|
Post by Dalton on Jun 24, 2003 21:31:54 GMT -5
Topic area devoted to Spikaholics, Spuffyites, Spike shippers of all types, plus any James Marsters information. All information on relationships, behavior, physical/mental/emotional/spiritual qualities of Spike or JM welcome. Straying off topic not a problem here. Share your knowledge, insights, observations, speculations, or other information on our favorite character in or out of any episode. See also "All Things Spike/James Marsters" (Parts 1‑4) farther down the Miscellaneous Board.
Alexandra K.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 26, 2003 2:00:37 GMT -5
Alexandra said: We already saw a bit of change when Anya wanted Xander to second her on staking Spike. Xander just kept working on the window and didn't agree.
Sorry if someone else has already mentioned this ‑ I haven't finished catching up on all the posts yet. But I wanted to add that even before Xander refused to second Anya in advocating staking Spike, there was an encouraging moment that showed Xander's opinion about Spike may finally be softening. In the beginning of "Sleeper" when Buffy charges into Xander's apt at 4AM looking for Spike and Xander asked Buffy if Spike was IN trouble, rather then assuming Spike was up to no good and making some sarcastic, nasty remark to that effect. When I heard Xander ask Buffy if Spike was in trouble, my heart melted a little bit toward Xander. I thought, Finally, we're going to see Xander getting past all the predjudice and hostility that has coloured his judgement when it comes to Spike.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 26, 2003 2:10:03 GMT -5
I've been meaning to bring this up. We see so many vampires in Sunnydale, yet I've always gotten the idea that the vampires we come to know (e.g., Spike, Dru, Angel, Darla, even Harmony) are rather particular about who they actually turn. Remember in "Lie to Me" when Ford wants Spike to turn him because he's dying of brain cancer? Spike is not interested in turning him. It sounds like turning (as opposed to feeding) is done for a select few only. And for special reasons. So why are there so many (stupid) vamps running around?
I know we need a supply so we can see them dusted each week. My only guess is that unlike our intelligent vampires (the series regulars) the majority are indiscriminate in their creation of new vampires. It's kinda like the human hordes who don't use condoms and wind up creating babies. Except there's no further responsibility with vampires. Oh, wait, that still applies to some humans too.
Perhaps our regulars DO turn a lot of humans into vampires so Buffy doesn't have time to target them. She's kept busy having to chase the masses of dumber vamps around town. Alexandra K. 1/14/2003
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 26, 2003 2:11:03 GMT -5
That scene at the Bronze between Spike and the fledging vamp he supposedly sired, with Aimeee Mann playing on stage, I believe was from "Sleeper", not "Conversations With Dead People".
deborah cohen
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 26, 2003 2:12:49 GMT -5
Good point on Xander's asking if Spike was IN trouble rather than causing it. That rolled right by me. Unfortunately, a lttle later Spike bopped Xander on his way out the door so that might have caused a tiny setback in Xander'attitude. Still, I think the writers are definitely moving those two toward detente if not friendship.
And I too would like to see a friendly sniping stay visible between them. That's always so much fun to watch. As long as Xander stays away from the 'mass murderer' comments. Not necessary or useful now.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 26, 2003 2:36:55 GMT -5
My job is seriously interfering with the fun parts of my life! Damn needing food and shelter and electricity! I'm really snowed under here guys. I've been frantically preparing for a state licensing visit on Thurs, and then a two day consultant gig out of town on Fri & Sat. The former is alot like being paid a visit by the First Vamp, and the latter would be alot more fun if I hadn't been chained to a wall and stabbed with hot pokers the day before.(I just don't enjoy that the way I used to.)
I know i'm far behind, but just a couple of things:
Alexandra said:
"Okay, so Rusty and Spring are telling me that the vampires are saying, " I love you, but I don't want to love you because it conflicts with everything about me, making me miserable. So I want to kill you."
Sorta.It's paradoxical because with vampires lust/blood/death are all so intertwined. Rememeber Holden Webster says to Buffy right after helping her have a break thru and then trying to vamp her, "We had a moment there and it made me want to bite you." The desire to drink and kill, and the desire to love bring up the same impulse.
