|
Post by DaveCrenshaw on Oct 22, 2003 11:10:38 GMT -5
I keep trying to, but Piper started pulling up the other day so every time I sit down her little head pops up over the gate blocking the dining room. She starts crying and then I have to pick her up. I think it's time to send her to kindergarten. I have no idea where to put the commas in that first sentence The commas go thusly -- I keep trying to, but Piper started pulling up the other day , so every time I sit down , her little head pops up over the gate blocking the dining room.
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on Oct 22, 2003 11:10:55 GMT -5
Vampires: Evil, sinners, or just bad choices?[/u]
Let's look at the following quotes from BtVS:
Clearly the two above statements are "confusing." Later we do find out that Willow does indeed share personality traits with her "vampire" self. I take Buffy's final statement "but for the grace of getting bit" as "shorthand" to mean the entire vampire siring process and so, don't really take issue with that.
I hold to the idea that, indeed, it is the guilt that a person places upon themselves for the actions that were committed while their souls were out. And I can't help but believe it is a combination of things.
The fact is that their personalities do indeed harbor the evils that their vampire selves release: subconscious desires that we perceive to be "sins." The fact is that both William and Liam acquiesced to something they surely knew was not "good." If it's not good, it's a sin. Remember, we aren't talking the fuzzy morals of today. We are talking a long time ago, Victorian age and before. Both of these future vampires knew that giving in was wrong, at least a little. Liam was out whoring and if I remember correctly, was about to steal to support his debaucherous ways. William himself was responding out of feelings of worthlessness... neither were doing "good."
Now, as Kerrie said:
Angel feels guilt. His life of moral wrongs led to him being sired. If he had been good and been home with his family that night, not out sinning, then he would never have become Angelus. It's akin to a drunk driver hitting a bus of folks and killing them. The drunk driver wasn't intending on killing people when he started drinking. He wasn't thinking about that at all. However, he knows that the loss of control was the result of him letting it happen. Perhaps he is a sick person... couldn't control the desire to drink. But don't tell me that person, after sobering up and finding out what happened, will not feel guilt. I know I would. I think most people would. Our courts will say you were guilty. They will say you made that choice to drink in the first place. Everyone around you will feel you did wrong. I think Angel very much feels that type of guilt.
Spike on the other hand... William wasn't nearly the "bad" person that Liam was. He chose to drink from Dru because she offered him respect and maybe love. He was only guilty of not looking deeper; accepting what was offered too quickly because it was what he so dearly wanted. Now, we get to the Spike post-soul. Spike doesn't seem to have as much a problem regrouping. He understands that the evil his soulless vampire-self did was not his fault. He wasn't doing anything so wrong when he acquiesced. He is more the traveler on a long trip that dozed off at the wheel smacking the bus. The same number of people died as in the drunk driver's case and he feels terrible about it, but it was never his intent... he never realized he was so sleepy while driving. He wasn't out recklessly carousing. He was simply let down by his normal human body. The courts would call it an unfortunate accident; people would feel sympathetic to his plight because everyone has succumbed to sleep accidentally at some point. It's just horrible luck. So while Spike does feel horrible for what happened, and will in the future try to make sure he doesn't "drowse off", he does understand that the whole thing wasn't due to his "choices" so much.
I think this explains nicely the differences between Spike and Angel and the whole guilt issue. Mainly it does go to the concept that Angel feels guilty because, upon examination, he knows he made horrible choices. Spike doesn't feel nearly so guilty because the choice he made was not as "clearly bad." But in both cases, both do feel "guilt" and both will endeavor in the future never to make the same mistakes. The degrees are just drastically different.
Shanno stated:
I agree that it isn't right to me that Spike be judged for the sins committed while he was a vampire and actually I am surprised that he should be standing over the crevasse into Hell. We were never given the impression that William was all that bad before he was turned, and once he was re-souled he endeavored consistently to do the right things which finally left him in the position to sacrifice his life for the lives of others. I would call this a supremely good act. True, his wanting to wear the amulet wasn't "wholly" a good act... he wanted to impress Buffy. But it was definitely inferred that he could have "stopped the process" or that at least he thought it was possible. I find the whole thing puzzling somewhat myself.
