New female lead (supposition, no spoiler)
Mark Nobles
Harm, a shortage of female characters. Someone complained in another
thread about bringing in a new character out of the blue, and I think
that would be too weird myself.
But what if, in their new dedication to getting involved with the
people in real need, the gang went back to the little mission run by
Anne (Chanterelle)? She's a tough, wholesome character, and they would
have a genuine reason to reconnect with her. In fact, given her
previous connection with W&H, it's kind of strange we haven't seen her
in so long anyway.
What do you think, sirs?
dalecue
Mark Nobles wrote in message
<110220041219129699%cmn-n...@houston.rr.com>...
>Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and
>Harm, a shortage of female characters.
sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel
did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females?
Randy Money
> Mark Nobles wrote in message
> <110220041219129699%cmn-n...@houston.rr.com>...
>
>
>
>>Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and
>>Harm, a shortage of female characters.
>
>
> sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel
No moreso than BtVS was about Buffy. Both shows were about community,
friendship, loyalty, family, love, loss, and how the main characters
are/were connected to those around them.
> did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females?
For five seasons Buffy had Giles to anchor the male side of things.
Xander grew up enough to do some anchoring in season 6 & 7, though he
wasn't as strong a presence as Giles. Spike helped some, when he helped
at all.
Angel, as a character, needs other characters as much as Buffy did to
give the show balance. Right now, the loss of Lilah and Cordy eliminated
the only female characters who could stand up to him day in and day out.
Perhaps it is arguable that this loss hurts the show, but there are
those of us who think it hurts the show deeply.
Randy M.
dalecue
Randy Money wrote in message <402A86BA...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu>...
a good point, not however, the point of the orig-post, which is what
I was responding to
Dale
>
>
>Randy M.
>
Avatar
<rbm...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> wrote:
>dalecue wrote:
>> Mark Nobles wrote in message
>> <110220041219129699%cmn-n...@houston.rr.com>...
>>
>>
>>
>>>Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and
>>>Harm, a shortage of female characters.
>>
>>
>> sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel
>
>No moreso than BtVS was about Buffy. Both shows were about community,
>friendship, loyalty, family, love, loss, and how the main characters
>are/were connected to those around them.
>
>> did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females?
>
>For five seasons Buffy had Giles to anchor the male side of things.
>Xander grew up enough to do some anchoring in season 6 & 7, though he
>wasn't as strong a presence as Giles. Spike helped some, when he helped
>at all.
Thought I'd beat Rose to the punch and say, "You mean, when Spike
wasn't trying to rape Buffy."
>
>Angel, as a character, needs other characters as much as Buffy did to
>give the show balance. Right now, the loss of Lilah and Cordy eliminated
>the only female characters who could stand up to him day in and day out.
>
>Perhaps it is arguable that this loss hurts the show, but there are
>those of us who think it hurts the show deeply.
>
>
>Randy M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sooner or later, all of our names wind up on a Post-It.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Nobles
dalecue <pdg...@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Randy Money wrote in message <402A86BA...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu>...
> >dalecue wrote:
> >> Mark Nobles wrote in message
> >> <110220041219129699%cmn-n...@houston.rr.com>...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and
> >>>Harm, a shortage of female characters.
> >>
> >>
> >> sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel
If you think the show is about Angel, then you have missed the whole
point of it. Also, your judgment is sexist, not what you are judging.
> >
> >No moreso than BtVS was about Buffy. Both shows were about community,
> >friendship, loyalty, family, love, loss, and how the main characters
> >are/were connected to those around them.
> >
> >> did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females?
> >
> >For five seasons Buffy had Giles to anchor the male side of things.
> >Xander grew up enough to do some anchoring in season 6 & 7, though he
> >wasn't as strong a presence as Giles. Spike helped some, when he helped
> >at all.
> >
> >Angel, as a character, needs other characters as much as Buffy did to
> >give the show balance. Right now, the loss of Lilah and Cordy eliminated
> >the only female characters who could stand up to him day in and day out.
> >
>
>
> >Perhaps it is arguable that this loss hurts the show, but there are
> >those of us who think it hurts the show deeply.
>
> a good point, not however, the point of the orig-post, which is what
> I was responding to
>
No, actually it was exactly the point of the original post (sez the OP).
What set Buffy off from the "ordinary" Slayer was that she had friends
and family, and a life. Those relationships were what the show was
about - the forces of darkness were just McGuffins.
Angel is about the same thing. It is the relationships, the connections
with the people he saves, that makes his work matter. Doyle said so in
so many words.
The problem I was seeing was that without having *strong*, regular
characters who are female, while you tend to get a lot of victims who
are female, then it creates an atmosphere of
victim=female, rescuer=male.
That would be something truly obnoxious.
Hell Toupee
>
> Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and
> Harm, a shortage of female characters. Someone complained in another
> thread about bringing in a new character out of the blue, and I think
> that would be too weird myself.
Well, I liked the Nina (werewolf) character, and the possibility of a
warm, yet it-never-can-be-love relationship with Angel. The problem with
having a female lead on this show is that Angel's character has inherent
limitations on his ability to have a love relationship. Nina feels she
now has the same limitations. Yet there's an attraction between them,
but one which can never be. I'd rather see a (very) low-key, wistful
kind of relationship there than having another female lead and the
resultant will-they-or-won't-they fall in love situation and the
inherent story complications that brings.
So my vote is for a warm relationship between Angel and a woman that
_isn't_ predicated on romance. It would be a nice change, and Nina
provides a believable justification for that type of relationship.
Hell "Actually, I'd love to see more of Dana, but I'll settle for Nina"
Toupee
Randy Money
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:47:06 -0500, Randy Money
> <rbm...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>dalecue wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Nobles wrote in message
>>><110220041219129699%cmn-n...@houston.rr.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and
>>>>Harm, a shortage of female characters.
>>>
>>>
>>>sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel
>>
>>No moreso than BtVS was about Buffy. Both shows were about community,
>>friendship, loyalty, family, love, loss, and how the main characters
>>are/were connected to those around them.
>>
>>
>>>did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females?
>>
>>For five seasons Buffy had Giles to anchor the male side of things.
>>Xander grew up enough to do some anchoring in season 6 & 7, though he
>>wasn't as strong a presence as Giles. Spike helped some, when he helped
>>at all.
>
>
> Thought I'd beat Rose to the punch and say, "You mean, when Spike
> wasn't trying to rape Buffy."
:)
Well, that's certainly one instance where he was less than helpful; but
the rather violent nature of their relationship previous to that made
the issue of rape problematic. That was a very uncomfortable scene,
possibly made even moreso by knowing what had come before. It was in
some ways audacious in making the audience have to question how this
particular woman contributed to an atmosphere in which this particular
man could believe rape was somehow the right thing to do, and then
wonder how often such a thing could happen in the real world.
Randy M.
Mark Nobles
<my...@notmine.com> wrote:
You know, that's what made me think of Anne. She showed no romantic
interest in Angel at all - if anything, she strikes me as more Gunn's
type - but she is independent, strong and capable, not in any way a
victim. Pretty much the opposite of what she was when we met her the
first two times.
Dana is just too damaged to be really strong for a while. Her story
would just be too parallel to Angel's to be a good fit.
Xavier Sloane
"Hell Toupee" <my...@notmine.com> wrote in message
news:402A9B3A...@notmine.com...
> Mark Nobles wrote:
> >
> > Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and
> > Harm, a shortage of female characters. Someone complained in another
> > thread about bringing in a new character out of the blue, and I think
> > that would be too weird myself.
>
> Well, I liked the Nina (werewolf) character, and the possibility of a
> warm, yet it-never-can-be-love relationship with Angel. The problem with
> having a female lead on this show is that Angel's character has inherent
> limitations on his ability to have a love relationship. Nina feels she
> now has the same limitations. Yet there's an attraction between them,
> but one which can never be. I'd rather see a (very) low-key, wistful
> kind of relationship there than having another female lead and the
> resultant will-they-or-won't-they fall in love situation and the
> inherent story complications that brings.
I'm an avid X-Files re-run viewer (I never bothered to watch more than a
couple of episodes when new eps were being made because I thought it was
"boring", it took several episodes of re-runs that aired at 2:00 am when
there was nothing else to watch for me to learn to appreciate just how
intense the show really is/was), and I can't help but think you don't need
such "limitations" to have a lead female role who isn't going to fall in
love with the lead male role. Just look at Scully and Mulder for example:
though there was sexual tension there, they had a relationship based on
mutual respect and admiration. They had a very deep love for one another
which was restrained by professionalism and friendship. To a certain
extent, it seemed they had too much respect for eachother to risk making the
other uncomfortable with what might turn out to be un-wanted advances.
Willow and Xander also had such a relationship. Sure they had their
indescressions while Xander and Cordy were together, but Xander really
didn't seem to have any romantic feelings for her. That whole kissing thing
while he was dating Cordy seemed like he was just trying to relieve the
sexual tension that had built up between them and seeing if it would go
anywhere. When push came to shove, Xander loved Willow as a friend and
nothing more -- and yet this love was so strong that Xander actually used it
to SAVE THE WORLD.
Then there's Buffy and Giles. I mean, Giles straight-up LOVED Buffy. And I
don't mean romantic love, I mean fatherly love. He had intense, parental,
take-a-bullet-to-save-her-life LOVE for the girl and never ONCE thought of
her in a sexual sense. Anyone who watched the show knew that Giles had the
kind of love that kids are *lucky* if they get from their parents -- the way
he encouraged and supported her nomatter what almost defied belief.
