From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V4 #23 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Saturday, February 23 2002 Volume 04 : Number 023 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/comments0218 [Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury ] RE: Responses to Dawn and Don [Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury ] Re: b/comments0218 [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/comments0218 [allenw ] RE: Responses to Dawn and Don ["Karin Rabe" ] RE: Responses to Dawn and Don [Dawn Friedman ] Re: b/comments0218 [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/comments0218 [allenw ] b/The Nemesises ["Berni Phillips" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:41:02 -0700 From: Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury Subject: Re: b/comments0218 At 08:13 PM 2/19/02 -0600, allenw wrote: (in response to what I wrote:) >> They have to bring her back. I want to know how she turned >> into a "justice" demon and if Spike had anything to do with >> that. There's got to be more to all of this and it must be >> relevant or else they wouldn't have stuck in the recognition >> bit--right? >> > Given her current Norse-germanic name, it seems likely to me that she's >of similar vintage to Anya(nka), implying that she was "on the job" as >Cecily when Spike knew her. But if she is a "justice demon" when Spike was still human, wouldn't she have done something about the pain William was going through at the time? He surely had wishes enough for any wish-granting demon. Phaedre/Kathleen workshop@burgoyne.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:49:30 -0700 From: Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury Subject: RE: Responses to Dawn and Don At 09:00 PM 2/21/02 -0500, Karin Rabe wrote: >It's clearly not unequivocal trust. But neither does it suggest to me >unequivocal =distrust=, as you seem to maintain. To me, her vacillating >stance between entrusting him with what's most precious to her and then >questioning his reliability, is part and parcel of her larger pattern of >denial in her relationship with Spike. She knows on a gut level that >a.) he loves her in the full sense of the word, and b.)that this makes >him trustworthy, while at the same time needing to deny her instinctive >grasp of both realities because she can't deal with their implications >for =her=, not on a personal feeling level and not in relation to her >role of vampire slayer (hence my "horns of a genuine dilemma" comment in >my original post) I submit that the sado-masochistic nature of Spike's love is plenty enough to make him untrustworthy--she can never be sure about how bad the pain might get (whether it's pain she gives--and therefore makes her feel worse about herself--or pain she receives). But I agree that denial is a very strong factor in this whole situation. Phaedre/Kathleen workshop@burgoyne.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:07:53 -0600 (CST) From: allenw Subject: Re: b/comments0218 On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury wrote: > At 08:13 PM 2/19/02 -0600, allenw wrote: > (in response to what I wrote:) > >> They have to bring her back. I want to know how she turned > >> into a "justice" demon and if Spike had anything to do with > >> that. There's got to be more to all of this and it must be > >> relevant or else they wouldn't have stuck in the recognition > >> bit--right? > > Given her current Norse-germanic name, it seems likely to me that she's > >of similar vintage to Anya(nka), implying that she was "on the job" as > >Cecily when Spike knew her. > But if she is a "justice demon" when Spike was still human, wouldn't she > have done something about the pain William was going through at the time? > He surely had wishes enough for any wish-granting demon. Well, two possibilities there: 1: We know that, just as Anyanka specialized in scorned women, Haelfrek (sp?) specialized in neglectful parents. William's problems weren't in that department, as far as we know. 2: How do you know she *didn't* grant William's wish? Maybe that's why Angel, Darla, and Dru happened by at that instant, with Dru in a "mothering" mood. Actually, I like that idea a lot. - -Allen W. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:16:04 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/comments0218 In a message dated 2/22/02 11:08:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, allenw@io.com writes: << 1: We know that, just as Anyanka specialized in scorned women, Haelfrek (sp?) specialized in neglectful parents. >> That would make sense given her current real-world job. << 2: How do you know she *didn't* grant William's wish? Maybe that's why Angel, Darla, and Dru happened by at that instant, with Dru in a "mothering" mood. Actually, I like that idea a lot. >> Me too, esp since the point of the justice/vengeance demons seems to be "be careful what you wish for." Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:19:39 -0600 (CST) From: allenw Subject: Re: b/comments0218 On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 GHighPine@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 2/22/02 11:08:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, allenw@io.com > writes: > 2: How do you know she *didn't* grant William's wish? Maybe that's why > Angel, Darla, and Dru happened by at that instant, with Dru in a > "mothering" mood. Actually, I like that idea a lot. >> > > Me too, esp since the point of the justice/vengeance demons seems to be "be > careful what you wish for." > Uh-oh. Does that mean that if Haelfrek changes her mind, or her necklace gets smashed, Spike will revert to William? Talk about plot twists... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:21:44 -0500 From: "Karin Rabe" Subject: RE: Responses to Dawn and Don Phaedre/Kathleen said: "I submit that the sado-masochistic nature of Spike's love is plenty enough to make him untrustworthy--she can never be sure about how bad the pain might get (whether it's pain she gives--and therefore makes her feel worse about herself--or pain she receives). But I agree that denial is a very strong factor in this whole situation." And I can see how the sado-masochistic element gives you pause -- but I frankly see Spike as much more masochistic than sadistic. He does bring out a side of Buffy that resembles sadism, but once she works through the denial we seem to be in agreement about, I think that will vanish. Which I guess also suggest Spike may find her a less attractive, suitable partner at that point. - ---Karin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:57:25 -0500 From: Dawn Friedman Subject: RE: Responses to Dawn and Don At 09:00 PM 2/21/2002 -0500, Karin wrote: >I agree with you there as well, but am puzzled by your adding a couple >of sentences later, > >"She's drawn to Spike, but if he keeps insisting that both of >them are creatures of the night, she'll keep recoiling." > >I.e., the two statements seem a bit contradictory. They sure do, because I forgot to put in the word that would make sense of them: only. Spike is oversimplifying his case by insisting that they are only of the night, not the day; that Buffy's alienation from her friends is fundamental and (he implies) permanent; and that all of Buffy's reluctance to accept his arguments comes from her need to deny the truth, as opposed to the perception that sometimes Spike is right and sometimes he's wrong about her (and himself.) >It's my hope Spike can help her >reach that point by refusing to let her lose sight of what she shares >with him. Yes, and I think he can. But an either/or choice between light and dark (or creamy and crunchy) won't work for either of them, and if he keeps presenting it that way, Buffy will always feel that she's acting wrongly when she agrees with Spike. And now I'm not even very surprised to find myself agreeing with your entire response to Don -- except that I think Buffy knew quite well where "You always hurt the one you love" came from; I thought her expression was one of ironic but sober acknowledgement of what she'd done. Perhaps her next attempt to discourage Spike will lean toward "I'm no good for you" rather than the reverse? I find myself thinking of Giles in 4th season telling Spike to get out of town for his own safety, while visibly wondering why ("My mother-in-law is walking into a bear's den? What do I care what happens to a bear?") But in OaFA Buffy seems to be squabbling with Spike over details (he isn't playing well with others; it's bad manners to go off and have sex during your own birthday party) rather than rejecting the relationship as a whole. (And didn't she just sound like Joyce when she told him that joking about eating people was against house rules? But I digress. Dawn ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:59:08 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/comments0218 In a message dated 2/22/02 11:19:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, allenw@io.com writes: << Uh-oh. Does that mean that if Haelfrek changes her mind, or her necklace gets smashed, Spike will revert to William? Talk about plot twists... >> And then all of history has to change back to what it would have been if he'd never had his wish granted in the first place. Other than the absence of vampire-Spike, what other history would change in the Buffyverse? Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:12:28 -0600 (CST) From: allenw Subject: Re: b/comments0218 On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 GHighPine@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 2/22/02 11:19:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, allenw@io.com > writes: > << > Uh-oh. Does that mean that if Haelfrek changes her mind, or her > necklace gets smashed, Spike will revert to William? Talk about plot > twists... > >> > And then all of history has to change back to what it would have been if > he'd never had his wish granted in the first place. Other than the absence > of vampire-Spike, what other history would change in the Buffyverse? Well, two slayers would have died later, possibly throwing off the who's-picked-next mojo for all who followed. More recently, the Annointed One would have been the Season 2 villain, although I suspect Angelus would have offed him when he showed up. I was going to say that Acathla would have sucked the world into Hell, but absent Spike, Dru would have been absent or different as well, so that whole plot might not have happened. Meanwhile, in the present, William, being mortal, would be long-dead, thus boring. But the undoing-history part only has to work that way if the showrunners want it to. As far as we know, Anyanaka's pre-Cordelia work wasn't undone when her amulet was smashed, after all. I could easily see Spike getting turned back in the present, with no historical side-effects; and I somehow doubt that William would be Buffy's type. I wonder who would be more eager to re-vamp him, him or Buffy? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:22:47 -0800 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: b/The Nemesises Er, has anyone noticed that the Nemesises have actually achieved several of their incredibly stupid-sounding goals they had written down? They've managed to be come invisible and make a woman their sex slave. Both, of course, back-fired, but they did it. Berni ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V4 #23 ****************************