|
Post by Queen E on Jun 17, 2003 11:00:12 GMT -5
The Master talks about that in "Nightmares." Yes, the cross does cause their flesh to burn, but he has trained his mind not to care about it as an object of fear and veneration. Although, honestly, I don't understand not fearing something that sears your flesh off, I guess one could look at it as a positive attitude. As in, "I know touching the electric stove while it's on will hurt like hell, but I don't fear the pain. Yeah!"
|
|
|
Post by Betsy on Jun 17, 2003 11:01:01 GMT -5
since we are on this subject, I decided to look it up on Dictionary.com
e·vil Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
n. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
An evil force, power, or personification.
Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
evil
\E"vil\ ([=e]"v'l) n. 1. Anything which impairs the happiness of a being or deprives a being of any good; anything which causes suffering of any kind to sentient beings; injury; mischief; harm; -- opposed to good.
Evils which our own misdeeds have wrought. --Milton.
The evil that men do lives after them. --Shak.
2. Moral badness, or the deviation of a moral being from the principles of virtue imposed by conscience, or by the will of the Supreme Being, or by the principles of a lawful human authority; disposition to do wrong; moral offence; wickedness; depravity.
The heart of the sons of men is full of evil. --Eccl. ix. 3.
3. malady or disease; especially in the phrase king's evil, the scrofula. [R.] --Shak.
He [Edward the Confessor] was the first that touched for the evil. --Addison.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
evil
\E*vil\a. [OE. evel, evil, ifel, uvel, AS. yfel; akin to OFries, evel, D. euvel, OS. & OHG. ubil, G. ["u]bel, Goth. ubils, and perh. to E. over.] 1. Having qualities tending to injury and mischief; having a nature or properties which tend to badness; mischievous; not good; worthless or deleterious; poor; as, an evil beast; and evil plant; an evil crop.
A good tree can not bring forth evil fruit. --Matt. vii. 18.
2. Having or exhibiting bad moral qualities; morally corrupt; wicked; wrong; vicious; as, evil conduct, thoughts, heart, words, and the like.
Ah, what a sign it is of evil life, When death's approach is seen so terrible. --Shak.
3. Producing or threatening sorrow, distress, injury, or calamity; unpropitious; calamitous; as, evil tidings; evil arrows; evil days.
Because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel. --Deut. xxii. 19.
The owl shrieked at thy birth -- an evil sign. --Shak.
Evil news rides post, while good news baits. --Milton.
Evil eye, an eye which inflicts injury by some magical or fascinating influence. It is still believed by the ignorant and superstitious that some persons have the supernatural power of injuring by a look.
It almost led him to believe in the evil eye. --J. H. Newman.
Evil speaking, speaking ill of others; calumny; censoriousness.
The evil one, the Devil; Satan.
Note: Evil is sometimes written as the first part of a compound (with or without a hyphen). In many cases the compounding need not be insisted on. Examples: Evil doer or evildoer, evil speaking or evil-speaking, evil worker, evil wishing, evil-hearted, evil-minded.
Syn: Mischieveous; pernicious; injurious; hurtful; destructive; wicked; sinful; bad; corrupt; perverse; wrong; vicious; calamitous.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jun 17, 2003 11:04:12 GMT -5
I definitely agree that Spike is an anomaly and utterly unique. I was only expressing my surprise that none of the characters on the show ever raised this question (that I can recall). . Particularly Giles, who I always envisioned as very intellectually curious. He tried to Spike about it once, when he asked his in his crypt if he thought perhaps his 'chipping' might have some higher purpose. At the time, Spike wasn't willing or interested in discussing it. It always bothered me that Giles never, to out knowledge, brought it up again, or showed any further curiosity. ESPECIALLY after Spike voluntarily sought out his soul. I would've thought Giles would be so taken aback by this action - something that seems to contradict everything he's ever been taught, that he would have been more than anxious to explore it. Instead, he conspired to have Spike killed. Argh! Mary
|
|
|
Post by LeeHollins on Jun 17, 2003 11:14:20 GMT -5
I'm trying to get work done (I have accomplished some stuff today) but the board keeps calling my name. Not really much to post (ha, ha, made you read, made you read ) but I have a few things to say: - James - love your quote under your picture! I love that line!
