|
Post by missbuffy on Jun 17, 2003 12:19:06 GMT -5
I believe I read an article where JM did help write or cowrite a comic book in Spike with one of the writers from buffy. I believe I read the article on one of the JM/Spike websites. I believe I have the link at home. Can't remember the site exactly, but the link was given to me by Mary or someone on this board. JM co-wrote the first Spike & Dru comic with Christopher Golden. Here's a link (I don't know if it's the same one Betsy is referring to) if anyone's interested. darkhorse.com/products/pg_profile/sku_40428/sec_search/index.html
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Jun 17, 2003 12:19:18 GMT -5
I checked my books on symbolism, and found that as I remembered, the cross predates Christianity (this is the four-equal-arms version):
Magic Symbols of the World: The cross is much older than Christianity. It symbolizes the yearly renewal of the earth. And the concept of the bleeding young male god dying on the cross to save humanity symbolizes the rain fructifying the earth so that the hidden seeds will grow again in the spring that people may have bread.
The cross is in fact one of the oldest of all symbols. It is the earliest star map, fixing the four cardinal points.
Me: OK, another example of later cultures (Christian) adapting and overlaying earlier (pagan and more primitive) beliefs.
An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Symbols: A universal symbol from the most remote times (me: Aha!); it is the cosmic symbol par excellence. It is a world centre and therefore a point of communication between heaven and earth and a cosmic axis, thus sharing the symbolism of the cosmic tree, mountain, pillar, ladder, etc.
He goes on from there, but the basic idea of the cross is life, humanity, fertility, protection, balance of nature, etc. So, I guess we can assume that the first vampire created retained some of the human's beliefs, including his or her symbolism, which is why all vampires fear crosses. Not bad, considering that it's all a fictional premise in the first place. Works for me, anyway, until I think of some other problem.
|
|
|
Post by karalee on Jun 17, 2003 12:21:27 GMT -5
Interesting discussion going on. I don't usually express my own opinion on things, but I do enjoy reading what other people think.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Jun 17, 2003 12:25:42 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][/quote] Well put, Nan. I wonder what a true demon of the type who created the first vampire here, would look like in its own dimension? They probably regard humans as we regard cows and chickens - food, maybe interesting, but still food. All the talk about the vampire attitude toward killing humans (sometimes they just kill for the sake of killing) sounds like cats. I love cats, but they do play with and torture their prey. It's just the way they are. And I have to go again - I'll look forward to reading more of this discussion this afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jun 17, 2003 12:31:18 GMT -5
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). Buffy used holy water alot. Because it's blessed, I suppose, is why it burns. But being in a church didn't seem to bother the vampires in the episode where Buffy and Faith switched bodies.
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on Jun 17, 2003 12:53:12 GMT -5
To the Initiative, all supernatural creatures alike are lumped together as "hostile" including both our own dear Hostile 17 and Oz, a werewolf. The Initiative defined supernatural creatures (SC for convenience) completely in human-centric terms--were they helpful or harmful to humans--and further defined them as animals, meat, who could be killed, experimented on, or maimed to harvest their potentially useful organs without a qualm. Anything one did to a hostile was perfectly all right as long as that hampered or eliminiated its capacity to harm humans (e.g., the chip).
Through Oz and through the Scoobys helping Spike, that view is demonstrated to be wrong. To treat and judge SCs entirely in terms of our own convenience is wrong. By extension, the chip is wrong. The Jossverse says so, right?
The Watchers' Council and the Slayer as their agent define vampires in particular and SCs a bit more selectively as morally evil by definition. Such evil things can and should be immediately killed for the benefit of mankind and the preservation and furtherance of Good. Yet over and over, however they dislike it, the Scoobys and Giles help and protect Spike and accept his help and protection in return. Does this private exception made for Spike validate or invalidate the stated principle of vampires=evil as apparently set forth by the WC? Is wholesale, indiscriminate slaughter of vampires presented as right and necessary in the Jossverse?
Are the terms of the Watchers' Council sufficiently different from those of the Initiative to make their contention right whereas we are expected to regard that of the Initiatiative as wrong?
I tend to lump both together at the extremes of hostility toward the different and the possibly (or actually) dangerous. I don't believe either is valid. And I think the Jossverse is with me in being at least skeptical of any pronouncements that justify impersonal wholesale murder of an entire line of creatures. Because, in part, of the exception always made, however grudgingly, for Spike.