When Angel and Spike tell Buffy, in slightly different ways, that they dreamt or wanted to kill her it's both because she's the unattainable object of their love and misery, and to kill her would free them. And the fact that when vampires want to possess someone they want to bite and kill them. Desire gets "the blood lust pumping." At the same time both vamps seem to understand that to turn Buffy would be to make her someone other than the Buffy they desire.
Then there's the Freudians who see death as a metaphor for orgasm, and that takes us down a much more ebulgent path of speculation.
Rusty Goode
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 26, 2003 2:49:04 GMT -5
Alexandra, you just touched a nerve. I brought this up at the time "Sleeper" was being discussed because I couldn't understand Holdon and the Bronze Vamp and all the other vamps in the cellar that Spike supposedly sired when he was under TFE's control. My confusion is twofold (at least).
One, we see Spike killing a number of victims; the girl he walks home from the Bronze at the end of "Conversations With Dead People", alley girl, and a few others in flashback. But at no point do we see him actually *siring* any of them.
Two: Why would a newly made vampire be buried anyway? It seems to me that more often than not, ME IMPLIES the creation of vampires through the Bram Stoker method despite having established that they are sired via the Anne Rice method. In the case of the former anyone who dies from a vampire's bite will rise from the dead as a vampire. The victim dies, is buried, and later rises. In the case of the latter only one who has been sucked to the point of certain death and who then drinks the blood of the vampire becomes a vampire. In this "shared blood" scenario, at no point is there a "dead body" to bury.
Some examples of these inconsistencies: Season Six when Spike see's Buffy for the first time on the stairs after her resurrection, and realizes it's her and not the 'bot, he notices her hands and understands instantly how they got so badly beat‑up. He tells her at some point that he's crawled out of his grave too. But, that just makes no sense.
The beginning of "Never Leave Me" when Dawn and Willow are talking while tidying up, Dawn says something about how Spike could have sired countless others and buried them around town.
Season Two, at the end of "Lie to Me" when Buffy and the Scoob's return to the Vampire club after Spike and his gang have broken out of the basement and find Ford's body. Ford had made a bargain with Spike that Spike would turn him into a vampire in return for Ford giving him the Slayer. The last we saw of Ford alive he was locked in the basement with Spike and his gang after the Buffy had rescued the humans. He reminds Spike that he kept his end of the bargain and Spike agrees that he did. Then we see Ford's dead body. Then we see Buffy and Giles waiting at his grave. Then we see Ford rise from the grave as a vampire only to be staked by the waiting Buffy.
Oh, one more. Season Seven, don't remember the name of the episode, where Buffy is teaching Dawn in the funeral parlor. The middle aged corpse laid out in the coffin that rises as they look on.
Come on! They can't have it both ways. We saw Angel being sired by Darla in "Becoming Pt I", I don't remember if we actually saw William being sired by Drusilla in "Fool For Love", but it seems that with our major characters, it's all done according to the established *shared blood* cannon. But any other time they need new vampires it's dead bodies rising. I don't know whether it's negligent oversight or deliberate denial for the sake of convenience that leads JW/ME to play so fast and lose with this really important and fundamental process, which, in my opinion should be adhered to, one way or another, with absolute consistency. But here again, we are getting into just another of the many inconsistencies that plague the depiction of vampire physiognomy/physiology (which one is correct?) in the Joss/ME Buffyverse. Perhaps the appropriate Dept Head (sorry, I forget who holds the relevant office) will be able to shed some light on this question, or if not, take the matter up for further investigation.
deborah cohen
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 26, 2003 2:50:14 GMT -5
I'm in total agreement, it doesn't seem to quite add up. In fact, we have seen a few regulars vampified (I still say it's a word. Maybe our chair of Nosferolinguistics would disagree.) and all of them turned out to be the "advanced" type of vampire. (Although Harmony was still the dullest tack in the box, she wasn't a rat like the slower vamps. Her IQ hadn't dropped any, it just wasn't high to begin with.)
I now present and excerpt from my PhD thesis, submited in partial fulfilment of my PhD requirements in Nosferobiology, in conjunction with the Department of Ebulgeology at the VHISN. It gives an overview of my proposed solution to this conundrum.