My best guess is that the PTB are behind it. Perhaps Spike wasn't supposed to have worn the Liz Taylor amulet after all. They maybe returned him to the world because it wasn't "his time." I personally believe from what I have been shown so far that Spike fades every time HE questions the Powers That Be. Every time he makes light of his having a soul or complaining that it isn't "fair." Perhaps the PTB are trying to get through to him that it's not his role to "question" That it is by THEIR grace that he lives at all. Thing is... that would imply that people have "fates." Of course, the prophecies rampant thru both shows imply this. The Bible itself kinda says that the story has already been written. Since Joss is a self-proclaimed atheist, maybe this is what he is trying to point out: the whole absurdity of "having self will" while at the same time "it's already been written." Spike is the perfect object with which to examine this paradox . His whole personality is that he is in control. What was it he was singing as he rumbled off into the horizon in Lover's Walk? "I did it MY way?" We identify his strong will in the show as part of his character. Angel is his perfect antithesis, because he hopes that indeed its all been written. According to prophesy, he will sanshu, getting what he wants most: redemption and to be normal again. Both characters find strength in their philosophies most of the time. Occasionally it seems to be each vamp's worst downfall.
I agree that it is all pretty puzzling. I suspect that the episode tonight will answer some questions in this area (while probably raising even more...it's Whedonverse after all. *L*) But, hey, isn't it great that we have a show that's examining something like this...and not spoonfeeding it, but instead letting us think about it. I imagine not a one of us is going to completely like where it goes. But at least it's "honest thought."
Vlad, thoughtful viewer
|
|
|
Post by karalee on Oct 22, 2003 11:20:28 GMT -5
The commas go thusly -- I keep trying to, but Piper started pulling up the other day , so every time I sit down , her little head pops up over the gate blocking the dining room. LOL. Thanks, Mrs. Edrington would give you A for that and possibly hold it up in front of the class as an example. I know no one can tell it now, but I was an A student when it came to language arts. 4 kids have sucked all my brainpower.
|
|
|
Post by karalee on Oct 22, 2003 11:24:15 GMT -5
I'm reading the wildfeed for tonights episode. I hope I can find it somewhere to download by tomorrow. I toyed with the idea of not reading what y'all post tonight, but I probably will anyway. Once and ho, always a ho.
|
|
|
Post by Sandy - lparish on Oct 22, 2003 11:29:10 GMT -5
Ten people on (including three guests), and nobody is saying jack. What's up with that? My students keep expecting me to actually teach them something.
|
|
|
Post by DaveCrenshaw on Oct 22, 2003 11:30:03 GMT -5
Vald, I loved your comments. You don't chime in often, but when you do, it's always a fun read. I guess the saying is true that it takes one to know one, so when the topic of discussion is vampires ....
Vald's discussion of Liam's currousing ways leading to his siring really struck me. I can't help but think that part of the reason Angel and Spike might feel remorse (and Angel more than Spike), draws from the time period that much of the early vampire lore that we're familiar with in the Western World was written. The writers weren't writing purely for the sake of entertainment, but there was also almost always a moral embedded in the story, even if one had to look for it. Mary Shelley, for example, was sending a warning to scientists who dared to play God when she wrote Frankenstein.
The earliest popular vampire writing (and still one of the most popular) of our time was Bram Stoker's Dracula. While much of Joss Whedon's lore comes from later authors like Anne Rice, a good portion of the lore still dates back to Stoker's novel because that's where a lot of the authors of today drew from. And when you examine the symobolism of Stoker's famous novel, there's definitely a message there. For example, the fact that items like crosses and holy water could defend against a vampire was symbolic of how putting your faith in God could protect you against the evils of this world.
