BSV Forum - General - The Bloodshedpub

All. About. Spike.

Jul 21 2007 08:32 am   #1Guest

I know the writer's never intended this, but doesn't it seems like sometimes the whole show was about Spike. That everything was leading up to him being a hero and saving the world? 

Jul 21 2007 12:45 pm   #2Guest

It's pretty easy to interpret that way, yes, for both fans and haters of Spike.....since they kept sneering it was "the Spike show" towards the end.

CM

Jul 21 2007 03:27 pm   #3slaymesoftly

It is easy to believe that it was all part of Joss's plan from the beginning - he is certainly more than capable of that kind on long-range thinking. However, we know that it wasn't.  What we don't know, is when he began thinking along those lines.  Was it when Spike first got chipped and Giles approached him about working on their side? Was it when he fell in love with Buffy? At a minimum, it could have been sometime towards the end of Season VI, when they sent him off to get a soul. David Fury did say that Spike needed the soul in order to be redeemed. One assumes he meant so that Spike would be worthy of dying a hero, which indicates that they knew by that point that he was going to figure in the finale in a big way.

Having said all that, I would also say that if you go back and watch the vids and actually keep track of Spike's screen time, I think you would find that he really isn't on screen all that much in comparison to Buffy (duh!) and the others.  It seems that way to us - maybe because we are watching for him so eagerly, maybe because James manages to dominate the action much of the time - but I don't think it's really true until we get near the end of Season VII.  It was Buffy's show.  

Which leads me to wonder how the other actors might have felt about the way their show was hijacked by a "minor" guest star?  LOL  CM, any info there? I mean, think about it.  I realize all the actors have their fans and supporters, but I don't believe any of them - possibly including Sarah - have generated the kind of attention and loyalty that James has attracted right from the very beginning.  I mean, I don't see any LJ comms dedicated to "ten years of Xander". LOL  The character of Spike, and the actor who brought him to life, seems to have taken on a life of their own in terms of the fandom.

I am not a minion of Evil...
I am upper management.
Jul 21 2007 03:51 pm   #4Guest

Um, I haven't heard anything from the other actors. Just fans of the other characters. But I don't go trolling for what the others have said about the show, either, so.... Everybody does say wonderful things about James, though. I suppose they wouldn't know about "hijacking" unless people mentioned it in interviews, or when they've been at cons. Celebs are kind of isolated from the public view unless they try not to be.

Sarah has a very loyal following in her own places, but I don't know if they are as dedicated as James.....it's hard to tell since she doesn't do conventions, for one thing. Her main board of fans is SMGfan.com......that's her official fan website and they have contact with her on occasion.

But yeah, I don't think Spike is surpassed by any other character in love and loyalty. Many people only come to Spuffy because Spike wanted Buffy, so... We definitely out-number the Bangels, which seems to be the second largest group.

CM

Jul 21 2007 07:13 pm   #5Maggie2

Joss may not have intended Spike from the beginning of the series -- but Spike fits into many of the big themes that were set from the beginning.  Appearances are deceiving; expectations are overturned; outsiders save the world.  It was just a matter of putting the pieces together.  The cool thing is that the finished product reads as though Spike was intended all along.  Some of it was the product of deliberately making connections at the end-- having the 'welcome to the Hellmouth' sign tip into the crater (recalling Spike's entrance in School Hard) and Buffy's last word being "Spike".  There are a number of references in The Chosen to Harsh Light of Day, inverting things... and thereby tying together that arc, and making it a central theme of the last four seasons of the series.  Other stuff just seems serendipitous -- but in ways that seem uncanny.  For example, in School Hard, Drusilla cuts Spike face leaving a red mark on his right cheek -- one that exactly matches a patch of red paint on Buffy's face a few scenes later. 

It's all pretty cool.

Jul 21 2007 08:47 pm   #6FetchingMadScientist

And did anyone else notice that at the end of "Chosen" Buffy has a gash- that's likely to leave a scar- that cuts right through her eyebrow? :)  Pretty cool!

"Never a fetching mad scientist about when you need one." -Spike
Jul 21 2007 10:07 pm   #7slaymesoftly

FMS - no! I didn't notice that. It is totally cool - and a major plot bunny is attacking me. LOL

I am not a minion of Evil...
I am upper management.
Jul 21 2007 10:23 pm   #8Guest

Go plot bunnies, go! :)

FetchingMadScientist

Jul 21 2007 10:39 pm   #9Guest

It's actually above the brow, across her forehead. Probably won't scar....Slayers don't seem to keep scars unless they're from vampires.

Jul 22 2007 01:01 am   #10slaymesoftly

Oh, way to rain on my plot bunny, guest!  LOL  Yeah, I think I do remember a cut on her forehead in that last scene.  Will have to watch it again I guess to see if the bunny has been vaquished or only subdued. lol

I am not a minion of Evil...
I am upper management.
Jul 22 2007 01:25 am   #11Guest

Here's some fuel for that plot bunny.  The scar does start out on her forehead,that's true, and it's a pretty nice arch, it has to end somewhere though, and the trail ends somewhere inside her eyebrow hair.  It's too much like Mr. Marsters's actual scar to pass up. And besides, this is fanfic, we can do what we want.:)  If you want scar tissue, it's not a far stretch.  Keep feeding those bunnies. :) If yours is dead, i just might follow one of mine an that point.

Hope that helps. :)

FetchingMadScientist

Jul 22 2007 02:55 am   #12Maggie2

The light from the amulet will effect slayer healing such that she gets a scar!  There ya go!

Jul 22 2007 03:19 am   #13slaymesoftly

Hey, if you've got a bunny too, FMS, go for it.  I've got two fics for banners to work on and my Writercon UK - as well as my other two wip, so don't wait around for me! :)

I am not a minion of Evil...
I am upper management.
Jul 22 2007 05:19 am   #14Eowyn315

There are a number of references in The Chosen to Harsh Light of Day, inverting things... and thereby tying together that arc, and making it a central theme of the last four seasons of the series.

What connections are there, Maggie? The only thing I can think of is Spike's affinity for tacky jewelry, and how Buffy takes the ring from Spike and gives it to Angel, then takes the amulet from Angel and gives it to Spike. Are there other things, too? 

And here's a thought on the scarring thing - alt-Buffy had a pretty nasty scar in The Wish, which wasn't a vampire bite. So, they *can* scar. Also, not all of Buffy's vamp bites left scars - just Angel the angry puppy. I don't think it has to do with it being inflicted by a vampire, I think it's just a matter of how deep the cut is.

I'd definitely go with the plot bunny, slaymesoftly. The cut definitely goes into her eyebrow, and if you want it to scar, it can scar. :)

Writing should feel easy, like a monkey driving a speed boat.
Jul 22 2007 05:45 am   #15Maggie2

Hey Eowyn,

Well the jewelry swap is pretty big.  Try it this way:  In HLoD, Spike seeks a gem so that he can be evil in the light, but Buffy stops him and gives the gem to Angel, who destroys it (thereby rejecting the light, or at least any claim he might have on it).  In The Chosen, Angel receives an amulet as part of his deal with evil, inc.and shows it to Buffy.  Buffy takes it from him and gives it to Spike, who accepts it so that he can bring good (literally light, as it turns out) to the dark (closing the hellmouth).  

