex attraction.

But: Who says Angel will become human within Buffy's lifetime? He did bad things for 150 years. Maybe he needs to do good things for the same length of time. Maybe longer. Besides if Angel regained his humanity it would completely change the dynamic and focus of "BtVS" and "Angel"."
Well I saw this as the sort of walk-off-into-the-sunset (literally) end of both series' run on television. A/Ber's can dream.
"I don't know. Remember Whistler's comment in Becoming? "I thought this was Angel's Big Day. He was suppose to stop Acathla not bring him forth." From what we've seen of Angel's past in his show he didn't do too much for the human race during that period before he meet Buffy. Is it possible he WAS to become human in the short amount of time he spent fighting evil?"
"OK I am going to piss off a lot of A/B shippers but this is my take. Joss has said that the main reason Angel had to leave was Angel cannot "grow and change" the way Buffy can. She is in college getting an education learning tons about her heritage and still fighting the good fight. Angel is spending his existence trying to make amends. Truth is he is doing it badly. There is not a whole lot of forward growth. He in fact has been backsliding majorly (i.e. concentrating on pummeling one disciple rather then killing the demon).

I don't think that even if Angel turns human before Buffy dies she would take him back. Not because she doesn't love him but because her life moved on. Truth most people would not want to be someone they couldn't work it out with in High School when there 25. Part of the reason why Angel loves Buffy so much is because of the innocence she possessed when she was 15. Time is a drop in the hat for him but not for her- she doesn't remember what might have been.
Really I would not like to see Angel and Buffy get back together. Talk about an all-around unhealthy passive-aggressive relationship. Angel was insufferable in his mooning-over-Buffy state.

Now he's got a purpose he's got a support structure and even if he doesn't always do things right he is developing a competence in something other than shadowing Buffy.

Frankly Cordelia has a much better relationship with Angel than Buffy ever did and I think better than Buffy ever could have. Cordelia is direct and frank and strangely enough has grown to become much more willing to accept people's idiosyncracies and weaknesses (including her own).

And it's my theory that Angel is really in love with Darla and always has been. Buffy is more of a passionate infatuation the forbidden fruit. But he never shared much with her including time. Darla was his mate and companion for decades until he was cursed.

And I really think that the evil that vampires do has a lot to do with the darker side of their human natures rather than just possession by an alien malevolence. I think Angel longs to have a connection with Darla but now that he has his conscience back he's not interested in bonding over suffering torture and murder.

That might be why Angel is fooling himself that Darla will be bothered by her conscience. Really Angel never knew Darla as a human. She had been a vampire for 200 or so years before she turned Liam of Galway.

Angel has plenty of proof that there are bad people in the world. And there's no rule that says only good people can be turned into vampires. Maybe Darla was a sociopath as a human. Or maybe Wolfram and Hart did something to make sure that she would be one even as a human.
"There are some vampires who if given a soul would almost certainly have the reaction "Um ok. So?""
I agree with some of what you say but Angel told Darla that never once that she made him truely through-out happy. The happiness that he had with Buffy. If Angel made love with Darla would he lose his soul? I don't think so. The truth is is that the truth is right. Angel made love with Buffy and he lost his soul. That means beneath all his troubles and flaws he really loves her. And Buffy loves Angel too. Why else would she have gone though hell with him? Because he's cute? Nah. I think that they both love each other so much that they would give up all of their happiness to make each other's lives easier. I also think that Angel's life and soul will be restored. But if not maybe there is someone else. Spike maybe? Not Riley. We all can see that Buffy doesn't love him. She only loves him as a friend. I think a peice of Buffy's heart still belongs to Angel and only Angel.
P.S.- (By the way I don't like that Ben nurse dude. Enough with Buffy's love life get creepier shows more Angel-Buffy crossovers more sarcasm from Spike more Willow spells and LOSE TARA!)
The Angel flashbacks are weird from what we know from Buffy.

1. Darla and Angel together for generations (Angel Buffy 1st season)
2. Angel first meets Druscilla in the Confessional at her church. (Becoming Buffy 2nd)
3.Angel drives Druscilla mad and then turns her.
He says he was obsessed with her.
(Lie to Me Buffy 2nd season)
4. Druscilla turns Spike and is his long time love. (Lie to Me Buffy 2nd season)
5. Spike refers to Angel as his yoda meaning great teacher. (School's hard Buffy 2nd)

Ok heres my issue 1st we are revisiting old ground with Angel and Darla. 1st season of Buffy Darla tried to turn Angel and it failed horrible and she was staked. 2nd how does Darla know about Angel's one moment of happiness clause? She was not alive to know what happened. I doubt Wolfham & Hart could actually have told her about all that. 3rd in Angel's first season they made it out that Darla was still with Angel until he turned. If that is so then when was he with Druscilla? Darla is not one to share and it was very specific that Angel was all about Druscilla for a while. Why would they make it be that Darla was even involved in turning Druscilla since it has never been mentioned before? 4th how did Angel react to Druscilla siring Spike? A woman he was obsessed with created the great love of her life. At the same time Spike obviously was friends with Angel and Angel was his teacher.

I just feel like the Angel writter's are taking to many liberties with the history we already know. There is no need to rewrite what has been written when there are so many years untouched.