> So my vote is for a warm relationship between Angel and a woman that
> _isn't_ predicated on romance. It would be a nice change, and Nina
> provides a believable justification for that type of relationship.
Why does there have to be "justification"? Because every female that Angel
has ever respected or admired became the object of his desire? Because he
can't love a woman in the sense of friendship? Because if he doesn't have
romantic interest in a woman, he seems indifferent toward them? Actually,
nevermind. When it comes to Angel, there *does* need to be justification.
Angel isn't a strong enough male character to handle a strong female
character without falling in love with her. Angel's a weak little kitten
(emotionally) and strong women just make him weaker. Angel is a lot like
Xander was at age 16. The difference: Xander actually grew up at some point
and became a man, while Angel is still just a pathetic little boy who is
incapable of having a mature relationship with anyone based on mutual
respect and (non-romantic) love.
Peace Out,
- Xavier Sloane
R. Watson
"Mark Nobles" <cmn-n...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:110220041219129699%cmn-n...@houston.rr.com...
Clairel
--Someone said the idea of needing female characters was sexist; I
don't agree with that, but I kind of wonder about addressing the
question to "sirs" only.
Although I am not a sir, I shall answer that I would welcome
Anne/Chantarelle on the show. I don't know if the actress is
available or not, but it's a good idea. It'd be especially
interesting now that Spike is on AtS, because in AtS season 2 Anne
didn't remember having met Angel in Sunnydale, but she certainly
remembered being bitten by a vampire, and that vampire was Spike. He
gave Chantarelle quite a scare, and probably knocked all the nonsense
about friendly vampires out of her head. Seeing Spike and
Anne/Chantarelle come face to face again would be neat.
I also would like Nina the werewolf girl to become a regular on the
show.
Clairel
Bobby Tuesday
> Mark Nobles wrote in message
> <110220041219129699%cmn-n...@houston.rr.com>...
>
>
> >Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and
> >Harm, a shortage of female characters.
>
> sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel
>
> did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females?
Actually, yeah. Towards the end, at least. The ratio of F:M leads is
as follows:
S1: 3:2
S2: 3:4
S3: 3:4
S4: 3:4
S5: 5:4
S6: 5:2
S7: 5:2
After Riley left, the show got very female heavy (I count Tara as a
lead in S5 and ^ because, well, at least in S6 she should have been).
Giles was missing for large parts of S6 and S7 and Xander had
virtually no role. It was very estrogen heavy, especially with all
the SITs...
In contrast, Angel went:
S1: 1:2
S2: 1:3
S3: 2:4
S4: 2:5
S5: 1:5
It's always been male cast heavy, but we always had either Lilah or
Darla as regulars to spice things up. Personally I prefered it when
it was a much smaller cast and when Lorne was simply "the Host."
Thems were the days.
Having Anne back, at least for a guest spot, would be nice, though.
Mark Nobles
<reld...@usa.net> wrote:
> Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<110220041219129699%cmn-n...@houston.rr.com>...
> > Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and
> > Harm, a shortage of female characters. Someone complained in another
> > thread about bringing in a new character out of the blue, and I think
> > that would be too weird myself.
> >
> > But what if, in their new dedication to getting involved with the
> > people in real need, the gang went back to the little mission run by
> > Anne (Chanterelle)? She's a tough, wholesome character, and they would
> > have a genuine reason to reconnect with her. In fact, given her
> > previous connection with W&H, it's kind of strange we haven't seen her
> > in so long anyway.
> >
> > What do you think, sirs?
>
> --Someone said the idea of needing female characters was sexist; I
> don't agree with that, but I kind of wonder about addressing the
> question to "sirs" only.
That's what Mike always said, but then he was addressing Dr. Forester
and TV's Frank. I am open to suggestions.
>
> Although I am not a sir, I shall answer that I would welcome
> Anne/Chantarelle on the show. I don't know if the actress is
> available or not, but it's a good idea.
I finally remembered her name, Julia Lee, and found her in the imdb.
While she has been making movies since Angel, she's playing characters
called "Another hot girl" and "Spa receptionist." This would seem to
indicate she's available enough.
> It'd be especially
> interesting now that Spike is on AtS, because in AtS season 2 Anne
> didn't remember having met Angel in Sunnydale, but she certainly
> remembered being bitten by a vampire, and that vampire was Spike. He
> gave Chantarelle quite a scare, and probably knocked all the nonsense
> about friendly vampires out of her head. Seeing Spike and
> Anne/Chantarelle come face to face again would be neat.
I did not realize this, but it does add a lot to Spike's story.
Also, looking her up in imdb, I found she also went by the name Joan.
Wonder if that was why Buffy adopted that name when her mind was a
blank slate?
>
> I also would like Nina the werewolf girl to become a regular on the
> show.
I was not so impressed.
William George Ferguson
<pdg...@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Mark Nobles wrote in message
><110220041219129699%cmn-n...@houston.rr.com>...
>
>
>>Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and
>>Harm, a shortage of female characters.
>
>sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel
>
>did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females?
Buffy Males
Season 1 Giles, Xander (recurring, Angel 7/12)
Season 2 Giles, Xander, Angel (recurring, Spike 12, Oz 10)
Season 3 Giles, Xander, Angel, Oz (recurring, Wilkins 11, Wesley 9)
Season 4 Giles, Xander, Oz(6), Spike(16), Riley(12)
(recurring, Riley 8,Spike 2,Oz 2, Forrest 12, Bailey 10)
Season 5 Giles, Xander, Spike(21), Riley(10) (recurring, Ben 14)
Season 6 Xander, Spike
(recurring, Jonathan 11, Andrew 11, Warren 9, Giles 8)
Season 7 Xander, Spike
(recurring, Andrew 15, Wood 14, Giles 13)
Angel Females
Season 1 Cordelia (recurring, Kate 10, Lilah 6, Darla 3)
Season 2 Cordelia
(recurring, Darla 9, Lilah 7, Kate 7, Drusilla 4, Fred 4)
Season 3 Cordelia(19), Fred (recurring, Lilah 13, Justine 7, Darla 5)
Season 4 Cordelia, Fred (recurring, Lilah 10, Jasmine 5)
(although Cordelia appears on camera in all 22 eps, she only
appears in a dream sequence and in 'higher plane' cutaway
teases in the first 3, and she lies motionless in a coma in her
brief appearances in the last 4)
Season 5 Fred (recurring, Harmony 8/12, Eve 7/12)
It should be fairly obvious that there are far more regular and/or
frequently recurring male characters on Buffy than there are regular
and/or frequently recurring female characters on Angel. There were
neverl less than 2 male title credit characters on Buffy, and there were
3 or more for 88 of the 144 episodes (4 for 44 episodes). There was only
1 female title credit character for 56 of the 100 Angel episodes and 2
title credit characters for 44 episodes.
--
You've reached the Tittles. We can't come to the phone right now
If you want to leave a message for Christine, Press 1
For Bentley, Press 2
Or to speak to, or worship, Master Tarfall, Underlord of Pain, Press 3
Brian Grassie
"Xavier Sloane" <xavier...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0EyWb.491$tL3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Great points. I'd love it if Nina became a recurring character - the Angel
cast could use another female character, IMNSHO - but I don't think it's at
all necessary for her to have a romantic relationship with anyone. Or for
Angel to.
I do think that Buffy was short of guys. Except Oz, they never really had a
strong male teen character - Xander was often shown as pretty
pathetic/useless, Giles was older, Angel and Spike were much older plus
dead. I'd have really liked it if they'd included a smart, good-guy male
teenager.
Xavier Sloane
"Brian Grassie" <bkw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7VzWb.2447$Fp5...@read1.cgocable.net...
> Great points. I'd love it if Nina became a recurring character - the
Angel
> cast could use another female character, IMNSHO - but I don't think it's
at
> all necessary for her to have a romantic relationship with anyone. Or for
> Angel to.
Actually I'd like to see Angel date outside the office a little bit and
realize that he doesn't have to have this "epic love" type of relationship
to be happy with someone. Unfortunately, when two main characters in almost
*any* show have a relationship, it's almost always in an "epic love" type of
capacity. Angel's been there, done that (with Buffy), then went there again
and almost did it (with Cordy). The dude needs some balance in his life.
Nina isn't a particularly strong character at this point. But I think she
will be when she learns to deal with this who werewolf thing. With Oz it
was relatively easy, because he knew of others in his family that were going
through the same thing. Remember his phone conversation? He just roled
with the punches and adjusted - sure it was hard at first, but he did what
he had to do. Once Nina learns to do the same, she'll probably be a strong
female character, if the writers don't turn her into a broody little twit
like Angel.
Though I have to say, I like Angel more as the broody little twit he is now
than the Ken doll eye-candy 90210 reject he was in Buffy season 1.
> I do think that Buffy was short of guys. Except Oz, they never really had
a
> strong male teen character - Xander was often shown as pretty
> pathetic/useless, Giles was older, Angel and Spike were much older plus
> dead. I'd have really liked it if they'd included a smart, good-guy male
> teenager.
I think Xander was the quintessential akward teenage boy, who later
developed into an emotionally strong male. His little "conseling" session
with Buffy before Riley took off in the helicopter illustrates this well.
Xander was understated, to be sure, but he had so much heart that most Buffy
fans will agree he didn't get nearly the appreciation he should have on
screen.
Now I really like Spike's character, but honestly, I was rooting for Xander
when he tried to stake Spike after seeing him and Anya sleeping together.