In HLoD, Spike wanted the gem so he could kill for his own pleasure, in the Chosen he accepts the amulet so that he can give his life to save the world. The reversal for Spike is obvious.

The parallels have significance for Angel, also.  Spike got the gem for evil purposes in HLoD; in the Chosen, Angel has the amulet as the result of a morally very ambiguous (in my mind quite dark) deal with evil, inc.  In HLoD, Angel signals the beginning of the big reversal by refusing the light (and as with all of his moral darkness thereafter, by giving a 'noble' rationale for that choice).  [I'm not saying Angel's choice to smash the gem was evil -- but the refusal of the light, for whatever reasons, foreshadows his gradual fall back into the dark.

In addition to that, in HLoD, Spike tries on a bit of jewelry that looks suspiciously like the amulet, thinking it's the gem, only to discover he's mistaken.  The mistake is a symbol of Spike's mistake.  He thinks he wants the light so he can pursue his own ends, but it turns out he really does want the light, because it's intrinsically good.  The four seasons is all about Spike learning what it is he really wants.  It turns out to be no accident that he doesn't manage to get a lot of evil accomplished in his brief sojourn in the light.

In HLoD Spike's tunneling for the gem causes lots of ground to collapse; in The Chosen there's lots more ground collapsing as a result of Spike's acts.  Spike literally turns Sunnydale upside-down.  That was the role of his character, to upset our original static view of things and transform not just himself but everything else. 

Those are the main ones!

Jul 22 2007 04:46 pm   #16Eowyn315

Ah, symbolism. See, that's where I think we lose the writers, honestly. I can buy that they may have done the jewelry swap (and even the ground collapsing) references on purpose, but I think probably most of the light/dark symbolism is superimposed on the physical inversions rather than actually being the writers' intentions. Maybe I just don't give them enough credit, lol.

Writing should feel easy, like a monkey driving a speed boat.
Jul 22 2007 05:05 pm   #17Maggie2

Well, I suppose we could say they didn't know what they were doing when they called the Spike episode "Harsh Light of Day" and the Angel episode "In the Dark" -- but I prefer to give the writers the benefit of the doubt! 

Other foreshadowing: Spike being mistaken for Buffy's boyfriend.  And a background song with the chorus "I would give my life for you".  Am willing to believe that's one of those accidental serendipities.  But I honestly think the light/dark theme was intentional.  Spike was set up as a contrast to Angel.  And whether they planned it or not, it was a simple matter to show how they had flipped by the end.

Jul 22 2007 05:23 pm   #18Maggie2

I know that the standard line is that Spike was brought on in season 4 to be comic relief and some sort of replacement for Cordelia.  But there's a lot that's suspicious about Spike's introduction to the show as a permanent character.

1.  His first episode, HLoD is twinned with the Angel episode In the Dark, as just discussed.  They even had Spike do a cross-over onto Angel.  So Spike's first major appearance is clearly meant to be linked to Angel.

2.  But then Macha, over on Tea at the Ford, has made the following observations about the next sequence of cross-overs in the series -- which immediately follow Spike's chipping:

* In Pangs, Angel goes to 'help' but stays outside and never allows himself to be seen by Buffy.  Spike, meanwhile, is banging on the door and begging to be let in.

* In I Will Remember You, (where Buffy goes to LA as a result of Angel's non-appearance in Pangs), Angel chooses (again!!) to stay in the dark, erasing Buffy's memory (!!!!) in order to do so.  He refuses domestic life with Buffy.

* In Something Blue (next episode on BtVS) Spike embraces the domestic life with Buffy (albeit under a spell and played for laughs).

It could all be a coincidence -- but those 5 episodes coming in so early ALL speak toward the ultimate reversal of position between Spike and Angel -- with Spike moving steadily toward the light and toward Buffy, and Angel moving steadily away.

I've read somewhere that Joss had originally wanted to chip and redeem Angelus.  But then they decided to go with AtS.  So Spike takes on the chip/redeem story.  Maybe that's not true -- but it fits so well -- and it's way more interesting than the "Spike was popular, they wanted comic relief, and then they accidentally stumbled on his redemption arc" story.  The 'verse I love is the one where the writers intentionally have Spike take on the role Angel refused -- which incidentally includes the tragedy of Buffy being stuck on thinking Angel was the one, and thereby pretty much missing (until the very end) that Spike is the vampire on a real mission of redemption.

Jul 22 2007 06:38 pm   #19Spikez_tart

Maggie2 - Right you are about HLoD.  That episode alone totally disproves all the bilge Joss gave out about James/Spike being an accident.  There are way too many instances for it to be writer serendipity.  I never noticed the jewelry exchange sequence before.  I'm not obsessing enough.

But, if anyone needs further proof, in School Hard, Drusilla cuts Spike's left cheek with her fingernail and leaves a red line of blood.  Later, Buffy is painting a banner or something at the school and gets a red line of paint on her left cheek.  Spike equals Buffy, right from his first appearance.

 

If we want her to be exactly she'll never be exactly I know the only really real Buffy is really Buffy and she's gone' who?
Jul 22 2007 11:13 pm   #20Eowyn315

Well, I suppose we could say they didn't know what they were doing when they called the Spike episode "Harsh Light of Day" and the Angel episode "In the Dark" -- but I prefer to give the writers the benefit of the doubt! 

I'm pretty sure they did the light/dark in the episode titles on purpose... but I think that was more about a play on words. I don't think it was intentional that those episodes were meant as the beginning of Spike's move toward good and Angel's move toward evil.

Also, I'd argue that the reason the first crossover involved Spike is because he was, at the time, the most expendable member of the cast for a crossover (since he wasn't appearing in every episode until later in the season). Also, not because they wanted to link Spike to Angel - but because they already *were* linked together, with a hundred years of history. It's just more fun to watch Angel fight Spike than some other random vampire.

Writing should feel easy, like a monkey driving a speed boat.
Jul 23 2007 12:00 am   #21Maggie2

Re: crossovers -- They used Buffy in the next one... so the availability thing isn't an obvious factor.  More to the point is why bother with a crossover at all, unless there *is* some point to be made?  Consider the three of the cross-overs -- In the Dark/Pangs-I Will Remember You/Five by Five-Sanctuary -- the latter two are obviously not throwaways.  So why would the first one be a throwaway?

In any case,  your bottom line is that you don't think the moves were intentional. This isn't a question which engages me very much.  My main interest is that they *read* as though they are intentional.  The Buffy 'verse is extremely thick (rich) this way -- you can read the text and if you attend to the words and so on, you can find a great deal to explore.  That's why you get websites like Tea at the Ford with a bunch of literary types going over the 'verse with a fine-tooth comb.  I can't think of any other TV show that repays such attention.  Now it's entirely possible that it's a 'monkey at the typewriter producing Hamlet' sort of phenomenon.  It may well be that Joss and co. are a bunch of ordinary, but not extraordinary writers, who just got very, very lucky.  But I'm willing to hold out the possibility that the reason they produced a work that is so rich in so many ways is because they *did* know what they were doing.  If you ask me to guess what really happened, I'd say that Joss has a keen sense of broader themes, mythos', and philosophical issues and a knack for planting rich seeds and then recognizing ways of bringing them together that 'pay off'.  Thus, I don't think he had a masterplan starting from Welcome to the Hellmouth -- but I also think that it was no accident that he ended up at the Chosen with a remarkably deep and coherent narrative across seven seasons.  But my reading doesn't change if we shift back to the monkey at the typewriter picture.  The themes are still there, whether intended or not.