We know he met/turned Drusilla in 1860 well before he was souled and Darla left (1898).
Spoilerish point about last night's ep
I too wondered where Spike and Dru fit into Angelus' unlife when it was revealed that he and Darla were an item right up to the time that Angelus was cursed. And with last night's ep showing Dru's turning I think Angelus loved the idea of torture and driving Dru crazy but in the big picture wanted her with him because of her ability to see visions.

And now knowing Darla's true feelings about Angelus I'm sure she wasn't too crazy about the idea of sharing and more than likely helped Dru find a man of her own. And seeing how in love-lust Spike was with Dru they made the perfect couple and off they went to do their thing leaving Darla and Angelus behind.
"I don't see any of this as contradicting what we've heard before. Rather it is an expansion.

As I see it the timeline goes something like this...

The Master turns Darla (roughly 400 y.a.). Her personality prior to this is pretty much a mystery.

Darla turns Liam who becomes Angellus and kills his entire family (roughly 240 y.a.). At first she is most definately in charge teaching him to listen to his "inner demon." Her motivation for doing this hasn't been explained--save that he was gorgeous.

Darla points out Drusilla to Angellus (circa early-mid 1800s by the dress) and he decides to do "something special." He proceeds to torture her (the confessional bit was particularly cruel) then kill her family. When she joins a convent he waits until she's taken her final vows (note--Drusilla was *not* in the white of a novice) then slaughters the entire nunnery in front of her snapping her mind. Then to Darla's shock (!) he turns Drusilla. By now Angellus seems to be exceeding Darla's expections.

What happened next is pure speculation. I imagine some intense rivalry between Darla/Angellus/Drusilla a la that between Spike/Drusilla/Angellus in Season Two. At some time this seems to have been resolved--possibly by getting Drusilla a new toy i.e. Spike. At any rate the *impression* is that Spike and Angellus got along about now were even something like friends. How he and Darla got along who knows? For that matter maybe Darla and Drusilla became real pals...we don't know (but I imagine the fanfic is being written right this second).

In the late 19th century Angellus is cursed and Angel is born. Darla throws him out of the house. Angel goes to pieces.

By the early 1950s Angel had withdrawn from human society and visited LA. Forty something years later he was homeless in NYC when he meets Whistler and begins his involvement with Buffy.

Seems to me there's plenty room here for even more details."

In which ep does it point out that the Master turned Darla? I'd like to go back and catch that.

"I think this is speculation as a result of The Master's statement "she was my favorite for 400 years" in the Episode Angel right after Angel kills Darla. Possibly Joss said something about it as well."
That's the point I was thinking but I thought maybe I missed something.
Ok Nim

I some what agree with what you wrote but I still am stuck on the Druscilla thing. In Becoming I felt it was pretty clear this was Angelus's first contact with Druscilla. She is confessing to the priest that Angelus has just eaten- he seems surprised by what she says about her visions. She also does not sense who he is at all. This last episode of Angel made it out that Druscilla immediately sensed whom Angel was and what he was after. That was the first moment that Angel saw her. To me that is just very conflicting.
On the whole Darla and Druscilla thing I just never got the impression from Buffyverse that Angel was with Darla up until the end of his soulless. (i.e. Angel's comment to Darla that the last time he saw Darla she was in a Kimono). It seemed to me that He was traipsing around with his own followers when he was turned (i.e. the lad he was supposed to me in America).

"Well both Spike and Drusilla were surprised to find out Angel had a soul in "School Hard" and the Kimono incident could have happened after Angel was cursed--it's possible he ran into Darla again."
Prolly all the jealousies got to be too much and Spike stole Dru away before the gypsy curse.
Angel's a nice undead guy and all but he spews some of the most naive lines in the Buffyverse. Yes his show's pretext relies on a heavy dose of right/wrong and the suggestion that it's very hard to go so bad that one can't make amends (Angel himself has the blood of thousands on his hands) but last night's dialogue makes me wonder if Big J doesn't cut some iffy corners when the writing sessions run too late at night?
Angel's statement to Darla at the end of last night's ep that living with a soul would inevitably lead her to feel remorse for her evil deeds implies that having a human soul at all automatically entails sensitivity for the suffering of one's victims repressable only on a temporary basis (without magic) by the individual in question. Said sensitivity would be vital to Darla suffering over her victims like Angel does over his. True the return of his own soul launched Angel on his path of suffering as intended by the caster of his gypsy curse but Liam of Galway hasn't been portrayed to us as having been evil or vicious or even callous just lazy and spoiled. Have any storylines been written depicting pre-vamp Darla as any less rotten than vampDarla?
I don't know how cool I am with the suggestion that there's no point-of-no-return redemption-wise.
Part of the gypsy curse that gave Angel his soul back was that he *would* suffer for all the wrong he had done all the lives he had taken. That was part of the spell. Darla does not have that compunction on her. To my way of thinking Wolfram & Hart would not want her to feel any guilt. They want her as evil as possible and willing to tempt and corrupt Angel with no second thoughts or attacks of conscience on her part.