And I very much enjoyed seeing the pain in Buffy's eyes when Xander scolded
Anya for sleeping with him. For me, that was the moment that Xander stopped
being everyone's butt-monkey and let people know that *his* feelings
mattered as much as everyone else's.
Giles started off somewhat weak, but he too became an unbelievably strong
character. He may not have been a teen, but the show didn't do very well
when he wasn't around as much IMNSHO. He also provided balance for the
show's "all adults are either evil or stupid" attitude, as well as being a
strong male character.
Oz could've been a great smart, good-guy male teen character (Xander didn't
become a strong male character until he was, what? Like 20 years old?), but
Seth Green left the show because the writers weren't doing anything with his
character. Who knows? Maybe the character would've really gone places if
only the actor would've been willing to ride it out a bit longer.
Personally, I'd like to see Wes track Oz down (maybe for a cameo, or maybe
not on screen at all) on Nina's behalf and send her off to get "trained" (no
pun intended) to control her Lycanthropy, so that she could "wolf-out" at
will and not do it if she didn't want to. Then she could come back a few
episodes later and be a very powerful female lead.
- Xavier Sloane
Chris Zabel
than one female regular. I think other shows or staffs could get away with
it, but ME has shown in the past that they handle female characters better
and its odd they would make Angel such a boy's club.
--
"They tease me now, telling me it was only a dream. But does it matter
whether it was a dream or reality, if the dream made known to me the
truth?" - Dostoevsky
dalecue
Mark Nobles wrote in message
well, if that was _exactly_ the point of the post, why did you say
'blah, blah overabundance of male characters'? - if you in fact
ment something else - I must have missed the memo
that mind reading was required
Dale
dalecue
Bobby Tuesday wrote in message
<8eeece58.04021...@posting.google.com>...
>"dalecue" <pdg...@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<zjvWb.18196$fV5.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>> Mark Nobles wrote in message
>> <110220041219129699%cmn-n...@houston.rr.com>...
>>
>>
>> >Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and
>> >Harm, a shortage of female characters.
>>
>> sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel
>>
>> did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females?
>
>
>Actually, yeah.
Sorry, the question was rhetorical - of course Buffy had more
females - I thjought it a devilishly clever way to point out no one
felt _that_ situation was a problem
I solemly swear to be less subtle in the future
Dale
dalecue
William George Ferguson wrote in message ...
good job on auditing - now if you could explain how that is some kind of
problem/undesireable situation, you'll get my vote of confidence
Dale
Bobby Tuesday
> Bobby Tuesday wrote in message
> <8eeece58.04021...@posting.google.com>...
> >"dalecue" <pdg...@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:<zjvWb.18196$fV5.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> >> Mark Nobles wrote in message
> >> <110220041219129699%cmn-n...@houston.rr.com>...
> >>
> >>
> >> >Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and
> >> >Harm, a shortage of female characters.
> >>
> >> sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel
> >>
> >> did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females?
> >
> >
>
>
> >Actually, yeah.
>
> Sorry, the question was rhetorical - of course Buffy had more
> females - I thjought it a devilishly clever way to point out no one
> felt _that_ situation was a problem
>
> I solemly swear to be less subtle in the future
no, I was actually not very forward with my response. I actually did
think that there was an overabundance and many people pointed it out
towards the end, over on ATBVS. My ratios were to show the shift, and
how it wasn't always but became that way. That's one of the reasons I
didn't like the last few seasons of BtVS. I used to identify with
Xander somewhat and liked Giles as an anchor to the adult world. When
Xander was being used for filler and Giles became absentee, while a
natural progression in the story of a young girl coming to terms with
her destiny, I lost interest.
Clairel
> Now I really like Spike's character, but honestly, I was rooting for Xander
> when he tried to stake Spike after seeing him and Anya sleeping together.
> And I very much enjoyed seeing the pain in Buffy's eyes when Xander scolded
> Anya for sleeping with him. For me, that was the moment that Xander stopped
> being everyone's butt-monkey and let people know that *his* feelings
> mattered as much as everyone else's.
--You have got to be kidding. Xander breaks Anya's heart by leaving
her at the altar, and then you applaud his scolding her for making use
of the freedom she has as a single, unattached woman to seek comfort
in the arms of anyone she chooses--because you think Xander needs to
let everyone know that *his* feelings matter?
Xander has made it abundantly clear over the past seven years what his
feelings are. He spouts off on every occasion, about every topic,
whether it's a topic that's any of his business or not.
One of my favorite BtVS moments was at the end of "Phases" in season 2
when Xander was spouting off to Buffy about how he didn't feel Willow
should be dating Oz: Xander said "If it was up to me--" and Buffy cut
him off by firmly saying "Xander, it isn't up to you." I cheered
Buffy at that moment!
Buffy should have said the same thing to Xander outside the Magic Box
at the end of BtVS 7.18 ("Entropy"). Buffy sleeping with Spike was
none of Xander's business, and Anya sleeping with Spike was none of
Xander's business either. When he left Anya at the altar, he cut her
loose, and he has no right to complain about what she does after that.
If he had wanted to be all possessive about Anya, all Xander had to
do was marry her. The wedding was his idea; the proposal was his
idea. Anya getting disgusted with him when he didn't follow through
on HIS OWN IDEA is only to be expected.
You seriously think that a woman's ex--an ex who broke up with her
when she just wanted to marry him--has the right to attack the
rejected woman verbally when she moves on to someone else, and has a
right to attack the someone else violently? Spike and Anya were both
consenting adults, and both single and unattached. What they do
together in private is nobody else's business. There shouldn't have
been spy cameras recording their private encounter at all, and anyone
with a sense of honor who saw the camera transmission by accident
should have respected Spike and Anya's privacy and refrained from
acting on that knowledge.
Remember this simple fact, which you seem to have so much trouble
bearing in mind: XANDER PROPOSED MARRIAGE TO ANYA, THEN *HE* BROKE UP
WITH HER BY LEAVING HER AT THE ALTAR--and leaving her an unattached,
single woman who is free to go about her own affairs, and free to
determine what those affairs should be, whether they include Spike or
any other guy who is ready and willing.
Clairel
Clairel
--What, you never saw the BtVS season 2 episode "Lie To Me"? Don't
put it off any longer. It's a classic. Go get a tape or DVD right
away.
You don't really know Anne/Chantarelle if you haven't seen "Lie To
Me." How did you even know she had used the pseudonym "Chantarelle"?
Clairel
Xavier Sloane
news:1faed770.04021...@posting.google.com...
That was a good moment. But he was just trying to look out for Willow. She
was like a sister to him. All (normal) guys get like that with their
mothers/sisters/daughters/girlfriends. They feel they have to protect the
women in their lives. It's an old instinct that goes back a couple of
hundred thousand years.
Firstly, I got the distinct impression that Xander was frightened by the
false-future he'd seen and left Anya at the altar because he thought it was
best FOR HER. He did it out of love. After seeing his future self kill
Anya, it would've been more selfish to go through with the marriage. Even
after finding out it was a false future, I'd imagine he'd at least need some
time to think, and Anya should've understood that.
But even if she didn't, and it was an official break-up, you don't go
sleeping with the first person you see. You at least wait a couple of weeks
to make sure it's a "real" break-up so that you don't go and sleep with
someone else and have to live with that guilt for the rest of your life if
you both realize that breaking up was stupid. Anya didn't wait. She jumped
in the sack with the first guy she saw, which makes her kind of a skank if
you ask me -- not to mention a necrophiliac.
Mark Nobles
Better, I should get to the doctor and find out what has happened to my
memory. It isn't what it used to be. It has one of my favorite scenes,
when Giles gives Buffy the little pep talk about always being able to
tell the good guys from the bad guys by their white hats.
>
> You don't really know Anne/Chantarelle if you haven't seen "Lie To
> Me." How did you even know she had used the pseudonym "Chantarelle"?
I think Lily mentioned it in Anne when she reminded Buffy of who she
was.
Mark Nobles
Xavier Sloane <xavier...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> She jumped
> in the sack with the first guy she saw, which makes her kind of a skank if
> you ask me
We were on a break. - Ross Gellar
Xavier Sloane
Yeah...he was kind of a he-skank if you ask me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not
saying that what Anya did was unforgiveable, but she deserved the verbal
raking she got. She had every reason to feel really, really, really bad
about what she'd done.
- Xavier
Clairel
--I disagree. As a single, unattached consenting adult she had
absolutely no reason to feel bad about what she had done. And I was
glad she stood up to Xander and pointed that out.
If you listen to what Anya says to Spike during the scene where
they're drinking and talking together, it's clear Anya is very
insecure; Xander has totally torn down her self-esteem by what she
perceives as his rejection of her. (I'm not concerned with Xander's
reasons for calling off the wedding--his concern for their future, for
Anya's safety, etc.--I'm only concerned with how it all seems from
Anya's POV.) Anya needed reassurance, needed to feel like a desirable
woman again. Spike gave her that reassurance. As she later told
Xander herself, Anya was seeking out comfort, not revenge. It's not
as if she had plans to screw Spike and then flaunt the fact in
Xander's face. She had no idea that she and Spike were being spied
on.
And I still say that a person who accidentally sees something private
being transmitted by a villain's spy-camera is honor bound to ignore
what they have seen.
But aside from the question of whether Anya deserved a verbal raking,
it's insane to say that Spike (also a single, unattached consenting
adult) deserved a physical axing for a private encounter with a
consenting partner. It's sickening that anyone would actually cheer
Xander on when Xander attacked Spike.