In any case, these boards have hashed over these issues before -- and I know there's an attatchment to bashing the writers and thinking that Spike was an accident that the fans made happen.  (At least that's how I read the reactions here).  I'm not quite sure I understand why that's such an appealing storyline.  But in any case, I don't share it.  I could write a serious exegesis of this series -- others *have* written serious exegesis of the series.  The richness of the text speaks for itself.  I'd be surprised if it was a pure accident -- but thinking that it was an accident wouldn't make pondering the text any less fruitful.

Jul 23 2007 02:11 am   #22slaymesoftly

Too much of a headache to follow the arguments closely tonight. However, I will say that the first crossover was likely to have been used to bring Buffy fans to Angel.   It was the first season, and not all that far into it, so continuing a story line that began on Buffy was a good way to build viewers.  I suspect, had they not gone to a different network, there would have been more crossovers through the years than the ones that we saw. Once Buffy was no longer on WB, that became more difficult to arrange apparently.  Joss had to do some hopping and skipping just to get those few minutes of Angel at the end of Buffy.

I agree that the writing is somewhere between very good and brilliant probably 75% of the time - but it's not perfect.  The very complexity of the work, and the layers that we can find, means that many more opportunities for screw-ups.  The writers are human - even *gasp* Joss, so sometimes they forgot stuff - or, maybe hoped that we had forgotten, if they wanted to write something that contradicted an earlier episode. LOL

I am not a minion of Evil...
I am upper management.
Jul 23 2007 02:48 am   #23Eowyn315

Well, I'll leave you to the in-depth analysis, Maggie. Maybe I'm betraying a lack of respect for TV as a literary medium, but I just don't see the whirlwind nature of writing scripts (sometimes in just a few days) and putting a show together as the type of environment where you find the writers considering these kinds of themes. I mean, I find it hard to believe that the writers who can't keep track of simple continuity (like, for example, Spike's age, or the fact that Buffy's death in season 7 wouldn't have called another Slayer) are the same ones that created this elaborate thematic study of philosophical issues.

Anyway, since I see much of it as accidental, I can find some things interesting, but others just seem pretentious. So, while there are plenty of connections that I think are really cool, at some point I just find myself rolling my eyes at the really in-depth, esoteric stuff.

I think slaymesoftly has a really good point on the crossovers. That early in the season, the purpose of the crossover was probably to keep viewers watching after Buffy to build a fanbase for Angel. Spike was a very popular character on Buffy - it makes sense that he'd cross over. Also, the next crossover involves some serious Bangel, which seems like an obvious attempt to draw the viewers who'd spent three years living and dying with the Bangel relationship. You mentioned that the crossover was "not a throwaway" - but really, how much do the characters get out of it? Angel doesn't make much of an impact in Pangs, and Buffy doesn't remember anything about IWRY. Except for a throwaway line about Buffy being in L.A., it's never mentioned again on BtVS. And even Angel, who *does* remember, hardly seems affected by it. In fact, he seems to have completely forgotten his "noble" decision to become a vampire again when, by the end of the season, his ultimate goal is to earn the shanshu, to - wait for it - become human.

Writing should feel easy, like a monkey driving a speed boat.
Jul 23 2007 04:13 am   #24Maggie2

Hi Eowyn,

Buffy stands out as being more sophisticated and interesting than the average TV show.  That it has spawned a bunch of books, conferences and a journal suggests that others find it fruitful to ponder.  That it is often rich, layered and fruitful doesn't mean it's perfect.  There are continuity errors.  Joss is quite clear about not caring about superficial stuff like that much.  But he is clear about caring about character and the like.  Anyway, not sure what the point is of talking about the show, if we think it's a bunch of random gibberish. 

I don't think IWRY is  a throwaway.  In it, we learn that Angel has thrown away something Buffy is dreaming of.  Something else is more important to him than what is most important to her.  And the episode tells us what: fighting for the good and 'earning' his way -- which is why the shanshu speaks to him.  He will get it after he 'earns' it.  All of this has a lot to do with how the character develops and it presents a deep contrast with Spike.  (Angel represents one model of how to pursue redemption, Spike another one.)  But here I have to stop since I'm not sure at what point your eyes would start rolling.  We all have our own cuppa.  Just cause you aren't into the philosophical/theological stuff that is shot through the series doesn't mean it isn't there. 

Jul 23 2007 07:21 am   #25GoldenBuffy

On the subject of Angel, and I mentioned this before but not sure if I got a reply. I don't understand why the TPTB would pick him as their champion when he was cursed with a soul. He didn't fight for it, didn't earn it, he was cursed with it for eating a gypsy princess (or something, lol i can't remember). Where as Spike fought for his, I think the major reason was for himself, to better himself, and then for Buffy. So wouldn't it make more sense that TPTB chose him instead, not only being The One for Buffy but also their true Chamipon and the one to get Shanshu'ed?

I also look at it as, Angel's soul is there, it is what's keeping his darker side (Angelus) in check. But if Angel really wanted to soul or not he could give in to his darker desires and resume the roll he once had. Drusilla is there waiting for him as well. He has not murged or become one with his soul. I don't even think the sould that he was cursed with was his true soul, and this is the main reason why he isn't "settled" with it. Why it's so fickle.

Whereas with Spike his demon had murged with his soul, beacuse he was given back his true soul. He's not going to be sumjected to his daker desires. He's also not into the redemption for the shanshu but in it for cleaning his own hands of the blood he's shed over the years and bettering humanity. He's about making himself better.

But back to my original question, lol. Why would TPTB choose Angel?

And in the air the fireflies
Our only light in paradise
We'll show the world they were wrong
And teach them all to sing along
Jul 23 2007 12:58 pm   #26Guest

Well, Doyle's information from the Powers is that Angel was cursed with his own soul. It's mentioned in 1:1 "City Of..."

Angel's chosen because he's the one and only for a long time....and he does have potential, especially with the right people around him. But, if the Powers are all-knowing and all-seeing of the future, then they know that Spike is coming up, eventually. We don't know what apocalypse it is that will give a vampire with a soul his Shanshu. The prophesy gives no timeline. Should Angel not have been encouraged just because Spike might be the true recipient later? Heavens, no! The side of Good is out numbered enough.

CM

Jul 23 2007 04:25 pm   #27Guest

My feeling is that, everything has two sides. Good/Evil, Light/Dark, it's all connected.  One cannot exist without the other- so, maybe the "Powers" did choose Angel- but maybe he fought for the darker side, without knowing it?  

Is there another reason Wolfram and Hart would let Angel run their Los Angeles branch, no questions asked?

Sorry to go all "Star Wars" on you. :) It's just a thought.