- It's been an interesting discussion (vampiric nature, etc.) but, fortunately for y'all, I just can't add to it because I don't know a lot (make that anything) about the history of vampires. Never watched anything about vampires before Buffy and Angel
- Going off James' comment about crosses: yes, I can understand why vampires would fear the church and crosses because those are symbols of the inherent good of the earth while vampires are inherently EVIL. We know that crosses burn vampires but do any other religious symbols burn them? Do rosaries? I'm not Catholic but it's my understanding that rosaries are used for prayers, etc. - do those burn vampires? What about symbols from other religions? Am I making any sense?
Well, that's about all for me (for now at least)....
|
|
|
Post by John G on Jun 17, 2003 11:24:18 GMT -5
We know that crosses burn vampires but do any other religious symbols burn them? Do rosaries? I'm not Catholic but it's my understanding that rosaries are used for prayers, etc. - do those burn vampires? What about symbols from other religions? Am I making any sense? [/list] Well, that's about all for me (for now at least)....[/quote] Rosaries do have a crucifix attached, so would likely burn. Also, most Catholics have their rosaries blessed, so again, would likely cause burning. As for other religious symbols, I know people have inquired, but we've never seen anyone try (for example, in Passions, would the revocation spell have worked with a Star of David in Willow's house? Probably not, it seemed so specific).
|
|
|
Post by John G on Jun 17, 2003 11:25:00 GMT -5
The Master talks about that in "Nightmares." Yes, the cross does cause their flesh to burn, but he has trained his mind not to care about it as an object of fear and veneration. Although, honestly, I don't understand not fearing something that sears your flesh off, I guess one could look at it as a positive attitude. As in, "I know touching the electric stove while it's on will hurt like hell, but I don't fear the pain. Yeah!" It could by like guys who are so damn strung out that pain doesn't register with them. The Master was just strung out! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by deborah on Jun 17, 2003 11:25:41 GMT -5
Dave - I think it was - gave a definition of the difference between minions and fledgings some weeks ago. Could you restate it, Dave, and tell me your source? Anyone else care to speculate, or better yet, educate me, on more specific definitions of these two terms, and tell me what they're basing their knowledge on? Mary Others have probably answered this already (haven't caught up with all the posts yet) but I think of a fledgling as a *young* (in vampire terms), inexperienced vampire still dependent on his/her sire for guidance and survival. The period of time in which the vampire is considered a fledgling will depend on the individual's rate of development in learning, aquiring and mastering his *unlife* knowledge and skills. A vampire is no longer considered a fledgling once he has achieved independence, either by acknowedgement of his sire or by virtue of him going off on his own. I think Peasant's fiction "Sweet William" makes this very clear. Remember in FFL when Dru told Darla and Angelus that Spike had killed his first Slayer and he congratulated Spike and he told him that he guessed that made him one of them now? That happened in 1900, twenty years after Spike was turned. One could I suppose, interpret that remark to mean that Angelus, Darla and Dru had all killed Slayers as well. But I always took it to mean that Angelus was recognizing that Spike had *graduated* from fledgling status (whether or not the word was ever used on the show) to a full-fledged, independent vampire; an adult, if you will. Minion, on the other hand may be a vamp of any age who is "in service" to a Master Vampire.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jun 17, 2003 11:29:12 GMT -5
I agree that vampires are essentially evil, too, Spring. But humans can be evil, too. So, maybe to the degree the human was evil somehow bleeds thru to the vampire. As well as other human traits, such as weakness (like Angel), or compassion and sensitivity (like Spike). Definitely, humans can be evil. I think though that - how to put this - vampires, in their purest form, are pure evil (ala Angelus). Spike's capacity for good is presented as freakish, and it only manages to manifest itself due to those unique circumstances (chip, etc). Humans have two sides to them, and the best (and perhaps it's fair to say luckiest) of them learn to acknowledge, accept and control both sides . . . and in doing so get closer and closer to goodness. I don't think Humans acheive either pure goodness or pure evil, though some of them come mighty close.