That was just about Xander's lowest moment ever on the series--the
only instance equalling it was when he trespassed in Buffy's house and
burst through a closed bathroom door to interrupt what he thought was
a sexy bathroom tryst between Spike and Buffy. What would he have
done if he had found them together naked and intertwined, as he
thought he would? Scolded them for going about their private affairs
in a private dwelling behind closed doors? Why should they listen to
him? Why should Xander have any say over the private lives of others?
Clairel
himiko
> At this point any female to draw in the female viewers are needed.
Not really. Watching a team of hot men can be fun, especially if
there is a strong emphasis on their characters, relationships, and
bonding. Not all women necessarily require a female character to
identify with and some actually prefer not having one. The success of
male targeted shows with all female casts (e.g. Charley's Angels or
She Spies) suggests the opposite is true too, although there, plot and
action is more important than character development, relationships,
and bonding.
himiko
nimue
I loathed Xander at that moment -- LOATHED him. How dare he? He had broken
Anya's heart. She owed him nothing. He was so stupid-macho -- sorry,
Xander, but Anya is not yours anymore! You have no right to tell her what
(or whom) to do.
>the
> only instance equalling it was when he trespassed in Buffy's house and
> burst through a closed bathroom door to interrupt what he thought was
> a sexy bathroom tryst between Spike and Buffy. What would he have
> done if he had found them together naked and intertwined, as he
> thought he would? Scolded them for going about their private affairs
> in a private dwelling behind closed doors? Why should they listen to
> him? Why should Xander have any say over the private lives of others?
>
> Clairel
--
nimue
"There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight."
Max Bialystock
nimue
Whoops. One more thing. Xander actually thought he had a right to kill
Spike then? Oh, god. Xander was just disgusting.
Mark Nobles
> One more thing. Xander actually thought he had a right to kill
> Spike then?
Xander always had the right to kill Spike. He's a vampire.
Vampire. Vampire Slayer.
It's not rocket surgery.
nimue
Um -- rocket surgery? Ok -- Xander is not the Slayer, for starters.
Furthermore, Spike is a harmless vampire that the Slayer has specifically
chosen NOT to kill. Oh -- one last thing. Xander did not want to kill
Spike for any noble cause. Xander did not want to protect the world (and
Spike was pretty harmless at that point). No -- Xander wanted to kill him
out of petty, pathetic sexual jealousy.
Mark Nobles
<cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mark Nobles wrote:
> > nimue <cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> One more thing. Xander actually thought he had a right to kill
> >> Spike then?
> >
> > Xander always had the right to kill Spike. He's a vampire.
> > Vampire. Vampire Slayer.
> > It's not rocket surgery.
>
> Um -- rocket surgery? Ok -- Xander is not the Slayer, for starters.
Not really relevant. After Jesse, Vampires are not just for Slayers
anymore.
> Furthermore, Spike is a harmless vampire that the Slayer has specifically
> chosen NOT to kill. Oh -- one last thing. Xander did not want to kill
> Spike for any noble cause. Xander did not want to protect the world (and
> Spike was pretty harmless at that point).
> No -- Xander wanted to kill him
> out of petty, pathetic sexual jealousy.
This part I agree with. Still, was there ever a time when Xander didn't
want to kill Spike? Or Angel, for that matter?
BTR1701
> Mark Nobles wrote:
> > nimue <cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> One more thing. Xander actually thought he had a right to kill
> >> Spike then?
> >
> > Xander always had the right to kill Spike. He's a vampire.
> > Vampire. Vampire Slayer. It's not rocket surgery.
>
> Um -- rocket surgery? Ok -- Xander is not the Slayer, for starters.
Since when did you need to be a Slayer to "have a right" to kill
vampires?
> Furthermore, Spike is a harmless vampire that the Slayer has specifically
> chosen NOT to kill.
So? Who made her the boss of everyone on earth?
And he wasn't harmless. Even with the chip, he managed to team up with
Adam and try and kill everyone.
> No -- Xander wanted to kill him out of petty, pathetic sexual jealousy.
So? Dead is dead.
nimue
> In article <OewXb.26753$Lp....@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue"
> <cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Mark Nobles wrote:
>>> nimue <cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One more thing. Xander actually thought he had a right to kill
>>>> Spike then?
>>>
>>> Xander always had the right to kill Spike. He's a vampire.
>>> Vampire. Vampire Slayer. It's not rocket surgery.
>>
>> Um -- rocket surgery? Ok -- Xander is not the Slayer, for starters.
>
> Since when did you need to be a Slayer to "have a right" to kill
> vampires?
Newsflash -- Xander did not want to kill a vampire in Entropy. He wanted to
kill a man who had sex with "his" woman. If he hated
chipped-Spike-as-a-vampire so much, why didn't he try to kill Spike at the
end of Intervention? He didn't -- in fact, he felt sorry for him. Oh, no.
The only thing that leads Xander to almost kill Spike is stupid, macho,
jealous rage -- that and nothing else.
>
>> Furthermore, Spike is a harmless vampire that the Slayer has
>> specifically chosen NOT to kill.
>
> So? Who made her the boss of everyone on earth?
>
> And he wasn't harmless. Even with the chip, he managed to team up with
> Adam and try and kill everyone.
That was not way Xander wanted to kill him.
>
>> No -- Xander wanted to kill him out of petty, pathetic sexual
>> jealousy.
>
> So? Dead is dead.
Xander's reasons for wanting to kill Spike were not noble -- they were
pathetic and selfish and stupid. He wanted to kill Spike for sleeping with
Anya, and Spike had EVERY right to do that. Xander had just humiliated
Anya, dumped her at the alter, thus, he had NO right to say what she did or
with whom. He never had any right over Spike's sexual life, that's for
sure. Anyway, Xander's motivation for attempting to kill Spike make Xander
look supremely arrogant and egocentric. Men who act the way Xander did are
disgusting and dangerous in real life (and in the Buffyverse). You see it
all the time -- men who kill their ex-wives or their ex-wives' boyfriends,
as if they had some right to. Yeah -- I hated Xander at that moment. That
was a REAL evil, an evil we do see in every day life.
alphakitten
>
> Firstly, I got the distinct impression that Xander was frightened by the
> false-future he'd seen and left Anya at the altar because he thought it was
> best FOR HER. He did it out of love. After seeing his future self kill
> Anya, it would've been more selfish to go through with the marriage. Even
> after finding out it was a false future, I'd imagine he'd at least need some
> time to think, and Anya should've understood that.
>
Xander didn't marry her because he didn't want to marry her. Did you
miss the entire season leading up to HB? Their conversation in Entropy
where he'd had time to think and still didn't want to marry her?
> But even if she didn't, and it was an official break-up, you don't go
> sleeping with the first person you see. You at least wait a couple of weeks
> to make sure it's a "real" break-up so that you don't go and sleep with
> someone else and have to live with that guilt for the rest of your life if
> you both realize that breaking up was stupid.
That may be reasonable when a couple have the "I'm not sure this is
working, I think we need some space" type break-up. Not in this
instance. Even if they had reconciled, screwing Spike was not something
she had to feel guilty about.
>> Anya didn't wait.<<
How much time are you approximating passes between HB & Entrpoy? I
would've thought several days. Besides, Anya and Xander have a
conversation in Entropy _before_ she boinks Spike in which he again
admits that he doesn't want to marry her. What the hell is she supposed
to be waiting for!?
~Angel
BTR1701
<cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <OewXb.26753$Lp....@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue"
> > <cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Mark Nobles wrote:
> >>> nimue <cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> One more thing. Xander actually thought he had a right to kill
> >>>> Spike then?
> >>>
> >>> Xander always had the right to kill Spike. He's a vampire.
> >>> Vampire. Vampire Slayer. It's not rocket surgery.
> >>
> >> Um -- rocket surgery? Ok -- Xander is not the Slayer, for starters.
> >
> > Since when did you need to be a Slayer to "have a right" to kill
> > vampires?
>
> Newsflash -- Xander did not want to kill a vampire in Entropy. He wanted
> to kill a man who had sex with "his" woman. If he hated
> chipped-Spike-as-a-vampire so much, why didn't he try to kill Spike at
> the end of Intervention? He didn't -- in fact, he felt sorry for him. Oh,
> no. The only thing that leads Xander to almost kill Spike is stupid, macho,
> jealous rage -- that and nothing else.
None of that was what you said. You said "Xander is not the Slayer, for
starters" which implies that unless one is a Slayer, one doesn't have
"the right" to kill vampires.
And if Xander killed Spike out of stupid, macho, jealous rage... well,
that's fine. It's still one less vampire in the world.
> >> Furthermore, Spike is a harmless vampire that the Slayer has
> >> specifically chosen NOT to kill.
> >
> > So? Who made her the boss of everyone on earth?
> > And he wasn't harmless. Even with the chip, he managed to team up with
> > Adam and try and kill everyone.
>
> That was not way Xander wanted to kill him.
It still would have stopped Spike from working with Adam to kill
everyone.
You seem to think everyone who kills an evil, vicious demon should do an
Oprah-style feelings check beforehand to make sure their motivations are
pure enough.
Rubbish.
> >> No -- Xander wanted to kill him out of petty, pathetic sexual
> >> jealousy.
> >
> > So? Dead is dead.
>
> Xander's reasons for wanting to kill Spike were not noble
Who ever said they had to be noble?
Buffy and Faith kill vampires for the thrill of it, because it gives
them a jazz. How noble is that?
nimue
>
> And if Xander killed Spike out of stupid, macho, jealous rage... well,
> that's fine. It's still one less vampire in the world.