And no there have been no storylines concerning pre-vamp Darla - at least not yet.
And we certainly know because of people like Lindsey not to mention the 100+ other human baddies on the show that having a soul is NO guarantee of conscience pangs. Lindsey's brief turn was the exception that proves the rule I think.
Well first of all what Angel said seemed to me a tactic to trip up and discomfort Darla--whom he knows very well.

After all she probably doesn't remember much of what its like to be human. The idea actually horrified her once. Certainly she likes to *behave* as if she's still a vampire (all that talk about eating eyeballs plus her avoiding the sun).

Then there's the fact that now she *is* human she's prone to all the frailties than humans have but vampire do not. She will age. Feel pain. Know what its like to be hurt. In the Buffyverse *that* (its been implied) is the source of real compassion--that we're all in the same boat together and have the capacity to empathize with each other because of it (whether said capacity is used or not).

What an interesting character development if so!
Actually Darla has achieved what Angel yearns to be. She is human again! I think that Angel believes that Darla will not blow this opportunity to discover the right path the path to recognition and redemption. Ironically Wolfram & Hart believe that Darla will corrupt Angel but it would be a delightful plot twist if he leads her back to the side of the good guys.

"I think Liam has been shown to us in a distinctly negative light callously indifferent to everything but his own hedonistic pleasures.

Angelus was unlike some of the other vampires whose humanity sometimes glimmers through. This utter lack of any human emotion (good or bad) is seen with the Judge -- Vampire-bibliophile Dalton combusts at a touch Spike and Druscilla are "tainted with love and jealousy" but Angelus is "clean" -- i.e. all demon.

Angel is his curse. Without it whether human or demon he would be a creature that could only make the world a brighter place by his absence."
Liam in the beginning of Angels flashbacks I thought he was like any other teenage boy with bossy over bearing father troubles. When he left home I thought he really had feelings for his mom and little sister but Angelus killed her without a second thought. A lot of young men in that time period would seek action and adventure like Liam did when he first started talking to Darla that night in the alley. The sense of power and energy Angelus must have felt when he first crawled out of the earth and tasted his first blood must have been intoxicating to a young man. He didn't seem to pause to contemplate good vs evil. He seems to have jumped into his new lifestyle with gusto and totally absorbed himself in fleshy pleasures and even delighted in causing mental anguise as well.(ie dru)So...I don't think Angelus is very unlike Liam at all but actually the two are quite alike only where Liam might have been upset and feel guilt about leaving his little sister and mom behind because of his soul Angelus is just Liam without a soul and therefore has no such feelings of guilt or saddness.
"There are two basic schools of thought on the psychological makeup of humans: 1) that humans are basically good and we make conscious choices to be evil and 2) that humans are basically evil and only through God (or some other higher being) can we be saved. There have been lots of arguements over the centuries for both views.

I don't think Darla even though she now human and has a soul (interesting that Wolfram & Hart could bring a dusted vampire back from Hell and make her human with a soul but I digress) will feel regret/remorse/guilt for her past her actions as a vampire. She was a psychopath before anyone knew what psychopathy was. And remember part of the curse of Angel having a soul is to remember and feel guilt/remorse for all the terrible things he did in his life particularly as a vampire. Darla doesn't have that same requirement. Most humans feel guilty when they do something bad. But there are those that don't. Whether that is nature/nuture or man's basic condition I don't know.

Perhaps Darla wasn't "evil" as a human before she was vamped. But she was definately succeptible. To be able to corrupt someone they have to be able to be corrupted. There must be doubts desires chinks in their armor that can be exploited. (The recent episode of "Xena: Warrior Princess" comes to mind where Xena is the instrument that causes the Archangel Lucifer to fall from heaven and become the King of Hell.) But Darla definately enjoyed being a vampire enjoyed the power the freedom to do whatever she wanted to whomever she wanted with little thought to any consequences. That enjoyment of power and the ability to manipulate has carried over into her current life.

Another thought slightly off topic: The spell that Wolfram & Hart used to bring Darla back must have been similar to the spell used by the gypsies to curse Angel - both involved dragging a soul back from the ether. And if that is the case then Wolfram & Hart would definately not want Darla to feel any guilt about her past deeds. They would want her vampire personality - evil manipulative power-hungry twisted and deviant.