So now we are left with two types of vampires, I submit we are dealing with two sub‑species, or classes, within the same phylum: the highly functioning vampires, scientific nomenclature‑‑"Nosferatu altacogitus@ and the lower functioning vampires commonly known as a rat B the ANosferatu lentacogitus@. It seems that although these specimens are divided into male and female creatures, their reproduction is asexual. Furthermore, it would appear that spontaneous gene mutations during the N. altacogitus reproductive cycle which is commonly known as Asiring@ can lead to the production of a N. lentacogitus offspring by a N. altacogitus sire. Intensive studies indicate, however, that the reverse is not possible.
The disproportionate number of N. lentacogitus vampires is due to their higher siring rate as compared to their higher functioning cousins. It would appear that this is partly due to their hunting habits. Since members of this class of vampires do not have the intelligence or skills required to stalk victims alone, they generally hunt in packs. Further, the high dusting rate of said class, leads to a need for higher procreation rate in order to maintain the species population above critical levels. In depth sociological studies indicate that, the N. lentacogitus do not rear their offspring and sometimes create offspring for the sole purpose to serve as Aslayer‑bait@.
In contrast, the N. altacogitus generally try to remain as inconspicuous as possible, attempting to remain out of the Slayer=s sight. One of the mechanisms adopted to do so, is limited siring. A large population of these efficient predators would lead to increased mortality due to neck trauma among humans, which in turn draws unwanted attention from the Watcher=s Council and ultimately from the Slayer herself. Moreover, N. altacogitus, form familial bonds with their offspring and in order to adequately inculcate their predatory knowledge into their young, which has been known to take centuries, they sire less often.
In another vein, N. altacogitus have been known to use N. lentacogitus for their own gain, the slower vampires acting as footsoldiers or minions (or slayer‑bait) for their higher functioning cousins.
I hope that you have found this enlightening, and invite discussion on this topic. I am particularly interested in hearing from those of you in Nosferolinguistics Re:Vampification.
M.
Watergal =^..^=
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 26, 2003 2:52:17 GMT -5
Alexandra says: So why are there so many (stupid) vamps running around?
A really good question. The important Apocalypse‑R‑Us vamps obviously need minions, so they turn a couple of reasonably tolerable candidates to help with the heavy lifting. Those vamps need somebody to impress and hang out with, so they turn a couple of friends, or cuties (who wouldn't give then the time of day when alive), just to show what big stuff they've become. And pretty soon it's like a vampire herpes epidemic. Nobody ever seems to turn somebody smarter than they are.Thank God Slayers are available to cull the herd.
Rusty Goode
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 26, 2003 3:07:23 GMT -5
XANDER sometimes has his facts wrong, and his motives are not always pure ‑ i.e., Spike was sincere in his feeling for Joyce, Xander's nastiness is sometimes about jealousy or just taking something out on a convenient target, to make himself feel better. BUT, Xander is never wrong to urge caution and to be very suspicious of Spike. Up until he got his soul, Spike was always one chip, and a wrong word, away from returning to murderous ways.
SIRING: deborah, I confess I haven't paid a lot of attention to this issue, but it seems to me that the Buffyverse doesn't adhere to either the Stoker or the Rice rules, but a combination thereof ‑ you have to share blood AND you have to die and rise. If Stoker can make up his own rules, and Rice can make up her own rules, why can't Joss?
It doesn't bother me that we rarely see the siring process (e.g., with the blonde Spike killed in CWDP) I'm happy to believe it all happened "off camera".
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 26, 2003 3:15:09 GMT -5
Iwas thinking...the "new", stupid vampires don't seem to be able to get their vamp face off. I mean it seems to be stuck like that, where Spike, Dru, Angel, Darla, and Harmony can go back and forth from their human face to their vamp face. Maybe if a vamp is "sired" then they are a more high class vamp, smarter and able to change faces. The other vamps crawling out of their graves could be less of a creature and just blind, blood lusting vamps. It seems that somewhere as a child I read or saw flicks that portrayed vamps as being made like that...just sucked dry, dumped, then rising out of the grave looking for blood.