That may be true, but it says some very bad things about Xander -- namely
that he is a possessive, out-of-control, violent jerk.
>
>>>> Furthermore, Spike is a harmless vampire that the Slayer has
>>>> specifically chosen NOT to kill.
>>>
>>> So? Who made her the boss of everyone on earth?
>
>>> And he wasn't harmless. Even with the chip, he managed to team up
>>> with Adam and try and kill everyone.
>>
>> That was not way Xander wanted to kill him.
>
> It still would have stopped Spike from working with Adam to kill
> everyone.
>
> You seem to think everyone who kills an evil, vicious demon should do
> an Oprah-style feelings check beforehand to make sure their
> motivations are pure enough.
>
> Rubbish.
>
>>>> No -- Xander wanted to kill him out of petty, pathetic sexual
>>>> jealousy.
>>>
>>> So? Dead is dead.
>>
>> Xander's reasons for wanting to kill Spike were not noble
>
> Who ever said they had to be noble?
>
> Buffy and Faith kill vampires for the thrill of it, because it gives
> them a jazz. How noble is that?
Buffy has often wished she were NOT the Slayer. A sense of duty kept her
going, and that is noble.
BTR1701
<cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <a8LXb.205470$4F2.27...@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue"
> snip
> >
> > And if Xander killed Spike out of stupid, macho, jealous rage... well,
> > that's fine. It's still one less vampire in the world.
>
> That may be true, but it says some very bad things about Xander -- namely
> that he is a possessive, out-of-control, violent jerk.
Possibly, but that wasn't the contention.
> >>>> Furthermore, Spike is a harmless vampire that the Slayer has
> >>>> specifically chosen NOT to kill.
> >>>
> >>> So? Who made her the boss of everyone on earth?
> >
> >>> And he wasn't harmless. Even with the chip, he managed to team up
> >>> with Adam and try and kill everyone.
> >>
> >> That was not way Xander wanted to kill him.
> >
> > It still would have stopped Spike from working with Adam to kill
> > everyone.
> >
> > You seem to think everyone who kills an evil, vicious demon should do
> > an Oprah-style feelings check beforehand to make sure their
> > motivations are pure enough.
> >
> > Rubbish.
> >
> >>>> No -- Xander wanted to kill him out of petty, pathetic sexual
> >>>> jealousy.
> >>>
> >>> So? Dead is dead.
> >>
> >> Xander's reasons for wanting to kill Spike were not noble
> >
> > Who ever said they had to be noble?
> >
> > Buffy and Faith kill vampires for the thrill of it, because it gives
> > them a jazz. How noble is that?
>
> Buffy has often wished she were NOT the Slayer. A sense of duty kept her
> going, and that is noble.
She also admitted to Faith that she gets off on the fight.
nimue
> In article <CYPXb.148881$cM1.27...@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue"
> <cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <a8LXb.205470$4F2.27...@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue"
>> snip
>>>
>>> And if Xander killed Spike out of stupid, macho, jealous rage...
>>> well, that's fine. It's still one less vampire in the world.
>>
>> That may be true, but it says some very bad things about Xander --
>> namely that he is a possessive, out-of-control, violent jerk.
>
> Possibly, but that wasn't the contention.
Actually, it was. That was my contention. I was discussing how that scene
made me despise Xander. Furthermore, I really wonder about you. If a man
has broken up with a woman, and publicly humiliated her to boot, that man
has no right to tell that woman what to do. How can you think that a man
who attempts to axe murder his ex's next sexual partner is only "possibly"
possessive, out-of-control, and violent? I would say that kind of behavior
is the definition of possessive, out-of-control, and violent, but I guess it
seems normal to you.
>
snip
>>>
>>> Buffy and Faith kill vampires for the thrill of it, because it gives
>>> them a jazz. How noble is that?
>>
>> Buffy has often wished she were NOT the Slayer. A sense of duty
>> kept her going, and that is noble.
>
> She also admitted to Faith that she gets off on the fight.
Yes, she has occasionally said she enjoys the fight -- but she has far more
often expressed the wish to leave off being the Slayer. She talks about how
it's a dreadful burden -- she talks about that a lot, yet a sense of duty
keeps her going.
Mark Nobles
<cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <CYPXb.148881$cM1.27...@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue"
> > <cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <a8LXb.205470$4F2.27...@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue"
> >> snip
> >>>
> >>> And if Xander killed Spike out of stupid, macho, jealous rage...
> >>> well, that's fine. It's still one less vampire in the world.
> >>
> >> That may be true, but it says some very bad things about Xander --
> >> namely that he is a possessive, out-of-control, violent jerk.
> >
> > Possibly, but that wasn't the contention.
>
> Actually, it was. That was my contention. I was discussing how that scene
> made me despise Xander. Furthermore, I really wonder about you. If a man
> has broken up with a woman, and publicly humiliated her to boot, that man
> has no right to tell that woman what to do. How can you think that a man
> who attempts to axe murder his ex's next sexual partner is only "possibly"
> possessive, out-of-control, and violent? I would say that kind of behavior
> is the definition of possessive, out-of-control, and violent, but I guess it
> seems normal to you.
If his ex's next sexual partner is a *vampire*, then he has a right to
kill it. Why do you insist on leaving out the important part? This is
not sexual politics - it's about a *vampire*.
> >
> snip
> >>>
> >>> Buffy and Faith kill vampires for the thrill of it, because it gives
> >>> them a jazz. How noble is that?
> >>
> >> Buffy has often wished she were NOT the Slayer. A sense of duty
> >> kept her going, and that is noble.
> >
> > She also admitted to Faith that she gets off on the fight.
>
> Yes, she has occasionally said she enjoys the fight -- but she has far more
> often expressed the wish to leave off being the Slayer. She talks about how
> it's a dreadful burden -- she talks about that a lot, yet a sense of duty
> keeps her going.
"Sorry. Sacred duty. Yada yada yada." Prophecy Girl.
But she still goes for the cup of yogurt after.
And she didn't complain about having the stamina of ten women, either.
nimue
Are you telling me you really believe that after viewing Spike and his
ex-honey Anya having sex, Xander picked up an axe and rushed over to the
Magic Box to kill Spike because Spike was a vampire??? Please. He had
lived with Spike's existence for years. It's NOT about vampire. It's about
sexual jealousy.
>
snip--
nimue
snip
>>>>
>>>> Buffy has often wished she were NOT the Slayer. A sense of duty
>>>> kept her going, and that is noble.
>>>
>>> She also admitted to Faith that she gets off on the fight.
>>
>> Yes, she has occasionally said she enjoys the fight -- but she has
>> far more often expressed the wish to leave off being the Slayer.
>> She talks about how it's a dreadful burden -- she talks about that a
>> lot, yet a sense of duty keeps her going.
>
> "Sorry. Sacred duty. Yada yada yada." Prophecy Girl.
> But she still goes for the cup of yogurt after.
> And she didn't complain about having the stamina of ten women, either.
Ok -- well try this, from Becoming II:
Buffy: "No, it doesn't stop! It *never* stops!
Do-do you think I chose to be like this? Do you have any idea how lonely
it is, how dangerous? I would *love* to be upstairs watching TV or
gossiping about boys or... God, even studying! But I have to save the
world... again."
Well, whaddaya think?
Mark Nobles
> Well, whaddaya think?
She does it because she has to. Seriously, sacred duty. She makes the
best of it by enjoying the little bit of buzz she gets from it.
Even Faith actually did it because it was her sacred duty. She had an
opportunity to walk away, but that would be wrong, so she went in and
did what had to be done. Still, she does enjoy the buzz she gets from
it, and is at least a whole lot more open about that part than B.
Mark Nobles
> Mark Nobles wrote:
> >
> > If his ex's next sexual partner is a *vampire*, then he has a right to
> > kill it. Why do you insist on leaving out the important part? This is
> > not sexual politics - it's about a *vampire*.
>
> Are you telling me you really believe that after viewing Spike and his
> ex-honey Anya having sex, Xander picked up an axe and rushed over to the
> Magic Box to kill Spike because Spike was a vampire??? Please. He had
> lived with Spike's existence for years. It's NOT about vampire. It's about
> sexual jealousy.
I've told you this:
Xander always had the right to kill Spike. He's a vampire.
Vampire. Vampire Slayer.
It's not rocket surgery.
You claimed he has no right to kill Spike. I say he does.
His motivation is irrelevant.
Yes, he did it because he was jealous. He "had feelings for" Anya.
They were on a break. He had no right to be jealous, but, you know what?
Rights have nothing to do with feelings. Rights are about reasons.
Feelings are, by definition, not. He felt jealous. That did not give
him the right to do anything except feel sorry for himself.
However, it did not invalidate his right to kill Spike, either.
Don Sample
<cmn-n...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
- Actually, that was _Surprise_
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Don Sample
<cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Buffy had pretty much accepted her destiny from the beginning of season
3, and in _Helpless_ she is actually dismayed at the thought that she
might not be the Slayer anymore.
Mark Nobles
> - Actually, that was _Surprise_
You are correct, Sir. Thank you.
nimue
I don't Buffy is repressing her enjoyment of the buzz. It's just that that
kind of buzz isn't her reason for living -- it's Faith's reason for living.
Contrast Faith and Buffy's behavior in all aspects of their lives and it
becomes obvious that the buzz will mean a whole lot more to Faith.
nimue
Xander's reasons for killing Spike are LOATHESOME. They are all about
Xander's jealousy, Xander's rage, Xander's humiliation. As I said before,
in real life you can see men acting exactly the way Xander acted, and the
results are always tragic. Xander's motivations are very important here,
and they were disgusting. It may be all right to kill a chipped vampire --
or it may not (Buffy thinks it's not). However, it is not okay to kill out
of a jealous, sexual, possessive rage -- ever -- and that is what Xander
tried to do. He had no right to kill Spike if those were his reasons and
those were his reasons.