I think Angel despite his age and experience may be a little naive. He thinks that because he with a soul feels guilt for his past misdeeds that humans in general and Darla in particular will too. That is just not necessarily the case. "
" One thing that has always annoyed me about the media is their assumption that when someone is revealed to have a dark side that we now know the "real" so-and-so. For instance when it first appeared that O.J. Simpson had murdered his wife and the media began talking about his history of spousal abuse they immediately began to talk about "the real O.J. Simpson." And I remember thinking "why is it that only the dark side of a person is their true nature?" Now this may have to do with the idea that now we now all about that person the private as well as the public face (honne and tatamae in Japanese respectively FYI). However I sense a certain attitude that goes beyond that an attitude that probably comes from American Puritan roots that the dark side is our true nature that we are all incorrigible sinners at heart. As a Buddhist I find this idea excessively morbid and just plain foolish. From the viewppoint of Buddha Dharma we contain all the worlds within us - from the hellish to the heavenly and beyond that to the enlightened. So a Buddhist would not naively assume (as Angel does) that having a "soul" (conscience?) automatically means feeling guilty for committing evil NOR would a Buddhist naively assume (as Wolfram & Hart does) that people are at heart rutheless and amoral (at best).
I am curious to see how this will all play out in the case of Darla. While we do contain all the worlds within us each of us must develop our own configuration of those worlds. Which will be at the center for Darla - the hellish or the heavenly or something even more sublime?
For that matter Darla is also very naive to assume that just because Angel still has a dark side he will someday succumb to it. The fact is everyone has a dark side and some of us learn to deal with it and keep it in perspective and some of us are either unwilling or unable to for various reasons. Angel has more than once shown that he is able and willing to keep that dark side in control. As Angel (as opposed to Angelus or Liam) I can't think of a time when he has ever willingly given in to it (except maybe when he fed on Buffy at the end of season 3?).
Finally since I am rattling on about all this it should be pointed out (again) that even supposedly soulless monsters like Spike are beginning to show that they have qualities that are not necessarily evil. Spike's love for Buffy may be twisted or warped but remember he did almost charge into a haunted house to save Buffy last season until he reminded himself that he was supposed to be her enemy. I think that even the bad guys are starting to show their good sides in spite of themselves. Another example of good as corruption. Or from the Buddhist point-of-view the mutual containment of the ten worlds - that even the hungry ghosts (vampires) can sometimes act like bodhisattvas (compassionate beings).
"Thanks for the viewpoint from another religion. :)

Dealing with vampires tends to fall along Christian lines. Look at repels/kills them - cross or crucifix holy water and eucharist wafer. There are vampires or vampire-like creatures in other cultures (non-Euro-centric) but they tend to be dealt with using physical or magical methods rather than religious methods. (Of course it could be argued that the Christian talismans have magical properties also.)

In some of my reading about vampires/magic/early Christianity/witches/the Inquisition I ran across a passage about how the early Christian church encouraged the existing folk belief in vampires by claiming that if the people didn't convert to Christianity that when they died they would come back as vampires. Back then - with very close-knit families extended families and villages - this was a terrible thing for people to contemplate. The vampires they knew/believed in would come back to terrorize their own families first. A big incentive to ditch their so-called "pagan" ways and join up with Christianity. "
"Wolfram and Hart I mean. I doubt Darla is naive -- she just wants to play games the way she used to (after 400 years of life one needs to find a hobby to pass the time -- to avoid what Douglass Adams called "The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul") -- I loved her comment to Angel that no matter how many good deeds he does that "even God doesn't want you... But I still do." Angel may have believed that Darla was salvageable but his comment at the end of the episode suggested that he was now looking forward to the conflict.

For Wolfram and Hart however the naivete is too pronounced. Why do they give their most important cases to amateurs (Angel Faith Darla and the TK girl are all handled exclusively by the underlings unskilled in such matters)? Lindsey has a rare flash of insight when he discusses working within the law -- they are lawyers -- that IS their field of expertise. For that matter why hire legal eagles at all? Wouldn't a mediocre lawyer do as well (or better if he had a background in the occult)? The firm could insure favorable verdicts via magic tampering with juries in a subtle manner for which they could never be held accountable. Resources are being lavished upon these projects with no discernable results and no punishment for failure (only for disloyalty.)

I believe that the leadership of W&H are indifferent to the sucess or failure of their projects. Their true goal is not the elimination of Angel but the corruption of Lindsey Lilah and any other promising young lawyers that they come across. Taken in this light their projects have been successful -- Lindsey is closer to darkness than ever before and Lilah is quickly following in his footsteps. "
You make very good points about the nature of Darla. I have a different take on the Ether though. I believe the Ether is a place where the souls of all host bodies for vampires are housed until the body is dusted. I believe that at least in part the soul of the human that was bitten and turned is not judged for the actions of the demon that takes over their body.
I believe that the Firm brought back Darla as human because they had too. To bring back her physical body was hard but they were unable to bring her back as a vampire because her soul was no longer in the Ether. These are just my theories on the nature of the Ether.
I believe that Liam was a good person who was turned evil. Darla taught Angelus how to be truly evil and then he far surpassed her. Angel is now tortured by what he has done because of the part of him that is still Liam. Darla however I believe was either a psychopath to begin with or the Master was too much a part of her life for too long for her to care in life for what she did in death. The truth is she longs to be a vampire again and longs to take Angel with her.

So does Darla want it to be only Angelus that will turn her back into a vampire? And to that she must corrupt him into a moment of true happiness? But Angel has stated that he never had a moment of true happiness with her as they were demons together. what's a girl to do?

"Darla is revisiting her attempts to turn Angel. She did it in the first season of Buffy and He killed her- why she is thinking anything is changed I am not sure.

I believe Darla wants to turn Angel (Re-Sire him) and then he would "sire" her back into a Vamp. I don't know if she wants anyone else to turn her. I think she needed to stay human to taunt and torture him at first. Now that he know that she is human I am not sure it matters.