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on Jun 17, 2003 11:33:50 GMT -5
And I speak as one who agrees with Spring (I think) that vampires without souls are inherently evil. I need some time to flesh out my thoughts on this and get them on paper -- but I think that the "neutral" demons are the minority, and that most demons are evil and to be killed in order to safeguard the greater good. Laura, with both you and Spring on the opposing side of the argument, I know I'm really in trouble! However, I since I do feel that vampires=evil is an oversimplification, I'll be glad to have you and Spring explain and argue otherwise.[/color]
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jun 17, 2003 11:34:27 GMT -5
Particularly Giles, who I always envisioned as very intellectually curious. He tried to Spike about it once, when he asked his in his crypt if he thought perhaps his 'chipping' might have some higher purpose. At the time, Spike wasn't willing or interested in discussing it. It always bothered me that Giles never, to out knowledge, brought it up again, or showed any further curiosity. ESPECIALLY after Spike voluntarily sought out his soul. I would've thought Giles would be so taken aback by this action - something that seems to contradict everything he's ever been taught, that he would have been more than anxious to explore it. Instead, he conspired to have Spike killed. Argh! Mary Funny you should mention the Giles/Spike "higher purpose" discussion in his crypt. I notice Vlad has my new analysis up, and it is of that episode - I do spend some time analyzing that conversation and the foreshadowing of something good in Spike (see what you think). I too was disappointed in the way things ended for Giles and Spike, but I guess it just all got too crazy and ugly. BtVS needed at least two seasons to recoup from Season 6 properly - not to mention prepare for a series finale and uncertain spinoff prospects. Maybe even three seasons to really do it right. But we got one, and we got what we got. I hope Giles appears on Angel sometime.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jun 17, 2003 11:40:53 GMT -5
Laura, with both you and Spring on the opposing side of the argument, I know I'm really in trouble! However, I since I do feel that vampires=evil is an oversimplification, I'll be glad to have you and Spring explain and argue otherwise. [/color][/quote] Ah ha! Yes, vampires=evil is an oversimplification. But that's not what I mean to convey. I think pure vampire = pure evil (i.e., vampires are essentially evil, which I wouldn't say about humans). But vampires do retain freedom of choice, and we learn via Spike that the right, freakish combination of internal and external forces can produce some good.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Jun 17, 2003 11:57:23 GMT -5
But doesn't the cross actually cause a physical reaction, i.e. burning. This can't be learned. We've seen the cross burn in Season 1 in Angel, and in Season 4 in Harsh Light of Day (I think that's the name of the episode), when Spike picks up the cross and burns his hand. I just tuned in again, so if someone else has already killed this, I apologise in advance.
Maybe it's psychosomatic? In "Who Are You" (I think), Adam gives some vamps a pep talk about overcoming their fear. They're the ones that attack the people in the church, and they do handle the cross without getting burned.
On the other hand, that episode could be an anomaly in the Buffyverse - it's the only time they can handle crosses without being hurt. I'd still like to know when the Christian symbols became specific weapons against vampires, since vampires, even in the Buffyverse, predate human civilisation, let alone Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on Jun 17, 2003 12:00:49 GMT -5
I'll try to come at the question a different way. People, who by definition have souls, may be either good or evil overall--Giles as compared with Ethan Rayne, for instance. Or, like Willow, they may be good on some occasions and evil on others.
Is it possible for a soulless vampire to be morally neutral? Admittedly, we've never seen a purely, entirely good vampire. But for a vampire to be either morally neutral or good, would it have to cease to be a vampire altogether?
Do Angel and Spike, for instance, as souled vampires, have to atone not only for what they have individually done but also for what they simply are? And if so, does a vampire's only salvation constitute ceasing to be vampire and becoming human? Shanshuing?
When we discuss how Spike may come back, why is it that so few of us seem to want him to be human as opposed to still a vamp, if being a vamp at all is evil?
My feeling, perhaps based on no solid grounds, is that a vampire like other demons has the excellences of its own kind: that a vampire has a right to be a vampire and enjoy the natures and powers of that creature, just as a lion would have a right to be a lion, and likewise a wolf or any predator, even though from the viewpoint of the prey, they are wicked and should be utterly exterminated. I am suspicious of denunciations of the predator as formulated by the prey. To me, vamps killing and/or feeding from humans doesn't necessarily make them evil, but I'm not certain how far this view is supported by the Jossverse and how much is my projection. So I'm following the details of this discussion with considerable interest.[/color]
|
|
|
Post by deborah on Jun 17, 2003 12:10:36 GMT -5
Not to mention, if you're reading a dozen or so WIPs, you can have quite the time remembering what happened in which fic! Mary You've got that right. Everytime an update to a WIP comes out I've got to read the previous chapter and sometimes go back even further to recall the thread of the story again. I can totally understand why some people refuse to read stories until they're complete.
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on Jun 17, 2003 12:17:45 GMT -5
This week's chat from Watch with Kristin (E! Online) has some details and comments about the upcoming season, none of which relate directly to Spike. Should you want to see them, I've put them at the end of the Angel Spoilers thread on the main board. [/color]
|
|