Mark Nobles
> Mark Nobles wrote:
> >
> >> Well, whaddaya think?
> >
> > She does it because she has to. Seriously, sacred duty. She makes the
> > best of it by enjoying the little bit of buzz she gets from it.
> >
> > Even Faith actually did it because it was her sacred duty. She had an
> > opportunity to walk away, but that would be wrong, so she went in and
> > did what had to be done. Still, she does enjoy the buzz she gets from
> > it, and is at least a whole lot more open about that part than B.
>
> I don't Buffy is repressing her enjoyment of the buzz. It's just that that
> kind of buzz isn't her reason for living -- it's Faith's reason for living.
> Contrast Faith and Buffy's behavior in all aspects of their lives and it
> becomes obvious that the buzz will mean a whole lot more to Faith.
I believe we are in agreement, or close enough.
Ah, now I find the original subject:
> Buffy has often wished she were NOT the Slayer.
> A sense of duty kept her going, and that is noble.
There have been times when she slayed because she wanted to -
the vamp whore comes to mind first.
I also find the way she treated willie to be somewhat less than noble
on occasion.
And even she admitted the way she treated Spike was shameful.
But you know what? I could argue that those times don't matter. The
fact is she was doing a job she hated because it had to be done. That
is noble. The fact that she was a hot chick with superpowers who
managed to find a little bit of pleasure in it, or that she used it to
vent her feelings instead of expressing them does not detract from
that.
I was going to stop here, but I've convinced myself as I wrote it that
those times do, indeed, matter. The times when she abused her hotness
and her superpowers do matter. With great power comes great
responsibility. She used her great powers irresponsibly.
Noble was when Buffy jumped into the abyss instead of throwing Dawn in.
Noble was when Buffy told Giles that even if it was the end of the
world and everyone in it, including Dawn, the last thing she would see
would be Buffy protecting her.
Slaying the vampire whore was right. That's what Slayers do. But it was
not noble. Buffy didn't slay it because it was a vampire, she slew it
because it was the whore who had just been sucking her boyfriend, and
because he was letting it.
It's like you said - Faith lived for the buzz, and did the job to keep
the buzz. Buffy did the job because it needed to be done. But when she
abused her superpowers - even once, and she did -then it quit being
noble. This was the message Doyle gave Angel. It is not about the
numbers. You can't rescue enough innocents that you are allowed to eat
one once in a while. Nobility is about perfection. This was the same
message Cordelia just delivered to Angel in "You're Welcome", btw.
alphakitten
> Noble was when Buffy told Giles that even if it was the end of the
> world and everyone in it, including Dawn, the last thing she would see
> would be Buffy protecting her.
>
>
If that had happened, it would've been on account of Buffy putting the
life of a single person before the lives of the other six billion on the
planet. I'm getting more "stupid", "selfish" and "neurotic" than noble...
~Angel
nimue
Honestly, by your standards, there has never been a noble human being in the
world. I don't think it works like that. There are humans who strive to be
noble (although they do fail from time to time) and then there are those who
couldn't care less, and just live to get their kicks. Buffy often used her
powers resonsibly, sometimes she did not.
Mark Nobles
> in real life
and this qualification makes everything else you say pointless.
Mark Nobles
> Honestly, by your standards, there has never been a noble human being in the
> world. I don't think it works like that.
> There are humans who strive to be
> noble (although they do fail from time to time)
That is my standard, precisely.
> and then there are those who
> couldn't care less, and just live to get their kicks. Buffy often used her
> powers resonsibly, sometimes she did not.
And that is my case, precisely.
Because sometimes she did not strive because she didn't care to. That
is where she lost it.
To try and fail is far, far different from not trying. Even though, in
the end, the result is the same.
nimue
> nimue <cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Honestly, by your standards, there has never been a noble human
>> being in the world. I don't think it works like that.
>
>
>> There are humans who strive to be
>> noble (although they do fail from time to time)
>
> That is my standard, precisely.
>
>
>> and then there are those who
>> couldn't care less, and just live to get their kicks. Buffy often
>> used her powers resonsibly, sometimes she did not.
>
> And that is my case, precisely.
Yeah -- that's called being human.
>
> Because sometimes she did not strive because she didn't care to. That
> is where she lost it.
Again -- human.
>
> To try and fail is far, far different from not trying. Even though, in
> the end, the result is the same.
Look, by your standards, Martin Luther King was not a noble man because he
did not always use his powers for good. Despite his ironclad commitment to
the civil rights movement, he would sometimes use that charisma of his to
charm young ladies into the bed that he should have been sharing with his
wife. I think Martin Luther King was a noble man who was just that -- a
man -- human.
nimue
> Mark Nobles wrote:
>> nimue <cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Honestly, by your standards, there has never been a noble human
>>> being in the world. I don't think it works like that.
>>
>>
>>> There are humans who strive to be
>>> noble (although they do fail from time to time)
>>
>> That is my standard, precisely.
>>
>>
>>> and then there are those who
>>> couldn't care less, and just live to get their kicks. Buffy often
>>> used her powers resonsibly, sometimes she did not.
>>
>> And that is my case, precisely.
>
someone who lives to hurt others -- loves to hurt others -- and someone who
always tries to be kind but sometimes loses their temper and yells. Do you
understand that?
>>
>> Because sometimes she did not strive because she didn't care to. That
>> is where she lost it.
>
> Again -- human.
>>
>> To try and fail is far, far different from not trying. Even though,
>> in the end, the result is the same.
>
> Look, by your standards, Martin Luther King was not a noble man
> because he did not always use his powers for good. Despite his
> ironclad commitment to the civil rights movement, he would sometimes
> use that charisma of his to charm young ladies into the bed that he
> should have been sharing with his wife. I think Martin Luther King
> was a noble man who was just that -- a man -- human.
One more thing -- what planet are you on? I mean, really -- do you think
that there are ANY people who fit your incredibly unealistic guidelines of
what constitutes nobility?
BTR1701
<cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <CYPXb.148881$cM1.27...@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue"
> > <cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <a8LXb.205470$4F2.27...@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue"
> >> snip
> >>>
> >>> And if Xander killed Spike out of stupid, macho, jealous rage...
> >>> well, that's fine. It's still one less vampire in the world.
> >>
> >> That may be true, but it says some very bad things about Xander --
> >> namely that he is a possessive, out-of-control, violent jerk.
> >
> > Possibly, but that wasn't the contention.
>
> Actually, it was. That was my contention.
It wasn't what I was replying to. I was replying to your "for starters,
he isn't the Slayer" contention as a reason for his having "no right" to
kill Spike, as if only a Slayer has the right to do that.
> Furthermore, I really wonder about you. If a
> man has broken up with a woman, and publicly humiliated her to boot, that man
> has no right to tell that woman what to do. How can you think that a man
> who attempts to axe murder his ex's next sexual partner is only
> "possibly" possessive, out-of-control, and violent?
Because this is a fantasy show dealing with vampires and demons and in
no way translates to a real life situation.
> >>> Buffy and Faith kill vampires for the thrill of it, because it gives
> >>> them a jazz. How noble is that?
> >>
> >> Buffy has often wished she were NOT the Slayer. A sense of duty
> >> kept her going, and that is noble.
> >
> > She also admitted to Faith that she gets off on the fight.
>
> Yes, she has occasionally said she enjoys the fight -- but she has far
> more often expressed the wish to leave off being the Slayer.
And whenever that wish has had any chance of becoming a reality, she
backs away from it, even panics that she might suddenly become
"average", like she did in "Helpless".
BTR1701
<cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh, well. If he'd gone through with it, at the end of the day there
would still have been one less vampire in the world.
Mark Jones
GMT, did you or did you not state:
Re: Xander killing Spike
>Oh, well. If he'd gone through with it, at the end of the day there
>would still have been one less vampire in the world.
Nah. If Spike weren't around--for any reason (story reasons, actor
availability reasons, whatever--they'd still have saved the world.
And they'd have done it without Spike.
--
[AGB] Bullet Sponge
"So what happened then, grandpa?"
"Well, I got KILLED, of course!"
nimue
And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy,
possessiveness, and sexual rage.
nimue
>
>> Furthermore, I really wonder about you. If a
>> man has broken up with a woman, and publicly humiliated her to boot,
>> that man has no right to tell that woman what to do. How can you
>> think that a man who attempts to axe murder his ex's next sexual
>> partner is only "possibly" possessive, out-of-control, and violent?
>
> Because this is a fantasy show dealing with vampires and demons and in
> no way translates to a real life situation.
>
Xander/Anya/Spike thing. I mean, no man has ever been filled with rage when
his ex bedded another man. BTW -- what did you think of Seeing Red? Did
you think Spike was an attempted rapist? If you did, then why can't you see
Xander for what he was -- a possessive, violent, unjustified freak?
>>>>> Buffy and Faith kill vampires for the thrill of it, because it
>>>>> gives them a jazz. How noble is that?
>>>>
>>>> Buffy has often wished she were NOT the Slayer. A sense of duty
>>>> kept her going, and that is noble.
>>>
>>> She also admitted to Faith that she gets off on the fight.
>>
>> Yes, she has occasionally said she enjoys the fight -- but she has
>> far more often expressed the wish to leave off being the Slayer.