FetchingMadScientist

Jul 23 2007 08:44 pm   #28Guest

I think they definitely hoped they could corrupt him, or at least make the group ineffectual. They may have been small, but they were a thorn in W&H's side.

Jul 23 2007 08:56 pm   #29Maggie2

I think the reason why Angel was never 'settled' with the soul is precisely because it was a curse.  Angelus, the demon, never sought the soul -- so why would he ever be reconciled to it.  Spike, the demon, did seek his soul -- so he can be much more integrated than Angel/us ever could be.

I do think there's a question about what soul Angel got -- but only because Angel seems more committed to the good than Liam ever was.  But that could also be explained as Liam's reactions to the horror of what he did as Angelus. 

The PTB's are hard to figure out.  I've been meaning to re-watch AtS for the longest time -- but I know my first time through I had the impression that it wasn't obvious which way their compass really points.  In any case, the PTB's aren't omniscient.  They didn't see Buffy coming, at least that's what Whistler tells Buffy in Becoming.  It's possible that they assume that the vampire with a soul referred to by the prophecy is the first vampire with a soul that they hear about -- Angel.  But that could just be another mistake.  Or they are interested in Angel because he's so morally ambiguous and could jump either way (which is why the Senior Partners also have a jones for him).

Jul 23 2007 11:12 pm   #30Scarlet Ibis

Hope I'm not repeating anything, but I had to stop reading cause I had to write this in case I forgot.

Joss mentions somewhere that he knew how the series would end in when s4 first started, and also figured out that Spike was in love with Buffy around the same time he realized how he would end it all.

Also, comic relief in the form of Spike of s4 was kind of ridiculous (not saying he wasn't funny, cause he was) because we had Xander *and* the introduction of Anya who also became a regular in s4.

I don't think all of it was accidental- in fact, Joss aims to have more than just one meaning in the titles of each ep.  Like the "Real Me," he said something about the reference being much too obvious for his tastes in relation to Dawn and Harmony.  "Harsh Light of Day," the obvious references, would be to the three ladies who have sex with guys who pretty much blow them off the next fmorning (hence the daylight being oh so harsh), but I definitely feel it references Spike.

Also, in "School Hard," I don't think it just references Buffy and how crappy her school career is- Spike too learns a few lessons in the ep... which consequently changes his entire existence.  If Spike was such a disposable villain, and Joss knew they were going to kill him as well as Joyce eventually, why not have had Spike kill her?  Does anyone honestly think that that a tap on the head from a regular human would deter a master vampire?  Knock him to the ground?  It was silly, and I knew when I first saw it that they were gonna keep him around...

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 23 2007 11:25 pm   #31Scarlet Ibis

And-

like, for example, Spike's age, or the fact that Buffy's death in season 7 wouldn't have called another Slayer

Spike telling Willow he's 126, I chalk up to ego.  In "School Hard," Giles mentions that "he's barely as old as Angel," so perhaps he added on several years to make him feel "all manly," or what all.  The younger you are, the closer you are to those damable fledging ages, and who wants to be compared to a fledging when you're a master?  The age, for vampires, gives you respect.  "I'm so old, I was at the Crucifixion," and so forth. People (and apparenlty vampires) lie aobut their age all the time ;)  Or at least, when it suits them.  Besides which, at FFL, they stick to what numbers they gave in regards to Spike's true age and history.

As for Buffy, when she died in s1, theoretically, she was out of the Slaying game.  She wasn't supposed to come back- but because of her friends saving her (Xander, then the Scoobies, then Willow magically removing the fatal bullet, cause she does flatline in s), ever since that first time, makes her calling literally irrelvant.  Her time was over, even though she was still alive.  Buffy made the choice to continue her calling, because she felt it was her duty as long as she could breathe. 

When she's ripped out of heaven, crawling form her grave, having the horrible, fuzzy eyesight and thinking she may be in a hell dimension, she still fights and kills demons because she *can,* not cause she has to (cause if she were really in hell, what difference would it make? They'd keep coming).  A slayer is called once a slayer dies.  When Buffy died, she wasn't supposed to come back, but since she did, every time she dies and is brought back afterwards is irrelevant to the Slayer line, because she is literally out of it (or the rotation- whatever you want to call it).

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 24 2007 12:15 am   #32Guest

Yep, ever more, it passes through Kendra then Faith.......

and we have to wonder if more potentials will be born after the Slayer spell....

In retrospect now, we can say Spike was lying about his age to Willow, and the Council had his age wrong in the books. Making him 200 in SH was immediately irrelevant once they said Dru was his sire and when she was turned (both in S2). So, almost immediately after that age mention, it's canceled out. Angel was in the 240's, and Dru was turned in 1860 IIRC. And....James was told when he got Spike that he'd be playing an approx. 28-year-old (hence the lie about him being 29, until he turned 40).

Jane Espenson did come up with the "Harsh Light of Day" initially for Buffy's wake-up in Parker's room - morning revealing it wasn't the good decision it seemed like the night before. It gains more weight as the day goes on, with Spike finding the gem, being harsh to Harmony, fighting Buffy, losing the gem, Buffy getting dumped.........it's a crappy day for many.

I don't think Joss knew all along he was going to have Spike save the world at the end, though. He *might* have always wanted to do the Slayer empowerment, but so much of the show was flying by the seat of their pants because of renewal worries, actor availabilities, etc.

Spike did have the funniest stuff in S4. There wasn't much else for him to do until Adam recruited him to break up the Scoobies. He had the chip, and Buffy didn't need him to fight demons, though he found he could. It was the most light-hearted season overall, actually, so it worked pretty well to spread the comedy around.

Liam was horrified when he was first cursed and told he had murdered...it was written all over his face, as well as disbelief as his memories started to return. I think he was a man with low self-esteem who chose badly, not a bad man. I think he genuinely wanted to try, between the guilt from the curse, and his own horror.

The PTBs seem to follow the polytheistic god myths, in that there are benevolent ones, bad ones, and everything in between. I think primarily they want balance so humanity in this world can go on its own way unhindered by the supernatural. And if we take Holland Manners at his word, then the SPs also like our world as it is - he brought Angel here to show it was plenty of Hell already. Now, with other races and other dimensions, they might both strive for ultimate Heaven or Hell, but with humanity here, they seem to only want to tip the scale slightly more in their favor than the other side.

CM

Jul 24 2007 02:33 am   #33Eowyn315

Also, comic relief in the form of Spike of s4 was kind of ridiculous (not saying he wasn't funny, cause he was) because we had Xander *and* the introduction of Anya who also became a regular in s4.

I don't think Spike was intended to be comic relief, per se. He was supposed to be the sarcastic one that tells them all they suck and they're going to die - replacing Cordelia. But then they realized that Anya was sort of doing that already, so they needed something else for Spike to do, and he ended up the "wacky neighbor."

Also, in "School Hard," I don't think it just references Buffy and how crappy her school career is- Spike too learns a few lessons in the ep...

That's also a reference to "Die Hard" - though, I'll be honest, I never really thought it fit.

Spike telling Willow he's 126, I chalk up to ego.

But that's so bizarre, since he's actually 119... does seven years really make a difference when you're that old? And why not just round up to 120? 126 is so specific... and specifically wrong, lol. I chalk it up to them not remembering the line when they picked 1880 in Fool For Love.