Off topic- it sounds from what Angel was saying that he believes that only Buffy could turn him through one moment of happiness. What a concept it was the person that caused the happiness not the sexual climax. Maybe that means Angel can have sex he just has not care about the person. Now that is a disturbing thought.
"JennJoy that's what I have always thought. It was Angel's true love for Buffy not the sex that turned him back into Angelus. I imagine that he could have sex with someone if he wanted to. However even Angel thinks that sex will lead to his becoming Angelus again so he shys away from it. Of course Angel is also the kind of person who needs emotional attachment bonding before he could ever make love again.
And that bond is still with Buffy.

I remember Spike's words in "Lover's Walk" that Buffy and Angel are doomed to shag fight despair and love for all time. It is their fate.
I feel like that part of Angel's attachment to buffy is more for saftey sake. He cannot be compliant about his existence so it is easier to hold onto a love he can never have then to get over it. If he gets over Buffy then he is once again vulnerable to falling in love. Although in Lie to Me Angel makes it seem like he never had an thought of dating until Buffy since he was turned. So everyone may actually be right he is fated to be in love with her forever. I make no claims for her always being in love with him however.
So did Angel sleep with Faith?
" In "Sanctuary " when Faith says she screwed Buffy's boyfriend Angel thinks she's talking about him and he says something like "Uh ... we never did.""
"It's H.P. Lovecraft's world. Buffy is just living in it.

Alright for those of you who don't know H.P. Lovecraft is very nearly the founder of modern horror. His major schtick was that there were in fact Gods... but that they were dark twisted insane things that could either care less about humanity or actively wanted to destroy it.

There have been Lovecraftian tones to Buffy since the beginning. One of the major Lovecraft saws was that man wasn't the original inhabitor of the Earth -- the Elder Things were. But they lost their purchase on this reality and we formed. Now they want it back. Sound familiar?

But it looks like the Lovecraftian tones are about to get a bit more overt.

First off a godlike terror who's both terrible and worshipped and who Cannot Be Named. Classic Lovecraft.

But there was something that was named. That little glowing ball? That was a Dagon Sphere apparently.

Dagon is from Lovecraft's writings. Dagon is the sea-bound God-Monster who is ruler of (and worshipped by) the Deep Ones. Worshipped by some mortal occultists in the Esoteric Order of Dagon. (Mentioned several times but most prominant in right off the top of my head "The Shadow Over Innsmouth".)

For those of you who don't know much Lovecraft think of the Judge if he were the size of the Mayor Snake and was older than our universe and you've got a pretty good idea of a Lovecraftian Elder God/Outer Being/etc.

Buffy's in trouble..."
...and Cthulu ate her...burp.
But remember:

Cthulhu saves....in case he gets hungry later.
Some Psycho: you post at the Bronze so you've probably seen this but I am posting it here too--

MichaelJ7770 says:
(Tue Oct 24 21:34:31 2000
Just want to clear an earlier misprisal.

Dagon: While used by Lovecraft in his writings very likely as an oblique reference to Cthulhu his own bad self was in fact one of the few things Lovecraft borrowed.

Dagon is a biblical name... he's the Fish God of the Philistines which in turn is often used as a biblical reference to Cthulhu.

However He Who must not be Named... that's Hastur who is not one of Lovecraft's either but one of August Derleths additions to the Cthulhu mythos.

Oh and Elder things... they were just little aliens in Antartica seen in The Mountains of Madness. The things that ruled this reality long ago and lost there purchase were the Old Ones. Cthulhu is only a cousin to the Old Ones.

Cthulhu=Very Bad.
Old Ones=Just give up now.

"I'd actually realized after posting that the Elder Things were the wrong term but I'd still misattributed them -- thought they were the critters astral-projecting themselves through time in The Shadow Out of Time.

Also I may be wrong on this but isn't the name Hastur mentioned in a few Lovecraft stories? I'll have to check but I think I recall reading "Hastur" in The Whisperer In The Darkness.

Actually did know the bit about Cthulhu not really being an Old One. He's just the High Priest of the Old Ones. The Old Ones would be folks like Shub Niggurath and Azathoth right? "
Sunnydale folks seem to be going mad. That sounds rather familiar too doesn't it?
I have absolutely NO IDEA WHATSOEVER you guys are talking about so I'll go on to the next message board post. lol Keep up the good work!! = )
"No idea? Then you MUST read H. P. Lovecraft!

I'd say start with the Dunwich Horror (Lovecraft is the only author who can make whippoorwills seem eerie) or The Shadow Over Innsmouth.

Incidentally he was inspired by Algernon Blackwood (Lovecraft called Blackwood's story "The Willows" "the finest supernatural story".)"
"In some way or another there seems to be an alternate Buffyverse thing happening here. We see in next week's preview and this past week's ep. that something is starting to shift that "wakes" everybody up.

First Joyce gets a moment of clarity and then the trailer has Buffy starting to see through a chink in the faÁade.

So my question is: Does this mean EVERYTHING will go boom?

I mean how much do you think is "real" and how much is illusion? Is Dawn the only flaw in this Buffyverse? Will they take Tara away from Willow? Could Buffy get any ~more~ retro? (is that Farrah hair I see?? :-o)

**don't mind me I'm still stuck the fact that Riley owns a pair of shiny pants!!** (he leaves the Initiative and goes right straight to the runway--you go boy!)"
"I don't think EVERYTHING will go boom. At least not in the sense that everything did in "Superstar." But things will definately not be the same in Sunnydale when all is revealed. I am anxious for more to be revealed.