>
> And whenever that wish has had any chance of becoming a reality, she
> backs away from it, even panics that she might suddenly become
> "average", like she did in "Helpless".
Yes. However, that doesn't mean she doesn't feel the weight of the Slayer's
responsibilities and it doesn't mean she is just a thrill-killer.
BTR1701
<cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No murder would have been committed at all. Murder is defined as the
unlawful killing of a human being. A vampire is not a human being,
therefore it's impossible to murder one, by definition.
BTR1701
<cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> snip
> >
> >> Furthermore, I really wonder about you. If a
> >> man has broken up with a woman, and publicly humiliated her to boot,
> >> that man has no right to tell that woman what to do. How can you
> >> think that a man who attempts to axe murder his ex's next sexual
> >> partner is only "possibly" possessive, out-of-control, and violent?
> >
> > Because this is a fantasy show dealing with vampires and demons and in
> > no way translates to a real life situation.
> >
> Oh, yes there is absolutely no real life correlation for the
> Xander/Anya/Spike thing. I mean, no man has ever been filled with rage
> when his ex bedded another man.
Sure. But that's not what we're talking about. Spike isn't a man. He's a
soulless demon.
BTW -- what did you think of Seeing Red? Did
> you think Spike was an attempted rapist?
I think Spike was a soulless demon.
> >>>>> Buffy and Faith kill vampires for the thrill of it, because it
> >>>>> gives them a jazz. How noble is that?
> >>>>
> >>>> Buffy has often wished she were NOT the Slayer. A sense of duty
> >>>> kept her going, and that is noble.
> >>>
> >>> She also admitted to Faith that she gets off on the fight.
> >>
> >> Yes, she has occasionally said she enjoys the fight -- but she has
> >> far more often expressed the wish to leave off being the Slayer.
> >
> > And whenever that wish has had any chance of becoming a reality, she
> > backs away from it, even panics that she might suddenly become
> > "average", like she did in "Helpless".
>
> Yes. However, that doesn't mean she doesn't feel the weight of the
> Slayer's responsibilities and it doesn't mean she is just a thrill-killer.
But her motivations are hardly the white-hat nobility you make them out
to be.
She *likes* being the Slayer, even as she complains about it. She's
scared of losing her powers even as she wishes them away.
DJensen
> And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy,
> possessiveness, and sexual rage.
How many vampires did Buffy murder over the years?
--
DJensen
DJensen
> BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com>, on or about Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:54:44
> GMT, did you or did you not state:
>>Oh, well. If he'd gone through with it, at the end of the day there
>>would still have been one less vampire in the world.
>
> Nah. If Spike weren't around--for any reason (story reasons, actor
> availability reasons, whatever--they'd still have saved the world.
> And they'd have done it without Spike.
And those people he killed/turned for the First Evil would still
be alive.
--
DJensen
nimue
>>>> Xander's reasons for killing Spike are LOATHESOME. They are all
>>>> about Xander's jealousy, Xander's rage, Xander's humiliation.
>>>
>>> Oh, well. If he'd gone through with it, at the end of the day there
>>> would still have been one less vampire in the world.
>>
>> And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy,
>> possessiveness, and sexual rage.
>
> No murder would have been committed at all. Murder is defined as the
> unlawful killing of a human being. A vampire is not a human being,
> therefore it's impossible to murder one, by definition.
Ok, Xander, motivated only by possessive, sexual jealousy and out-of-control
rage, would have killed a creature. No matter how you look at it, it makes
Xander look awful.
nimue
What does that have to do with anything? Buffy was the Slayer, and when she
killed vamps, she did so because she was Called to. Doesn't it bother
anyone to see Xander acting like the kind of man you always see on the
news -- the kind that kills his ex and her new man and feels entirely
justified in doing it?
nimue
By that logic, the world would have ended because there would have been no
Spike to wear the amulet, and then everyone would have been dead.
BTR1701
<cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> snip
> >>>> Xander's reasons for killing Spike are LOATHESOME. They are all
> >>>> about Xander's jealousy, Xander's rage, Xander's humiliation.
> >>>
> >>> Oh, well. If he'd gone through with it, at the end of the day there
> >>> would still have been one less vampire in the world.
> >>
> >> And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy,
> >> possessiveness, and sexual rage.
> >
> > No murder would have been committed at all. Murder is defined as the
> > unlawful killing of a human being. A vampire is not a human being,
> > therefore it's impossible to murder one, by definition.
>
> Ok, Xander, motivated only by possessive, sexual jealousy and
> out-of-control rage, would have killed a creature.
Xander, motivated only by possessive, sexual jealousy and out-of-control
rage, would have killed an evil soulless demonic creature.
I don't see the downside.
DJensen
> DJensen wrote:
>>Mark Jones wrote:
>>
>>>Nah. If Spike weren't around--for any reason (story reasons, actor
>>>availability reasons, whatever--they'd still have saved the world.
>>>And they'd have done it without Spike.
>>
>>And those people he killed/turned for the First Evil would still
>>be alive.
>
>
> By that logic, the world would have ended because there would have been no
> Spike to wear the amulet, and then everyone would have been dead.
Angel was the one intended to wear the amulet, not Spike.
--
DJensen
nimue
But he didn't. Spike did -- and it worked. Who knows what would have
happened if Angel did?
DJensen
> DJensen wrote:
>>nimue wrote:
>>
>>>And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy,
>>>possessiveness, and sexual rage.
>>
>>How many vampires did Buffy murder over the years?
>
>
> What does that have to do with anything? Buffy was the Slayer, and when she
> killed vamps, she did so because she was Called to. Doesn't it bother
So if anyone but a Slayer kills a vampire, they're... wrong?
> anyone to see Xander acting like the kind of man you always see on the
> news -- the kind that kills his ex and her new man and feels entirely
> justified in doing it?
You're saying threatening to kill Spike (a vampire, remember) is
like killing Anya? Where are you getting this stuff? He didn't
throw Anya up against the wall and start pummeling her, you know.
Xander should have dusted Spike right there on the sidewalk, we
might not have lost him to the background later. And we'd be one
crappy schtick vampire short.
--
DJensen
nimue
Would you like to be friends with a person who acted violently just because
he felt possessive over a girl he was no longer with? What would you think
of a man who felt entitled to tell his ex-girlfriend what to do? Who felt
justified in belittlling and humiliating her for her choices *after* he had
dumped her? I would not want a friend like that -- I wouldn't want a
neighbor like that. They are dangerous. I dislike people like that.
Sill...@famous.com
<cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
.
>>
>> No murder would have been committed at all. Murder is defined as the
>> unlawful killing of a human being. A vampire is not a human being,
>> therefore it's impossible to murder one, by definition.
>
>Ok, Xander, motivated only by possessive, sexual jealousy and out-of-control
>rage, would have killed a creature. No matter how you look at it, it makes
>Xander look awful.
No, not awful. Maybe a little dusty.
alphakitten
nimue wrote:
> DJensen wrote:
>
>>nimue wrote:
>>
>>>DJensen wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mark Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Nah. If Spike weren't around--for any reason (story reasons, actor
>>>>>availability reasons, whatever--they'd still have saved the world.
>>>>>And they'd have done it without Spike.
>>>>
>>>>And those people he killed/turned for the First Evil would still
>>>>be alive.
>>>
>>>
>>>By that logic, the world would have ended because there would have
>>>been no Spike to wear the amulet, and then everyone would have been
>>>dead.
>>
>>Angel was the one intended to wear the amulet, not Spike.
>
>
> But he didn't. Spike did -- and it worked. Who knows what would have
> happened if Angel did?
>
Not to mention the fact that without Spike, Buffy would've remained
curled up in the fetal position in that house she took over...
~Angel
alphakitten
DJensen wrote:
> nimue wrote:
>
>> DJensen wrote:
>>
>>> nimue wrote:
>>>
>>>> And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy,
>>>> possessiveness, and sexual rage.
>>>
>>>
>>> How many vampires did Buffy murder over the years?
>>
>>
>>
>> What does that have to do with anything? Buffy was the Slayer, and
>> when she
>> killed vamps, she did so because she was Called to. Doesn't it bother
>
>
> So if anyone but a Slayer kills a vampire, they're... wrong?
>
No, if someone kills a chipped vampire who's been helping their side,
for no reason besides rage and jealousy, they're wrong.
~Angel
Sill...@famous.com
<alphak...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>
>
>Not to mention the fact that without Spike, Buffy would've remained
>curled up in the fetal position in that house she took over...
>
>
> ~Angel
Nah. She'd have wallowed in it longer without Spike there, but Buffy
always finds a way to get up and get back in the fight. That is the
best part of Buffy, in my opinion. Somehow she always finds a way to
get it done, no matter what it costs or how much it hurts.
Sill...@famous.com
<cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Angel was the one intended to wear the amulet, not Spike.
>
>But he didn't. Spike did -- and it worked. Who knows what would have
>happened if Angel did?
Since Angel had his own series, and it wasn't cancelled at the time,
he'd have found a way to work the magic of the amulet without being
flashfried. It might have sucked, but a lot of people thought the
ending with Spike sucked.
Or if someone had to turn to ash maybe it could have been that snotty
Kennedy! (I just found my happy thought!)
Sill...@famous.com
<alphak...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> So if anyone but a Slayer kills a vampire, they're... wrong?
>>
>
>
>No, if someone kills a chipped vampire who's been helping their side,
>for no reason besides rage and jealousy, they're wrong.