In "School Hard," Giles mentions that "he's barely as old as Angel," so perhaps he added on several years to make him feel "all manly," or what all.

That's a completely separate inconsistency, lol. Angel at that time was around 240. Giles was clearly wrong, because 120 is NOT "barely" as old as 240. It's half as old. So, they were assuming Spike was much older. That could easily be explained as the Council being misinformed, though. But still, Spike's not doing himself any favors by calling himself 126, since Willow actually thought he was *older* than that, lol.

Besides which, at FFL, they stick to what numbers they gave in regards to Spike's true age and history.

No, they didn't, really... unless you mean *after* FFL, they stuck to the numbers they gave during FFL. Prior to FFL, we'd been given two separate ages for Spike (the one from Giles approximate, but obviously different from the age Spike gave), and we find out in FFL that they were both wrong. Also, FFL could be seen as contradicting the "You were my sire" line in School Hard. If you believe Joss, it was always meant that Drusilla made him a vampire, but Angelus taught him everything he knows, and that's what he meant by "sire"... or it could be a retcon.

Making him 200 in SH was immediately irrelevant once they said Dru was his sire and when she was turned (both in S2). So, almost immediately after that age mention, it's canceled out. Angel was in the 240's, and Dru was turned in 1860 IIRC.

Well, it's not *really* canceled out until FFL, since they never said Dru was Spike's sire until then - and, like I said above, they implied that Angelus was Spike's sire. So, it's possible in season 2 that they intended Angelus to be both Spike and Dru's sire, and Spike was supposed to be older than Dru.

When Buffy died, she wasn't supposed to come back, but since she did, every time she dies and is brought back afterwards is irrelevant to the Slayer line

Right... which makes it really odd for Buffy to say, repeatedly, in season 7, "My death will call one of you to become the Slayer." You could argue that Buffy was simplifying things for the potentials, who don't know about Faith, but that doesn't explain why the Scoobies also say (to each other) that Buffy's death will call a Slayer - like in Potential, when Anya "comforts" Dawn by saying that she'll only be called if Buffy dies.

Writing should feel easy, like a monkey driving a speed boat.
Jul 24 2007 05:12 am   #34Scarlet Ibis

 No, they didn't, really... unless you mean *after* FFL, they stuck to the numbers they gave during FFL. Prior to FFL, we'd been given two separate ages for Spike (the one from Giles approximate, but obviously different from the age Spike gave), and we find out in FFL that they were both wrong. Also, FFL could be seen as contradicting the "You were my sire" line in School Hard. If you believe Joss, it was always meant that Drusilla made him a vampire, but Angelus taught him everything he knows, and that's what he meant by "sire"... or it could be a retcon.

Yup, E, I meant that FFL was the starting point for them to keep the years straight.  And for all intents and purposes, Angelus was Spike's sire- he just didn't happen to turn him.  He was his mentor, his leader, his "Yoda," yada, yada, yada.  It wouldn't be odd, or a continuity error for Spike refer to him as such, IMO.  Drusilla was too out of it to teach him much of anything beyond feeding, and even then she wasn't of the caliber of Angelus in that regard.  Angelus, even though he wasn't the oldest, was clearly the leader of the four at that point in time.

And as for Buffy saying that "when I die," or the Scoobies saying that, they were either simplifing it, or trying to stress the severity of the situation, and the importance of training by admitting the fact that yes, Buffy, as long as she's been a slayer and as skilled as she is in fighting, she *can* die just like the rest of them.  And by doing so, it instills in them how important it is to know what you're doing (in regards to slaying), so that they'll practice harder to stay alive.  Cause Buffy's died twice since Faith was called, and there hasn't been a third or fourth slayer, so there's no way that they couldn't know how inaccurate that statement is.

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 24 2007 02:08 pm   #35slaymesoftly

Yep, Spike's age is a bugger. When I was writing HBE, I went nuts trying to figure out what year it had to be (that Buffy was sent to) in order for William to be the age I wanted him to be that year.    I finally gave it up as a bad job - and just picked a year that worked with the year he was turned. (I'm going with - math is not a strong suit for any of the writers on BtVS. lol)

Nothing about what Giles said about Spike originally feels "off" to me, because he was going by old Council records and there is no guarantee that they are 100% correct.  There is no reason to assume the Council knew enough about the background of any of the Fanged Four to know exactly when they were turned, or originally born. And I doubt they spent a lot of time chatting with them. :)  So, really, the only inconsistency (surprise!) is the difference between what Spike told Willow and the date we were given in FFL.  I suspect the episodes were written by different people, and that one throw-away line in the midst of a scary/funny scene in  Season IV just didn't occur to anyone.  Oddly enough, I remember that line (because it was funny), and don't remember anything about when he was turned from FFL. Although, I agree, by FFL it was becoming important to keep dates straight - what with all the flashbacks on Angel. At that point, they were still on the same network and I presume the writers were shared, or at least, could easily talk to each other to compare flashback notes.

As for Buffy - it was established back in Season II that Buffy's short "death" resulted in another Slayer being called, and then again when Faith showed up to replace Kendra. So Buffy had long been out of the Slayer line in terms of being replaced whenever she died (nasty habit of hers - that dying all time. lol). If the writers actually meant for that to be taken seriously, they must have all gone brain-dead at the same time. LOL

I am not a minion of Evil...
I am upper management.
Jul 24 2007 07:08 pm   #36Eowyn315

Yeah, I think we all agree that only Faith's death would call a new Slayer. Which makes this line in Potential so frustrating:

Dawn: She has to die. I mean, if I was ever the Slayer, it would mean she died.

I could buy that Buffy simplified things for the potentials. But for Dawn to say - in a room of Scoobies, people who know that Buffy died once before - that Buffy has to die for her to be called, it's ridiculous. And the kicker is, Dawn's *upset* about it. She's not simplifying or generalizing - she's actually anticipating her sister's death. Why get all worked up about something that we (and they, presumably) know is not true?

And for all intents and purposes, Angelus was Spike's sire- he just didn't happen to turn him.  He was his mentor, his leader, his "Yoda," yada, yada, yada.  It wouldn't be odd, or a continuity error for Spike refer to him as such, IMO.

I know that's Joss' explanation, but it always rubs me the wrong way, especially given the presumption throughout season 2 that Spike was older than Drusilla - I really don't think we were meant to believe Dru was Spike's sire until later in the series.

Also, everyone always credits Dru's madness as the reason why Angelus was like a sire to Spike, teaching him everything. But how often do we see that happening? How many vampires on Buffy actually get taken care of by their sires? Most of them seem to get abandoned by their sires and are buried by their families, and Buffy stakes them before they ever get out of the cemetery. The only examples I can think of where a sire acted as a mentor involve Angelus... so maybe it's not really a "sire" thing - maybe Angelus just has a daddy complex.

Writing should feel easy, like a monkey driving a speed boat.
Jul 24 2007 07:32 pm   #37slaymesoftly

ROFL - Angelus "daddy complex".  Could be. He did seem to be the head of the family, even though Darla was his sire and older than he. 