I still haven't figured out if Dawn is good or evil. Not enough information. Although if she was *my* little sister my opinion might tend toward the dark side.

Maybe Dawn is some sort of "Watcher" for the Powers That Be!?! Sent to observe the Slayer - for whatever reason. Or is that too much over the edge?

Also I have a question: Is Buffy living in the dorm this semester living at home or living in Riley's apartment? Or does this ambiguousness about her living arrangements have to do with the weirdness that is Dawn??"
I was thinking the same question? If willow and tara are roomies is buffy staying at Riley's? And where is Riley's? And how is he paying for an apartment if he doesn't get a paycheck from the government anymore? Did he graduate from college or just drop out? Why doesn't he hear from his parents in Iowa about his career change? Does Joyce know buffy is living with Riley? After the way she freaked out about buffy sleeping with angel just once why isn't she freaking out about this? Will everything totally change when we find out about Dawn? Like it did when Giles smashed Anya's amulet? I hope everything goes back to before Adam. That's when everything seemed to get out of controll...or was it when the first slyer came to town?

So many questions so few answers. :)
Sorry can't help myself. Questions just pour out of me brain like petrol from a lorry.
You're asking questions that I'm sure we're all wondering and hopefully will get explained soon. Here's my thoughts on a few:

I think Buffy was staying at home for the summer. And is still staying there now but spends most of her time at Riley's.

I'm sure Riley gotta good severance package from the government for his silence since he knew alot. I think he's still in school. He's a responsible young man.

Parents in Buffyverse (with the exception of Joyce) are like the parents in the Charlie Brown cartoons - kinda heard but never if ever scene. (How's Sheila?) I think the same would count for Riley even if his parents are half a country a way.

As for Joyce freaking over Buffy and Riley -- considering there isn't a risk of him turning evil or combusting into ash after all those hours of shagging I'm sure she's gonna do what my own Mother does -- if you don't acknowledge it it doesn't exist.
The government isn't known for it's paying people and trusting them not to go to the media. If Riley was left alone this long it must be some kind of mistake. Don't be surprized when a van pulls up and Riley is gunned down in the street or kidnapped never to be heard from again.
Cake-- In SF circles alternate universes are generally considered to be just as real as the universe we think of as 'ours'. Therefore what is happening currently in the Buffyverse we think of as the 'real' Buffyverse is neither right nor wrong it simply is.

Probably the best SF TV program to 'get' this concept was *Sliders*. All of those many millions of universes were 'real'. Some were just a little different other greatly.

My own take on this possiblility re: Buffy Season 5 was in a (rather long it started short and got away from me!) post I made to a thread titled 'How will it end' or similar. I think it's still out there on page 2 or 3 or somewhere. The key idea was that Jonathan's alternate reality (Season 4) somehow leads to a collision between the Normal Buffyverse and a much darker one like the one in *Doppelgangland*. Dawn is a result of that collision. She may have to disappear by season's end to make things right thus causing much angsty-ness for all.
My take on this is that the Buffyverse we are seeing with Dawn as the little sister is the same one we've always seen. It's not an alternate universe. It is just the regular Buffyverse with some parts changed around through magic. Memories have been altered but those memories are false. Dawn is present but she doesn't belong in the Summers' house. People are doing things they would not ordinarily do because of these factors--i.e. Buffy should be living in a dorm or with Riley but she's living at home because she thinks she needs to help Mom take care of the sister too young to be left on her own all the time.

It's like the Jonathan thing--that was our Buffyverse too with memories altered to forget that Buffy killed the Master and the Mayor not Jonathan. When the monster was killed the spell ended and the posters of Jonathan and other physical objects that were there reverted back to their previous form.
"OnM: I did indeed read your vision for Season 5 and was quietly waitig in the ranks for "More! More!" And you did sum it up quite nicely. I think where I seem to be getting lost is the fact that I've only been able to familiarize myself with Season 1 (the box set) and the Angel Eps. so I haven't a clue what "alternate universe" is being referred to in "The Wish" or "Doppelgangland."

I ~have~ read the notes and summaries on them but it's hard for me to grasp it without really seeing it for myself. (I'm a visual learner)

But I ~did~ watch Sliders so I am trying to apply that knowledge to this theory of alternate Buffyverse.

I am beginning to understand it from that POV but am still left wondering if Tara and Willow will be affected by this. Is this Tara the same one that sabotaged the demon finding spell in S4? Or is this a different got-alternative-ideas-about- people's-places-and-parts-played Tara? (knowingly implementing the Dawn factor for dubious deeds?) Or the Tara that someone else mentioned that just wants Dawn to feel "at home" in Buffy's life?

It's very true 'tis easy to forget just how complex the BtVS storyline has become as it evolved over the past 4 years. Indeed the Season 5 vision thing pretty much assumes knowledge of much of what went before.

Also my thoughts are just that-- my thoughts no more and no less. I'm not in the least bit unhappy to be proved wrong (in fact I pretty much expect it based on past experience!) as long as Joss and company keep coming up with the goods and so far they have.