>
>
> ~Angel
Mmmm. . . . no, kill him. Kill the evil soulless thing while it's
still helpless, 'cause it's just a matter of time until it starts with
the carnage again.
alphakitten
Well if that flies, Xander should've killed Anya the second he found out
she was a vengence demon again, right?
~Angel
DJensen
> DJensen wrote:
>>nimue wrote:
>>>DJensen wrote:
>>>>And those people he killed/turned for the First Evil would still
>>>>be alive.
>>>
>>>By that logic, the world would have ended because there would have
>>>been no Spike to wear the amulet, and then everyone would have been
>>>dead.
>>
>>Angel was the one intended to wear the amulet, not Spike.
>
> But he didn't. Spike did -- and it worked. Who knows what would have
> happened if Angel did?
It would have worked. Maybe a little better too.
--
DJensen
DJensen
The same chipped vampire that tried draining Willow, sided with
Adam, nearly killed Riley, tried raping Buffy, and started
beating her when he found out he could? That one? He's a saint!
Yeah, let's keep him and hate the guy who has always seen the
inevitable badness of vampire boyfriends.
--
DJensen
Sill...@famous.com
<alphak...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Mmmm. . . . no, kill him. Kill the evil soulless thing while it's
>> still helpless, 'cause it's just a matter of time until it starts with
>> the carnage again.
>
>
>
>Well if that flies, Xander should've killed Anya the second he found out
>she was a vengence demon again, right?
>
> ~Angel
Yup. 'Course, if he'd tried she'd have knocked him into a cocked hat.
It might have made good drama, I suppose. Probably better than that
weak crayon scene with Dark Willow.
Spike, on the other hand, was eminently killable. While picking your
fights might not seem terribly valourous, there is merit in that
living to fight another day philosophy.
nimue
There is no way to know that.
nimue
I think anyone who kills out of possessive rage is an asshole. I don't care
whom he kills. If Xander felt like he owned a woman he was no longer with,
that he had a right to tell her what to do, and a right to terrorize her
(for that is what he did), then he is an asshole. Get it? This is about
Xander and Xander's actions and the Xander's disgusting behavior.
Sill...@famous.com
<cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> By that logic, the world would have ended because there would have
>>>>> been no Spike to wear the amulet, and then everyone would have been
>>>>> dead.
>>>>
>>>> Angel was the one intended to wear the amulet, not Spike.
>>>
>>> But he didn't. Spike did -- and it worked. Who knows what would
>>> have happened if Angel did?
>>
>> It would have worked. Maybe a little better too.
>
>There is no way to know that.
There is possibly a way to know that, if the writers made up a draft
script featuring Angel in the hellpit alongside the gals. I'm not
saying it exists (probably doesn't), I'm saying that BtVS is not a
documentary. Life may be unscripted, but Buffy isn't. If Marsters had
been unavailable or written out the Buffyverse would still not have
ended. Anyway they approached it, ME would have found a way to end the
series with the Buffyverse intact.
I personally was partial to the version that was being floated where
Buffy sealed the entrance behind herself and stayed in the hellpit to
fight uberVamps for eternity. I think it fits her short, tragic
history better than burning up either of the souled undead.
nimue
>
> and this qualification makes everything else you say pointless.
You snipped way too much -- I have no idea what you are talking about.
BTR1701
<cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <vsoYb.206584$4F2.28...@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue"
> > <cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> snip
> >>>>>> Xander's reasons for killing Spike are LOATHESOME. They are all
> >>>>>> about Xander's jealousy, Xander's rage, Xander's humiliation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh, well. If he'd gone through with it, at the end of the day
> >>>>> there would still have been one less vampire in the world.
> >>>>
> >>>> And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy,
> >>>> possessiveness, and sexual rage.
> >>>
> >>> No murder would have been committed at all. Murder is defined as the
> >>> unlawful killing of a human being. A vampire is not a human being,
> >>> therefore it's impossible to murder one, by definition.
> >>
> >> Ok, Xander, motivated only by possessive, sexual jealousy and
> >> out-of-control rage, would have killed a creature.
> >
> > Xander, motivated only by possessive, sexual jealousy and
> > out-of-control rage, would have killed an evil soulless demonic
> > creature.
> >
> > I don't see the downside.
>
> Would you like to be friends with a person who acted violently just
> because he felt possessive over a girl he was no longer with?
If he only acted violently toward soulless demons, sure.
> What would you
> think of a man who felt entitled to tell his ex-girlfriend what to do?
The same thing I'd think of a girl who felt entitled to tell her
ex-boyfriend what to do and franky, I've run into more of those in my
life than the former.
> Who felt justified in belittlling and humiliating her for her choices *after* he
> had dumped her? I would not want a friend like that
I'm not sure why this is relevant because I never said I wanted to be
friends with Xander.
BTR1701
<alphak...@netscape.net> wrote:
> DJensen wrote:
> > nimue wrote:
> >
> >> DJensen wrote:
> >>
> >>> nimue wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy,
> >>>> possessiveness, and sexual rage.
> >>> How many vampires did Buffy murder over the years?
> >> What does that have to do with anything? Buffy was the Slayer, and
> >> when she killed vamps, she did so because she was Called to. Doesn't it bother
> >
> >
> > So if anyone but a Slayer kills a vampire, they're... wrong?
> No, if someone kills a chipped vampire who's been helping their side,
And also periodically trying to kill them all.
BTR1701
<alphak...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Sill...@famous.com wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 03:41:33 +1100, alphakitten
> > <alphak...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>So if anyone but a Slayer kills a vampire, they're... wrong?
> >>No, if someone kills a chipped vampire who's been helping their side,
> >>for no reason besides rage and jealousy, they're wrong.
> > Mmmm. . . . no, kill him. Kill the evil soulless thing while it's
> > still helpless, 'cause it's just a matter of time until it starts with
> > the carnage again.
> Well if that flies, Xander should've killed Anya the second he found out
> she was a vengence demon again, right?
Yeah, probably.
DJensen
> Mark Nobles wrote:
>>nimue <cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>in real life
>>
>>and this qualification makes everything else you say pointless.
>
> You snipped way too much -- I have no idea what you are talking about.
Read upthread two posts -- your own post -- and figure it out.
But if that's too much for you, he's saying you've disqualified
your argument by appealing to "real life" when we're talking
about a work of fantasy.
--
DJensen
DJensen
> DJensen wrote:
>>nimue wrote:
>>>DJensen wrote:
>>>>Angel was the one intended to wear the amulet, not Spike.
>>>
>>>But he didn't. Spike did -- and it worked. Who knows what would
>>>have happened if Angel did?
>>
>>It would have worked. Maybe a little better too.
>
>
> There is no way to know that.
1) It's fantasy, it would have worked if Andrew put it on
backwards and got peanut butter on it.
2) Angel was the lead character of his own show, so even if he
died horribly he would still appear in LA for the season premiere
(or even the season finale, I forget how the timing was) of Angel
the Series.
--
DJensen
DJensen
> DJensen wrote:
>>The same chipped vampire that tried draining Willow, sided with
>>Adam, nearly killed Riley, tried raping Buffy, and started
>>beating her when he found out he could? That one? He's a saint!
>>Yeah, let's keep him and hate the guy who has always seen the
>>inevitable badness of vampire boyfriends.
>
> I think anyone who kills out of possessive rage is an asshole. I don't care
> whom he kills. If Xander felt like he owned a woman he was no longer with,
> that he had a right to tell her what to do, and a right to terrorize her
> (for that is what he did), then he is an asshole. Get it? This is about
> Xander and Xander's actions and the Xander's disgusting behavior.
He attacked Spike, not Anya, get it? You might have something
resembling an argument here if he had beaten up Anya or if the
role Spike filled had been played by a human.
--
DJensen
alphakitten
IMHO, when Spike became someone they were comfortable fighting side by
side with, comfortable entrusting with Dawn, he ceased to be someone
they could kill on a whim with moral impunity.
~Angel
DJensen
> IMHO, when Spike became someone they were comfortable fighting side by
> side with, comfortable entrusting with Dawn, he ceased to be someone
> they could kill on a whim with moral impunity.
Considering that Dawn could have dusted him with a tooth pick if
she felt threatened, that's really not much of an endorsement.
--
DJensen
Orchid
Any human who whomped on Spike knowing he couldn't fight back seems to
be a bit ethically-challenged. Xander beat on a guy he knew couldn't hit
back. It's like defanging and declawing an animal that used to attack
people then kicking and beating that animal even though it's no longer
capable of hurting anyone. It's not only immoral but it's also cowardly.
Xander never would have tried whomping on Spike if he were able to
defend himself.
My take on the vampires in the show was that they were little more than
animals. Up until AtS threw in the (rather unbelievable) notion that
they could choose not to attack (Harmony), it was clear they simply were
creatures of destruction. They had no conscience or morality. They did
what their instincts drove them to do just like a cat might capture a
mouse and "play" with it (which can be seen as torture) then eventually
kill and eat it. Buffy essentially put down dangerous animals so they
couldn't hurt people.
The humans have a moral compass and should know better than to beat on a
defenseless animal even if that animal would kill them if it had a
chance. Xander beating on Spike (and in many cases Buffy beating on him)
made me cringe because they were simply hitting him for some sort of
gratification (payback? vengeance?) or a means of releasing frustration.
Humans ought to act better than that and are perfectly capable of doing
better than that.
Orchid
alphakitten
They trusted him to PROTECT her. To risk his life for her. Which he did.
And more than once. I can't fathom a moral perspective where that fails
to earn him the right to not be staked for no legitimate reason.
~Angel