In fanon, the sire thing is got around by differentiating between "siring" a "childe" and just turning someone. A "childe" is cared for differently than a vamp that has just been turned and is to be a minion. On the show, I don't even know if they showed the sharing of blood part of turning, did they?  Most vampire myths just say "if you get killed by a vamp, you become one" (like werewolf bites), and that seems to be the implication in the Jossverse.  Not sure where the idea came from that you have to drink from the vamp in order to be more than a dead body.  (Anne Rice?) I don't think they made a big thing of that on the Buffyverse, if they addressed it at all. 

When Buffy and Spike leave a group of potentials with a dead body in a vamp nest, she tells them he's "leftovers" - then he pops up and the potentials have to slay him.  It wouldn't make sense for vampires to sire everybody they kill - they would just be creating more competition for the food - so I would assume that it just happens.  At least in Joss's world.  Something must occur to make a difference with childer, but it could be as simple as wanting to keep the person you turned and making a point of being around when they rise so that you can take them under your wing - so to speak.

You're right about Dawn's statement though - it's patently ridiculous and brings us right back to - Joss is a genius, but one who isn't too hung up on details. LOL  I suspect if that's true (as someone mentioned on one of the threads somewhere), that he said he doesn't get hung up on details of continuity, then it goes a long was to explaining the inconsistencies that are driving us all crazy as we try to rationalize them.  Perhaps it's his ultimate revenge on writers of fan fic. LOL

I am not a minion of Evil...
I am upper management.
Jul 24 2007 08:08 pm   #38GoldenBuffy

I think the sharing of blood to turn a vamp came from Bram, not sure though, so don't quote me. I can't remember the book (bad me, need to read it again), but in the movie, I remember drac cutting his chest and Mina drinking from him. Then she sorta died then started to turn. I don't think she fully turned though, or did she???

Maybe it's me since I haven't watched all the eps in years, so i didn't come away with the feeling that Spike was older than Dru. for me it was alway Dru who was older, again that could be because I had the notion that she was his sire. I totally forgot he even said to Angel that he was his sire. and let's just say that Dru did turn him, since this is what Joss said. Then I don't think Angelus took him under his wing because Dru was to crazy to teach him anything. I think a lot of people underestamate her, yes sheis crazy but she is calculating crazy. She's smart, she had visions, and she uses this to her advantage, even to a point she can twist Angelus to do what she wants.

I think she just liked William when she saw him heard the stars whisper to her, changed him, knew he would be handy for her. Who knows maybe she knew Angel was going to get cursed with a soul. She wanted a replacement for him, and she knew Angelus would take and try to mold Spike in his image.

And in the air the fireflies
Our only light in paradise
We'll show the world they were wrong
And teach them all to sing along
Jul 24 2007 10:21 pm   #39slaymesoftly

Hi GB - yeah, I don't recall any blood sharing in the book, which doesn't mean it wasn't there, for sure! :)  I don't think the movie counts - cause that's just someone's interpretation of Bram Stoker's work.  Yeah, it never bothered me that Spike called Angelus his sire - it actually, what with all the Yoda stuff, seemed more like he was saying how close they'd been more than stating a family relationship. And I had totally forgotten Giles' saying he was almost as old as Angel by the time season IV and the epi where he says how old he is rolled around.   I think they did a lot more flashback stuff in Angel, so much of the info comes from those episodes rather than from things that happened on Buffy.

I am not a minion of Evil...
I am upper management.
Jul 24 2007 10:25 pm   #40Maggie2

I thought that in Becoming we saw Darla draw blood from herself -- which I took to be a gesture referring to the fact that Liam was going to have to drink from her in order to become a vampire.

And Angelus did seem to have a hand in Spike's training -- at least that's how it looked to me in the scenes we see in Destiny. 

Agree that there's a problem with Dawn's statement about slayers.  In general season 7 *doesn't* hold up to close scrutiny the way the other seasons do.  Joss was distracted with other projects, and it shows.  Not that there isn't quite a bit that is great.  But there are many more plotholes, dangling threads and so on.

Jul 25 2007 12:24 am   #41Eowyn315

On the show, I don't even know if they showed the sharing of blood part of turning, did they?  Most vampire myths just say "if you get killed by a vamp, you become one" (like werewolf bites), and that seems to be the implication in the Jossverse.  Not sure where the idea came from that you have to drink from the vamp in order to be more than a dead body.

Oh, the sharing of blood was *definitely* a part of the Buffyverse canon. Right off the bat, in Welcome to the Hellmouth, Buffy explains how you become a vampire:

To make you a vampire they have to suck your blood. And then you have to suck their blood. It's like a whole big sucking thing. Mostly they're just gonna kill you.

So, basically, to sire someone, you drain them almost to death, then they drink some of your blood, then they die. 24-48 hours later - you have a new vampire. We don't see it happen often, but Maggie is right - it's definitely shown when Darla turns Angelus.

In fanon, the sire thing is got around by differentiating between "siring" a "childe" and just turning someone. A "childe" is cared for differently than a vamp that has just been turned and is to be a minion.

There's never any evidence in canon that there's more than one way to turn a person, so that's pure fanon - especially since the word "childe" is never even used on the show. I don't think there's a difference in the Jossverse - a vampire is a vampire, there's no difference between turning a childe or turning a minion.

Writing should feel easy, like a monkey driving a speed boat.
Jul 25 2007 12:51 am   #42slaymesoftly

Ah, that's right. I had forgotten the whole "suck fest" speech. lol

And, yeah, the childe stuff is all fanon - have seen discussions about where/who it might have come from, but it wasn't Joss. Like I said, I think it depends on whether or not the siring vamp wants to keep the newbie around for some reason.


I am not a minion of Evil...
I am upper management.
Jul 25 2007 01:08 am   #43Guest

 How many vampires on Buffy actually get taken care of by their sires?

Most vamps are minions and not childer.  There isn't a spoken difference, but we see it on the show.  Some vamps are just, well, better (or more important) than others.  Angelus had two others before Dru and Spike, Spike was specifically made to be Dru's companion, as was Angelus for Darla.  We see the Master with his "favorites" on Angel, as well as in "The Wish."

It's not specificall called "childer" in canon, but we are definitely shown that throughout.

In "Why We Fight," Angel only gave that guy "just enough" to turn him.  There was no significance in the turning.

Jul 25 2007 01:08 am   #44Guest

oh- that was me, Scarlet.

Jul 25 2007 03:54 am   #45Eowyn315

I honestly don't think there's an intentional difference between minions and "childer." I think the differences we see on the show are simply a result of the show focusing on the regular and recurring characters. Ever notice that there's no instance of a sire/childe relationship with vampires we *don't* see regularly? It's just because it's more interesting to have vampires with some connection to the ones we care about. Think about how much less interesting Penn would've been if he hadn't been a prodigy of Angel's. It's all about the storytelling.

In "Why We Fight," Angel only gave that guy "just enough" to turn him.  There was no significance in the turning.

Actually, the "just enough" was in reference to the soul - Lawson asks if he has a soul, too: You gave me just enough, didn't you? Enough of your soul to keep me trapped between who I was and who I should be.