I guess that's as far as I've come in my trying to come to terms with the implicit or expressed stand of the Jossverse on the question of vampires: If the result is that Spike should be killed with impunity and satisfaction, it's wrong. I think the Jossverse supports that position.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on Jun 17, 2003 13:03:04 GMT -5
Hello, MissBuffy. Glad you joined us. Hope you find our place welcoming, friendly, and interesting, albeit often wacky. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 17, 2003 13:03:55 GMT -5
Hello and welcome to missbuffy.
|
|
|
Post by deborah on Jun 17, 2003 13:04:34 GMT -5
Patti, in the last part of the board you responded to some remark of mine concerning unused dialogue in the "Never Leave Me" shooting script in which Buffy acknowledged Spike's change for the good before he'd aquired his soul. This is specifically what I was referring to: BUFFY There's a man in there underneath that monster. A man who -- even when he had no soul -- SPIKE -- It's window dressing -- BUFFY -- struggled to find redemption. You're alive because I know he's in there -- SPIKE -- I'm killing you -- BUFFY -- and I believe in the man he can be. Buffy's words take Spike by surprise. He falls back, his chains go slack studiesinwords.de/shooting/neverleaveme.htmlThere's a bunch more cut dialogue in that basement scene that leaves certain things far less ambiguous than in the version. Maybe Joss cut it because he didn't want things so clear, maybe it was just a time consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on Jun 17, 2003 13:09:37 GMT -5
Spring, as usual I enjoyed immensely reading your analysis--particularly this new one on "The I in Team." As perhaps is apparent from my post a few back, it brought more sharply to my attention the contrast between how the Initiative views "hostiles" and how the Watchers' Council views "demons/vampires." In this comparison I find the similarities that extremes often share: I find the Initiative more like than unlike the Watchers' Council, although the terms in which they couch their hostility toward the shared enemy and the reasons that they give for this hostility differ.
Your discussion does not take this position. It only clarifies for me what the Initiative's position evidently is. And so there are aspects of your discussion that for me lead elsewhere and that I'm still trying to think out.
So both for its own excellence and for its usefulness in examining certain aspects of the Jossverse I find exteremly important at the moment, I thank you for this very fine essay. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by deborah on Jun 17, 2003 13:13:49 GMT -5
Okay, Radio Buffy just played Shirley Temple singing "Goodnight Sweetheart". Can anyone tell me what episode used that one? I'm clueless here.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jun 17, 2003 13:14:17 GMT -5
Hi missbuffy! And thanks for the link- I'll check it out. I enjoy all the posts so much and the links - but to find the time to read everything - that's another matter.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 17, 2003 13:27:14 GMT -5
since we are on this subject, I decided to look it up on Dictionary.com e·vil Morally bad or wrong; n. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice. anything which causes suffering of any kind to sentient beings; injury; mischief; harm; 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. 1. Having qualities tending to injury and mischief; having a nature or properties which tend to badness 2. Having or exhibiting bad moral qualities; morally corrupt; wicked; wrong; vicious; as, evil conduct, thoughts, heart, words, and the like. 3. Producing or threatening sorrow, distress, injury, or calamity; unpropitious; calamitous; as, evil tidings; evil arrows; evil days. The evil one, the Devil; Satan. Thanks Betsy, For purposes of our discussion I think that it is important that we have a clear definition of evil. It occurs to me that Nan (with one point of view) and Spring/Laura/deborah (with another) may be disagreeing not so much of whether vampires are inherently evil, but moreso on who gets to set the definition of evil. One definition of evil makes it clear that any behavior which causes pain or badness to "any sentient being" is evil behavior. Then, in my personal world view Hitler was evil, terrorists are evil, vampires who want to drink my blood are evil and the guy who cuts me off on the interstate is evil (altho to a lesser degree). Of course, from the vampire's personal world view I might be considered the evil being because I want to withhold my blood and cause him to be hungry. The native Americans clearly thought the European settlers were evil. The settlers thought the natives were evil. Much depends on the "eye of the beholder" if one is using that definition of evil. That's the definition that leads us to the question: "How can a vampire be considered evil just because he is doing what it hardwired into his nature to do?" Much the same as Oz acted as a werewolf when "under the influence" but was not considered evil by his friends. Of course, whether the behavior is defined as evil, or not, it can still not be allowed to run unchecked--to risk harm occuring to humans. (Whether exhibited by Oz or a random vampire.) The second definition of evil requires a higher authority who sets some overarching definition of what is "moral". In most cases this authority is supernatural/spiritual but I guess you could avoid that by just using society as the higher/absolute authority who gets to set the definition of what is moral vs what is evil. Still--which society? Human society will of course define vampire behavior as morally evil. Vampires may well define human behavior (taking over the earth and hunting down and killing vampires) as morally evil--from their perspective. Perhaps the better question is not are vampires evil or not but is their evil behavior (i.e. killing humans) inherent in their nature or DO THEY HAVE A CHOICE? Well, I'm pretty sure this didn't make much coherent sense. It just seemed like folks were not just disagreeing on whether vampires were evil or not, but also what consitutes evilness (nature or behavior); who gets to define what is evil; who/what is the "higher authority" defining what is moral; and whether one can be judged be be evil if they have no choice in their behavior because it is hardwired into their nature (the vampires are like wolves argument.) I'll check back on the discussion later. Hubby arriving home after 6 days (in Chicago, deborah) with son in tow (arriving home from college.) It's remotely possible that they will expect dinner and not to find 6 days worth of dishes, newspapers, mail, etc. strewn about the house.......Of course, if I'd been away for 6 days I know that's exactly what I would find on my return!