My background in SF & Fantasy literature/TV/film leans towards the science end of things rather than the horror/fantasy end so for me an 'alternate universe' is more logical than a spell which Masquerade thinks is the cause of the Dawn disparity. If one takes the past history of the Buffyverse into consideration her view is actually far more likely to be correct since Joss tends to lean more toward the fantasy/horror end of the genre.

I do the prognostication thing for my own and hopefully others' amusement/entertainment. When I watch the show I just go with the flow...

"I'll invoke Occam's razor in defense of my theory. The spell theory explains the same facts without all the complexities of an entire alternate universe. Bring in alternate universes and you have to ask if we are seeing the same Tara as we saw before the same Angel and then we start asking if all the stuff going on on "Angel" will change and revert when things go back to normal. I vote spell on a very limited number of people (including of course the Angel character's memories but not any events on their show)."
I don't think there's a spell involved here... at least I don't believe that a formal ritualized spell was cast. I'd say that Dawn is creating some sort of psychic interference which is messing with everyone's memories. Whether she's doing this intentionally or not is still to be seen.

(Unintentional) Psychic influence is a good theory and is compatible with the fact that Dawn does not seem aware of the fact that she doesn't belong.

Of course maybe this whole debate will be moot on Tuesday!
This brings up an interesting question. Do Angel Cordy and Wes remember Dawn? Of course they've never covered this on either show. If so it would support the magic/alternate universe theory. If not it would support the the psychic interference theory but that leaves all kinds of holes. For example one presumes that Buffy and Dawn (allegedly) have the same father. Does he remember Dawn? If not what happens when he calls to talk to Buffy?

Just general weirdness thoughts that'll be rendered moot in about 29 1/2 hours in my time zone. :-)
I don't think Angel et al remembering Dawn supports any particular theory. Whoever brought this Dawn thing would we hope cover their bases. Whoever was supposed to remember Dawn would remember Dawn whether by an alternate history where they met Dawn by psychic or spell-influence on these people's minds to make them think they met Dawn.

The problem with the alternate Universe and the alternate history theories is you have to invent this whole universe or this whole new history with all the people in the world effected just to introduce one little girl into a family in a small California town. *too much work* to get the same effect as a psychic influence or spell!
Not really. It depends on how one envisions the existence of alternate realities. There are several posible modes. 1) All of the universes have always existed since they were created at the same time (by whatever means deity creation or big-bang type creation. Chaos theory thermodynamics etc. dictates that there will be inevitable differences between universes how large or how small is a subject for debate in itself but there is no real limit on the number universes so there could be millions. 2) There was only one original universe but other universes branched off of it over time. The farther away from the branch points the greater the differences would tend to be. How the branching occurs and why is again more subject for debate. 3) Universes pop into being at random intervals. These universes would have little or no relationship to one another in terms of historical events since they have no common source.

There could possibly be other variants but those are the ones I run into most commonly in my years of reading/viewing both SF and factual science theory. The last one (3) would not be applicable to the Dawn dilemma. Of (1) & (2) the branching universes of (2) would be the easiest for a powerful entity to manipulate to desired effect. Such entity would only have to transport possibly *one individual* say Buffy from a universe in which she naturally exists without a sister into the alternate universe where Dawn exists.

If the universes have branched only a short time ago (say 40 or 50 years) other differences may be very small. Therfore what we think we are looking at-- our familiar Buffyverse is actually not that-- it is *Dawn's* Buffyverse and our Buffy has been *moved there*.

Perhaps an actual exchange has taken place and Dawn-universe-Buffy is freaking out wondering where the hell her sister is?
This is getting complicated and giving me a headache. Can someone please call Cordy and ask her if Buffy has a sister?
I wouldn't count on Cordelia remembering her own sister's existence much less the Buffster's!

Thanks! Gentlemanly of you. But I totally did not predict the Darla = human thing and now it's giving me a headache of metaphysical proportions. How the heck to explain all the different sticky aspects of her return now??!!
...and after thinking back over the last few eps it was so obvious. Think of the freedom it gave (and gives) her to move about-- including the daytime hours. Wolfram and Hart had to think about this not to mention the fact that having Darla returned as human might cause Angel to think twice about killing her. I also don't believe they thought that having a soul would make her remorseful as it did to Angel and so would not be an inhibiting factor on her actions against him or others.

I really loved the irony in that last image where she pauses to look back at Angel and then ascends the stairs into the sunlight. We always think of evil as retreating from the light in the Buffyverse and here is this evil creature effectively taunting Angel-- and us-- with her ability to do so.
I don't want to boast but I did see this human Darla thing coming. I was discussing it with a friend a couple of weeks ago.

It seems to me that it would have been way too complicated for Wolfram and Hart to reconstruct a vampire -- (1) recreate the human body (2) pack off its soul to the ether (3) summon the demon soul and install it in the body (4) modify the human body to vampire specifications. We don't even know whether that would be possible.

It seems relatively simple just to resurrect a dead human. Of course Darla hasn't been a human for 400 years.

And anyway where do these demon souls come from? That's something we've never been told. Are they just disembodied demon souls waiting for someone to be embraced by a vampire? Are they full-fledged demons? If so what happens to their bodies when the vampire is created?