We did see Spike "sired" by Dru, I forget which episode.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 26, 2003 3:33:48 GMT -5
I'm really glad Robert brought this up. I too have really missed the sweet rapport between Spike and Dawn. I loved watching their relationship develop over time, from Spike thinking of her as just the brat kid sister and Dawn's fascination with Spike as a monster (Misquote: Spike: Plenty of blood in the 'fridge. Dawn: Real blood? Spike: What do you think? Dawn: Mostly, I think, Eeew), to Dawn's crush and the way Spike always listened, really listened to what Dawn was saying rather than patronizing her. They developed a heartwarming big brother/little sister or dutch‑uncle kind of relationship that was truly touching. Spike's nicknames for Dawn, as someone else has already mentioned, gave their relationship a real sense of verisimilitude too.
It's understandable that Dawn would feel angry towards Spike after learning about the so called AR. But it also makes sense for her to feel hurt too, and that she would *miss* him‑ miss their former closeness, and would feel affection and concern that she would not allow herself to consider. It seems to me that her feelings towards Spike would run more hot than the cold, but cold she has been. Whether this one dimensional (to me anyway) response to Spike is down to the limitations or lack of imagination on the part of the writers or of MT is unclear.
I tend to think it's because of the writers' lack of attention to the depth and complexity of Spike & Dawn's relationship. Really, I could well imagine that Spike would at somepoint, maybe between moving in with Xander and becoming an unwitting sleeper for TFE, have approached Dawn for a quiet sit‑down talk, to apologize, or reassure her, or give her a chance to give him hell. But they've pretty much just ignored each other, apart from Dawn's threat that he would wake up on fire if he touched her sister. But it's not too late for some reconcilement and I hope the writers won't neglect such an important relationship. My, but they have a great many issues to address besides just plot resolution before the end of the season. I hope they will do a thorough job of it.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 26, 2003 20:11:16 GMT -5
Water Gal. I believe the current faculty at VNISN need to consider your fine work regarding the symbiotic relationships between various stratum of the phyllum Nosferatu. This study seems to offer interesting possibilities for intense study in both the field of Nosferobiology and Nosferoanthropology.Since my research is currently focused on the unfortunately named "soft science" of Nofesopsychology, I would ask you how you would propose to fit your unique knowlege and experience into the brain trust we're are building at the Institute.I assure you we have only the highest standards and are happy to welcome those with a committment to hard science.
Your proposal will be briefly but intensely scrutinized, and the whim of whichever member of the faculty happens to be on line at the time will prevail.
Other positions also remain available, altho the Chair of Laundress Laureate has been filled. I also believe we may have an Chair who could double as our poetess. Although she is not exactly bloody, she is certainly deserving of a few cuts and bruises after her last contribution.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 26, 2003 21:56:35 GMT -5
Spring said: "SIRING: deborah, I confess I haven't paid a lot of attention to this issue, but it seems to me that the Buffyverse doesn't adhere to either the Stoker or the Rice rules, but a combination thereof ‑ you have to share blood AND you have to die and rise. If Stoker can make up his own rules, and Rice can make up her own rules, why can't Joss?
But please explain to me how, in the shared blood scenario, is there a body to bury and rise. The victim is drained to the point of death and then drinks the blood of the vampire. Does he/she then appear to drop‑dead? I just can't see it.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 26, 2003 21:58:09 GMT -5
Deborah,
Generally in the blood‑sharing scenario, the drinker dies shortly thereafter. This is not generally a result of having drunk said blood, but due to exsanguination (i.e. massive loss of blood.) He/She is then generally buried, where digging themselves free from their coffin to rise from the dead as a new‑born (New‑sired?) vampire, serves as a rite of passage. However, not all vampires are buried and the amount of time before being reborn as a vampire can vary widely.
There are also unconfirmed reports that the drinking of the blood by the victim may be unnecessary. The siring vampire may chose to inject their blood into their victim. In scientific terms, injection can be as simple as the topical application of the vampire's blood to a victim's open wound. If this method of siring does indeed occur, it appears that it is by no means a sure‑fire manner of siring and may fail more often than not. One thing that seems certain though is that the victim's death must occur within a relatively small window of time from the time of hemo‑transfer.
I hope you find some or any of this enlightening.
M.
PhD Candidate, Department of Nosferoanthropology, VHISN
|
|