It wasn't "just enough" to turn him - there aren't degrees of turning. And there was actually significance in the turning - Angel does it because Lawson is dying, and they need him to fix whatever's wrong with the submarine. Angel turns him to save the other men.

Writing should feel easy, like a monkey driving a speed boat.
Jul 25 2007 04:01 am   #46Scarlet Ibis

Significance to the humans, yes.  But I don't think Angel made him a significant vampire.  As for the "just enough of his soul," Angel tells him it doesn't work that way- which it really doesn't.

I think the amount of blood given is significant as to what type of vampire the person will become.

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 25 2007 04:24 am   #47Eowyn315

*shakes head* 

None of that is canon, Scarlet. The amount of blood given is hardly even shown on screen, let alone made to be an indicator of what type of vampire the person will become. And there's no such thing as making a person a "significant vampire" - unless you're talking about a significant *character* which is a completely separate issue, and is commentary on the series, not on the Jossverse.

Am I the only one that gets immensely frustrated when fanon things get argued as canon? I mean, if you want to use fanon in fics, fine... but when it gets passed off as things that were actually in the show, it's simply not accurate.

Writing should feel easy, like a monkey driving a speed boat.
Jul 25 2007 04:50 am   #48Always_jbj

Am I the only one that gets immensely frustrated when fanon things get argued as canon? I mean, if you want to use fanon in fics, fine... but when it gets passed off as things that were actually in the show, it's simply not accurate.

No, Eowyn, you aren't the only one who gets frustrated by this. I have NO PROBLEM with people using fanon ideas... I use them all the time but if you are going to use them KNOW what is fanon and what is canon. *sigh*

I once had someone review one of my fics and tell me that they didn't think it was possible for a Master vampire to claim a slayer for the purpose of fulfilling a prophecy. *head desk* Firstly the term 'Master vampire' is fanon...so is claiming and what the prophecy had to do with making it impossible I'll never know! LOL.

People put out all these 'rules' to do with claiming and siring a 'childe' or 'minion' and yet these are ALL fanon concepts... there are no rules! Even a lot of the canon rules are pretty open to interpretation considering the lack of consistency throughout the shows.

Aim from the heart
Some will love and some will curse you, baby
You can go to war
But only if you have to 


Fanfic ~*~ Artwork ~*~ Live Journal
Jul 25 2007 06:42 am   #49Scarlet Ibis

Well, there was *The* Master in BtVS.  So, that term really isn't- fanon- it was in the show.

Harmony uses the term minions, which gives me, the viewer the impression that yes, there *is* a difference.  They (at least the one named Brad) refer to her as sire, she refers to them as minion.  No, come to think of it- she refers to all of them as minions, which implies that yes, she is above them, even if she did not sire them all.

Harmony: (scornful) They're not my buddies. They're my minions.
Xander: They're ... what now?
Harmony: Minions! You know, lackeys? They work for me.

The term minion means follower or underling.  There has to be a separation between the leaders, and the minions.  Spike is not a minion, so by default (and this is excluding the fact that he's taken out two Slayers with his bare hands) makes him a Master.  But of course, initially he was a fledgling, which is to be groomed until ready for independent activity, but not a minion.

These are not only mentioned, even if indirectly on the show, but also logical.

I'm sure there are other examples, but I don't have time to look them up this second.

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 25 2007 06:58 am   #50Always_jbj

The Master was the name he gave himself... like William calling himself Spike... that doesn't imply that there are 'Master Vampires', having said that, in theory it is good...so in fanfic it works--as long as you KNOW it is fanon and don't try to preach it as canon.

Minions, lackeys, drudges... all nice derogatory terms that WOULD definitely be used to signify a difference in "status", but no more so that we humans could (and some do) use similar derogatory terminology for other humans we deem to be lesser than ourselves...that does not mean there was an actual difference in how they were made or their status as vampires... it just means that they were thicker and had less ambition than Harmony and were willing to follow her orders (and that doesn't really say a lot for their intelligence does it? LOL). Yes, the term 'sire' is canon--Spike calls Angel his sire-- but Childe is not...and there is never any implication that there is a difference between a 'childe' or a 'minion' or any mention of rules to do with turning a human into a vampire... all these 'rules' are fanon. All we see in the show (on the few occasions 'turning' is shown) is that it requires an exchange of blood.

As with humans there will always be some who are tougher, stronger, more intelligent, more suitable for leadership or bigger bullies than others who end up in the leadership roles... again this has nothing to do with how they are turned... just simply the law of the jungle, so to speak.

Aim from the heart
Some will love and some will curse you, baby
You can go to war
But only if you have to 


Fanfic ~*~ Artwork ~*~ Live Journal
Jul 25 2007 07:10 am   #51Scarlet Ibis

Angelus: "Hmm, Yorkshire men - tough as leather. (The Master and Angelus both laugh at that remark) So, Darla here tells me you're some sort of Master."
Darla:  "The* Master.  He commands out order."
Master:  "*The order of Aurelius.  We are the select - the elite."

The Master didn't just decide to call himself that one day- it's what he was.

And, being of the Order of Aurelius, that implies that their line, and their blood, is better than other vampires.  If a vampire like Harmony was to live as long as Angel, she still would not be apart of such a line of greatness or "elite" because of who made her- a nobody.  A minion.

As with humans there will always be some who are tougher, stronger, more intelligent, more suitable for leadership or bigger bullies than others who end up in the leadership roles... again this has nothing to do with how they are turned... just simply the law of the jungle, so to speak.

But there are also those simply *born* of higher station than others.  If there is a court, with a ruling Master, then there has to be servants as well as princes.  To be of "royal blood" has nothing to do with survival of the fittest- it's all in the family.


 

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 25 2007 07:49 am   #52Scarlet Ibis

Also, The Master refers to the members of his order, the ones that he made, as his children, and that they're family.  He also mentions how Angel was supposed to sit at his right hand in his court, and Darla says it was to have been for a thousand years.  Therefore, there were orders, and masters, and lesser vamps known as minions.

Canon.

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 25 2007 09:09 am   #53Always_jbj

*sighs and shakes head* I give up. Believe what you want.

Aim from the heart
Some will love and some will curse you, baby
You can go to war
But only if you have to 


Fanfic ~*~ Artwork ~*~ Live Journal
Jul 25 2007 02:57 pm   #54Scarlet Ibis

You guys can sigh, shake your heads, and even bang them on desks all you want, but I clearly didn't make all of that up- it's all there, starting at s1.  Maybe because it was so long ago, it was forgotten about.

True, the show says nothing about "if this much blood is given," blah, blah, blah, but clearly, some vampires, from certain orders are higher ranking than others.  There's a reason for that- what blood line you come from.  What I said has nothing to do with belief- it's stated in the show.