More to the point of this discussion is some of the limitations placed on vampires in Stoker lore. Vampires are restricted to the night, but they cannot enter a residence without the permission of the resident. At the time, really the only people out after dark were generally curousers like Liam, in search of a pint or a wench -- the good citizens were safe at home with their families, generally tucked in bed early so they could rise early for a decent day's hard work.
As Vlad noted, Liam's currousing led to his being sired. He was out seeking a pint and a wench. He found both, but the latter proved to be his downfall. Had he listenned and obeyed his father (such as the Ten Commandments tell us to do), he never would have been sired because he'd have been home with his family where he belonged.
Now in William's case, it was a different story -- by the time William came along, London had electric lights and the like, so a good person like William could be out at night. But still, it was more proper to be at home after dark, especially when one is nursing a sick mother. And I'm sure there's a degree of pain for Spike that what drove him into the street in the first place was being mocked by his friends and spurned by the object of his affections; his anger led him right into Drusilla's waiting bosom.
|
|
|
Post by DaveCrenshaw on Oct 22, 2003 11:31:26 GMT -5
My students keep expecting me to actually teach them something. Yeah, I know. My boss keeps interrupting me with work to do. As if she doesn't realize that this is infinitely more important.
|
|
|
Post by LeeHollins on Oct 22, 2003 11:33:03 GMT -5
Ten people on (including three guests), and nobody is saying jack. What's up with that? I'm feeling fiesty today. Anyone want to scrap? ;D Caraleigh - great to see you back!
|
|
|
Post by DaveCrenshaw on Oct 22, 2003 11:35:00 GMT -5
I'm feeling fiesty today. Anyone want to scrap? ;D Caraleigh - great to see you back! You too? I've been under the weather the last couple of days -- fighting a cold and losing the fight -- and it's got me in a real bitchy mood.
|
|
|
Post by deborah on Oct 22, 2003 11:37:32 GMT -5
Patti- You said: // Spike said he was giving Wood a pass 'on account I killed his mother'. He took responsibility. But he said if Wood tried it again, he'd kill him. Because once you've accepted your responsibility, the only thing you can usually do about it is go on, and do differently. //
If by "responsibility" you mean guilt then I disagree. While ensouled Spike was consumed with guilt for all his past victims, he didn't consider Nicki one of them. As a Slayer he viewed her as an opposing warrior whom he killed in a fair fight.
I think Spike gave Wood a pass because he decided to make an allowance for Wood's motivation; trying to revenge his mother's death by killing her killer. Regardless of Spike's justification for killing Nicki, he understood and probably even respected Wood's desire to avenge his mother's death, and apparently decided it entitled him to a stay of execution. But he made it clear that these extenuating circumstances would not be considered again.
Sue- I was also confused by that news item referring to a movie JM had (according to the past-tense) already filmed. But when I originally posted this same news item (either on the Articles & Interviews or Main Thread at the time - I can't remember) we figured out that it was actually referring to VH which has not been filmed yet. The plot described in that news item matches the plot of VH except for the omission of the gay element or mention of the setting in fascist Italy.
Spring & Dave (I think)- I agree that AYW had some powerful, memorable scenes and that it accomplished what ME intended; that is, reminded Buffy and all of us that Spike was not *good* and gave Buffy the resolve to end their mutually destructive relationship. But that doesn't excuse the lame, awkward plot device that they employed for the purpose. Yes, we got the message but the delivery was not up to ME's usual high standards.
Spring- I see your point about the "Evil", "Of course" exchange between S/B in "Hells-Bells" as intending to demonstrate how ambiguous Spike's (sense of his own?) evil had become and how lightly Buffy had come to consider Spike as a threat of evil. While this interpretation does make a certain amount of sense to me I'm still not sure I buy it. Perhaps it's because it demands a greater capacity to detect subtlety than I posses, or maybe because in the bathroom scene, Buffy's declaration to Spike that she could never trust him enough to love him belies the notion that she had become complacent about the threat he presented. But I accept that you could well be right here.