We don't even know what happens to the demon soul when the vampire is destroyed. We know the body is dusted. The human sould is released from the ether to go wherever human souls go. What happens to the demon soul?

There is a lot of evidence that even when the demon soul is in control of the body that the memories and personality of the human have a great influence on the vampire's actions and character. Does that mean that the demon soul is not a complete persona in and of itself?
Where do human souls of new-borns come from for that matter? There's a lot of religious mythology on this latter question but it's a similar question from a strictly metaphysical point of view.

I always thought that the reason Buffyverse vamps act so much like their human predecessors (vampHarmony being the most vivid example) is that they are new borns. Unlike human souls they aren't given a chance to grow up and gradually acquire experiences and learn and grow. They are born essentially as grown-ups.

If you were a new born in a grown body you'd need to get all the things grown-ups take for granted from somewhere--habits years of experience attitudes reactions--from somewhere. So they borrow them from the human brain they've taken up residence in until they can gain experience of their own to use in their own demony way.

That's why I like the way vampHarmony is subtley changing. She still needs her human persona a lot because things are so new but give her a few decades or centuries and she'll be different.
" I'm not convinced that there are two separate personalities encompassed by the vampire and as the vampire gets older the demon matures displacing the old personality.

The vampire personality seems to develop and grow in a manner that would not be impossible for the human personality to develop and grow if you were to remove the conscience and insert a preference for the darker side of the human personality.

This fits in well with the theory that the "soul" that is sent to the either really is just the conscience. It would be a lot easier to figure this out if the characters (and writers) used the word "soul" more precisely. They seem to apply it with different meanings at different times."
"Masquerade -

Found your points regarding a "new born in a grown body." Could you not also relate that point to Anya?

She was a demon so I think it is safe to guess she had no soul who took form of a mortal is now forced to live as a mortal. When her amulet was broken and she was made mortal a soul must have been given to her. Hence her not growning up to learn the proper or improper additudes and reactions or communication skills we are taught.

"I'm actually thinking of adding something somewhere on my site about all these "suddenly human" people this season--well Anya in the third season but Darla and Dawn. I'm assuming Darla's "soul" if she indeed has one is her old pre-vamp soul and that Anya's if she has one is also her old pre-demon soul (if she ever lost her human soul). As for Dawn well she got her soul I guess from wherever anyone's comes from. The monk's ritual to put the energy in human form was essentially a mystical form of procreation of the type that goes on every day.

Hmm. Needs more thought."
Keep pondering. More than sure I and the others on this board will be happy to provide you with opinions on this new topic. :)

I've posted something similar to this elsewhere on the board but it's pertinent to this thread:

Even if you are not a total materialist (which I think is precluded anyway in the context of the Buffyverse: we know there are souls) it is clear that large parts of our personality are innate ie strongly affected by heredity and physiology. When a vampire is made the soul goes to the ether the body remains and the demon takes up residence.....BUT as Masquerade has pointed out in the material on demon nature demons are in some ways like machinery....they often follow an essentially fixed nature.

I imagine that there are a huge number of these disembodied demon essences floating about (see Ann Rice's book Memnoch) but these essences are near to nothing on their own just like a little bit of naked RNA or computer code. Only when embodied do they assume much personality and that personality is largely imposed by the body. In the case of vampires the personality inherited is the portion of the human personality that is body-bound: a network of neural connections in the brain a set of reflexes a hormonal system the physical structures of the brain. This all amounts to quite a lot of personality and memory. This is why a newly-mad vamp has so much that was once the human's. The difference is that it is no longer informed and controlled by a human soul. A vamp is a perfect psychopath: no empathy. Like a serial killer it is the center of a universe populated by animated dolls that are only there to gratify it's own urges.


Yes Masquerade there are some really scary people out there. Buffy's monsters are metaphorical but also unfortunately real.

"That's why I sometimes have trouble with situations on Buffy where characters or their writers lose sight of vampire nature. When the Scoobs lose sight of the essential creepiness of vamps they tend to make silly decisions like "releasing" vampwillow into the "wild".

Baz-- Might be a chilly sentence but it certainly is very true. I agree with you that Buffy and the Scoobies have often made odd decisions in regards to what we perceive as very evil creatures but humans tend to do this. If it wasn't so abused spouses wouldn't stay with their abusers for so long (sadly sometimes indefinitely).

The urge to reform the baddie instead of deleting them is a very powerful urge to many. The question as always is just how much do you accept before you finally give up. Everyone but Angel had given up on Faith. People on this board are now wondering whether Darla can be turned away from evil (my vote in her case-- no way!).

I have often thought the reason humanity is so fond of the afterlife concept is so that there is the opportunity for 'divine justice' that God sees into the heart and soul and so his/her judgement is always 100% accurate.

I've also noticed that Joss pretty much avoids this concept in his universe. There are The Powers That Be but they seem to leave the justice thing pretty much up to us with just a little occasional bump or push here and there.

I think in the Buffyverse the key factor is ensoulment. You try and try to redeem anyone with a soul (who is thereby redeemable even if very corrupt) but my point with vamps is that they can seem sympathetic: if you have something they want or they think you can hurt them or if the personality they inherited has strong sympathetic tendencies. It is a sham. There is nothing there.

Grim I know.


Current board | November 2000