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jun 17, 2003 13:32:25 GMT -5
I tend to lump both together at the extremes of hostility toward the different and the possibly (or actually) dangerous. I don't believe either is valid. And I think the Jossverse is with me in being at least skeptical of any pronouncements that justify impersonal wholesale murder of an entire line of creatures. Because, in part, of the exception always made, however grudgingly, for Spike.
I guess that's as far as I've come in my trying to come to terms with the implicit or expressed stand of the Jossverse on the question of vampires: If the result is that Spike should be killed with impunity and satisfaction, it's wrong. I think the Jossverse supports that position.
[/color][/quote] Yes, Nan - I agree that Jossverse supports the position that a creature shouldn't be destroyed just on the assumption that it is evil. There are many instances where demons are shown socializing in their "underground" world - and no one drops a bomb on them indiscriminately. (Especially shown in Angel.) They seem to be tolerated up to a point, as necessary evils. A balance of good and evil, not to be tipped too far in one direction just under the assumption that a demon or creature is evil. Hope that makes sense, but basically - what you said!
|
|
|
Post by Betsy on Jun 17, 2003 13:38:49 GMT -5
But from the description I got from FLights of Angel, James wasn't sired by Angelus.
Here's a description of the episode . . .
Gunn, Cordy and Wesley have returned from killing some demons. Since Angel left about three months ago, Fred has barely come out of her room. After hearing about Buffy's death, Angel went on a monastic retreat in Sri Lanka, where he has been working through his grief. Everyone believes that the peace and quiet is exactly what he needs. Unfortunately, the monastery is full of demon monks that are bent on killing Angel, and disrupting his peace and quiet. Of course, Angel kills them all, and returns to LA. Cordelia is especially considerate about how Angel is dealing with losing Buffy, but he isn't talking.
Angel visits Fred in her room, where she has plastered her walls with writing. She is trying to make sense out of her new life outside of Pylea. Angel convinces Fred she has to take baby-steps, and try to come out of her room. It is obvious that Angel and Fred are both happy to see each other. In the middle of telling Fred she is safe in the hotel, Angel hears Cordelia scream. She is having one of her visions; a group of vampires have slaughtered students at a college party. Although the side effects from her vision are markedly worse than previous visions, Gunn, Wesley and Angel leave Cordelia, and head off to the college. They arrive too late to stop the massacre, but manage to catch up with the vampires and their hostages. After releasing the hostages, Angel, Wesley and Gunn begin to kick some vampire butt. Angel grabs a blonde female vampire, and stakes her. She turns to look at him, and recognition crosses her face. Before she turns to dust, she mutters "Angelus?" Angel is left holding her locket, looking distressed.
We learn that in 1767, in Marseilles, a young vampire named James stole the locket for the female vampire while with Angelus and Darla. Holtz, a vampire hunter, is pursuing them, so Darla and the female vampire head off to the docks, leaving James and Angelus to face Holtz. James and Angelus manage to escape, but not before Angelus reveals where they will be meeting in order to leave Marseilles. James separates from Angelus in disgust.
Back in the present, James is devastated that the love of his life is dead. He is bent on vengeance. He visits Dr. Gregory (a Snod demon) for the "cure." Wesley and Gunn meet up with Merle, from whom they learn that James has had his heart removed, rendering him invincible, but only for a certain amount of time. They try to call the hotel to warn Angel, but James is already there. Unfortunately, Fred decides to leave her room at this time, and Angel tells her to go back in. Although confused, Fred complies. Angel doesn't want anything happening to her. After staking James, then throwing him into the sunlight, Angel and Cordy take to the subway tunnels, with James in hot pursuit. Angel, Cordy and James end up in a subway car, where James confronts Angel about screwing Darla, and killing his lover. Mistakenly, James believes that Cordelia is the woman Angel loves. Reluctantly, Angel finally admits, "the woman I love… is dead." James cannot believe Angel could have ever loved someone. With his warped "Romeo and Juliet" views, James believes that he is the only one that has really "lived" - he cannot fathom how anyone could carry on with their life (or in his case un-life) after their love has died. He ridicules Angel for this, and a fight ensues. However, without his heart, James eventually turns to dust.
Cordelia finally manages to get Angel to open up about Buffy's death. Angel feels he has betrayed her by continuing on with his life, and not being there when she died to die with her. Cordelia lets him know that instead of betraying her, he is honouring her memory.
While all of this was occurring, Darla was in Nicaragua, where she met a man in a bar. He has given her some information she requested, and wishes to have a drink with her. Of course, this is the wrong thing to say to a vampire, as Darla allows her feral features to show, and drinks from the man. As she stands up, we can see that she is obviously pregnant. But who is the father?
|
|