RE Discussion on COW not paying Slayers: It's always seemed to me that the surest way to cultivate a Slayer's resistance to COW authority is NOT to recompence them for their *work*. If they actually paid them the Council might rely upon the Slayer's financial dependence to help ensure her obedience and cooperation.
|
|
|
Post by Sandy - lparish on Oct 22, 2003 11:40:02 GMT -5
I'm reading the wildfeed for tonights episode. I hope I can find it somewhere to download by tomorrow. I toyed with the idea of not reading what y'all post tonight, but I probably will anyway. Once and ho, always a ho. Where did you find the wildfeed? Vlad, excellent post. I had wondered if maybe WRH were controlling Spike and the amulet which would explain the problem of hell being after Spike. You're right about the fading in and out and the actions preceeding it. I had supposed here, the PTB were stepping in, interfering with WRH but hadn't noticed the connection until you mentioned it.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Oct 22, 2003 11:42:18 GMT -5
Vampires: Evil, sinners, or just bad choices? <snip> My best guess is that the PTB are behind it. Perhaps Spike wasn't supposed to have worn the Liz Taylor amulet after all. They maybe returned him to the world because it wasn't "his time." I personally believe from what I have been shown so far that Spike fades every time HE questions the Powers That Be. Every time he makes light of his having a soul or complaining that it isn't "fair." Perhaps the PTB are trying to get through to him that it's not his role to "question" That it is by THEIR grace that he lives at all. Thing is... that would imply that people have "fates." Of course, the prophecies rampant thru both shows imply this. The Bible itself kinda says that the story has already been written. Since Joss is a self-proclaimed atheist, maybe this is what he is trying to point out: the whole absurdity of "having self will" while at the same time it's already been written. Spike is the perfect object with which to examine this paradox . His whole personality is that he is in control. What was it he was singing as he rumbled off into the horizon in Lover's Walk? "I did it MY way?" We identify his strong will in the show as part of his character. Angel is his perfect antithesis, because he hopes that indeed its all been written. According to prophesy, he will sanshu, getting what he wants most: redemption and to be normal again. Both characters find strength in their philosophies most of the time. Occasionally it seems to be each vamp's worst downfall. <snip> Vlad, thoughtful viewer That message that we get from BtVS and I suspect, here in AtS as well, that "it's all written" and "it's all under your control" is really the same message we get from real life. I mean - you control everything and you control absolutely nothing; you're the center of your universe and you're an insignificant, infintesimally small speck in a boundless universe; you create your environment and your environment creates you; you choose your own path, yet the destinations all seem predetermined. It seems that it is true that we are Masters of our Fate (Captains of our Soul) AND that any power we believe ourselves to possess is entirely illusional. Don't ask me how this should be, I can only tell you that this seems to me to be so: I am completely responsible for where I stand today, AND I was carried powerlessly along by the irresistable forces of fate. The more life proves to me I have no control - the more surprises, the more unexpected joys and tragedies - the more in control, the more confident and self-possessed I feel. The more control I give up, the more I have.
|
|
|
Post by Sandy - lparish on Oct 22, 2003 11:45:03 GMT -5
...RE Discussion on COW not paying Slayers: It's always seemed to me that the surest way to cultivate a Slayer's resistance to COW authority is NOT to recompence them for their *work*. If they actually paid them the Council might rely upon the Slayer's financial dependence to help ensure her obedience and cooperation. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by karalee on Oct 22, 2003 11:45:34 GMT -5
I'm feeling fiesty today. Anyone want to scrap? ;D Caraleigh - great to see you back! I was actually never gone, I was just being creepy and lurky. I mooned you all a few times, too ;D (I did say I was creepy, right?) LeeP- you can get the wildfeed here
|
|
|
Post by DaveCrenshaw on Oct 22, 2003 11:46:37 GMT -5
I was actually never gone, I was just being creepy and lurky. I mooned you all a few times, too ;D (I did say I was creepy, right?) LeeP- you can get the wildfeed here Some of us enjoyed it when you mooned us. Maybe that means we're creepy too.
|
|