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 25 2007 03:01 pm   #55slaymesoftly

LOL  Ah. arguing canon/fanon/vampire lore - such fun.  My opinion (settled  on by constantly having to reply to a reviewer years ago who kept "correcting" my version of claiming side effects) is that arguing is pointless.  We are discussing imaginary creatures, that live in an imaginary universe, that were part of a fantasy television show (more imagination), written by people who didn't sweat the small stuff in terms of remaining consistent in many ways -probably including their mythology.  A show about which has been written a huge body of fiction (more imagination), some of which has been around so long that its concepts have become "canon" to many readers.  The only way to have a Jossverse canon about vamps (his version of vamps) is to watch every epi from season I on (including AtS) and make careful notes every time there is a reference to vampires.  Then, sit down with the notes and sort them into themes - becoming a vampire, vampire families, how to kill a vampire, etc. and see which ones (if any) remain consistent throughout the seven seasons of Buffy and five seasons of Angel.  More work than I want to put into an argument.  *g* (BTW - I wouldn't necessarily consider anything out of the Watchers' Diaries or the Council's records as "canon" because we already know that they didn't always know what they were talking about.)

In terms of writing fanfic - I think an author should be free to interpret the lore in any way that works for that particular fic.  The only exception I might make would be something so counter to anything that was a big part of the Jossverse that it became the plot version of an OOC. Like, turning Dru into Angel's sire, or a world without slayers -  something like that.  Something that takes the story so far out of the realm of BtVS reality that it may as well be considered original fiction.   

Just as I don't view all-human fics as fan fiction because they have nothing to do with who and what Buffy and Spike are, I couldn't view a story set in a world that was completely different from the one Joss gave us as truly fan fic.  It would be something else.  Someone else's version of a world with vampires and demons.  Having said that, the world he did give us leaves a large amount of room for individual interpretations of and additions to the lore that he provided.

Some of the best fiction written (Nan Dibbles' Blood Series comes to mind; as well as Barb C's  world created in her on going fics and Mary's "Journeys" world) has been set in worlds that are more than capable of standing on their own.  They have their own concepts, lore, histories and original characters, and yet, they all take off from the same TV show and the characters created there.  Once a story has veered away from the events of the show, I think an author is free to begin bending canon and fanon in whatever ways necessary to make her story work.

Some of my favorite old stories are totally non-canon, simply because they were written before we learned certain "canon" facts and the writers were "Jossed" when the series went in another direction.  How silly would it be to complain that they weren't following a canon that didn't exist yet when the stories were written?

Not that any of that has anything to do with the original discussion. LOL Went on a bit of rant there, didn't I?  My point - I had one, I swear - was simply that arguing over made up, imaginary creatures and their histories, abilities, etc. can be an exercise in futility. :)


I am not a minion of Evil...
I am upper management.
Jul 25 2007 07:43 pm   #56Eowyn315

Heh, Scarlet, it looks like you exasperated Always, so I'll give it a shot. 

Well, there was *The* Master in BtVS.  So, that term really isn't- fanon- it was in the show.

The Master was a single vampire with that title. That doesn't mean that the rest of his line are "master vampires" or that master vampires exist as it's used in fanon, to mean a class of superior vampires.

Harmony uses the term minions, which gives me, the viewer the impression that yes, there *is* a difference.

There is a difference in *status*, sure, just like there are differences in status for humans. Any vampire can be a minion, and any vampire can *have* minions (as Harmony proves) - all it takes is the right amount of initiative (or lack thereof). It has nothing to do with how they're turned.

Spike is not a minion, so by default (and this is excluding the fact that he's taken out two Slayers with his bare hands) makes him a Master.

No, it doesn't. There is no "default." Nowhere does it say that there are only two kinds of vampires, and you're either a master or a minion.

And, being of the Order of Aurelius, that implies that their line, and their blood, is better than other vampires.

Says who? Just because the Master says they're better doesn't mean they *are*. It's the exact same thing as saying the Queen of England and her descendants are "better" than the rest of us because they're royalty. What makes them "better," except that they belong to a particular family? And that particular family has an ancestor who at one time declared himself to be better than everyone else, and named himself king. What proof do we have that the Order of Aurelius is actually better in any way than other vampires, except the Master's word?

If a vampire like Harmony was to live as long as Angel, she still would not be apart of such a line of greatness or "elite" because of who made her- a nobody.  A minion.

But you just contradicted yourself here. Harmony *wasn't* a minion - Harmony was the leader, she had minions. By your definition, if she's not a minion, "by default" she's a master. So, which is it? Are masters given that title because they have minions, or because of their bloodline? 

Also, The Master refers to the members of his order, the ones that he made, as his children, and that they're family.  He also mentions how Angel was supposed to sit at his right hand in his court, and Darla says it was to have been for a thousand years.  Therefore, there were orders, and masters, and lesser vamps known as minions.

But you're making a leap from what we see to what you want to believe without justifying it. Yes, there are orders of vampires. But other than the Master's claim, what evidence is there that any order or family is better than another? In fact, what evidence is there that other orders even follow the same "family" structure as the Master? For all we know, that could be a characteristic only found in the Order of Aurelius, because that's the way the Master wanted it. Other orders might have a different structure, or no structure at all. 

There are not "masters" in canon. There is *a* Master, *the* Master. That doesn't mean that all of his descendants are called masters. The word is never used to describe Darla, Angel, Drusilla, Spike, or anyone else in that bloodline. 

Yes, there are vampires known as minions - but there is nothing that makes them "lesser" except their inclination to take orders. And there is no necessary distinction between masters and minions. It's not an either/or question.

True, the show says nothing about "if this much blood is given," blah, blah, blah, 

So, earlier, when you said "I think the amount of blood given is significant as to what type of vampire the person will become.".... you were just making that up, right? If that's your opinion, write it into your fanfic. But why would you bring it up in a discussion of what is and is not canon, when you know it's not canon?

Writing should feel easy, like a monkey driving a speed boat.
Jul 25 2007 09:29 pm   #57GoldenBuffy

*pokes head in* Reads the new responses, says "epp!" and runs out of the room, lol.

Can't we all agree not to agree on certain things? WHo cares what is fannon and what is canon, the fact is the show was great we are given a lot of great ideas to think over. We are also given great starting points for writing the fics that we want to read. We can take from one eppie and "fix" it or add on to it, or take it in a new direction.

Like the other night I was watching Underworld for the 20th time and I still catch myself saying vamps don't act like that, vamps don't do that, werewolves wouldn't do that. But hey this is the director's take on the myth that is them, and he's sharing his vision with us. The same with Ann Rice and others, they take from what the myths say and twist and turn it into what they want it to reflect. They make it their canon, just as Joss made it his canon.

We can sit and fight and try to make our points but we can't change someone esles vision can we? So let's just drop it and move on sharing good fics and writing them. Okay? Is that cool? Let's share the love. (I could just be writing and shoudnigng crazy too!)

And in the air the fireflies
Our only light in paradise
We'll show the world they were wrong
And teach them all to sing along
Jul 26 2007 12:05 am   #58Eowyn315

WHo cares what is fannon and what is canon, the fact is the show was great we are given a lot of great ideas to think over.

Maybe because, as fanfic writers, it's helpful to know what is and isn't canon? Some people don't care... others incorporate fanon without even knowing they're doing it. Personally, as a writer who tries to avoid incorporating fanon in my stories, I like to be clear on what was in the show and what has mutated over time.

And yeah, the show gave us a lot of things to think about, but what's the fun in that if you don't talk about it? Sadly, we don't have a lot of "new" topics, without new source material (no one seems to want to talk about the comics). This is the most recent topic that came up, so that's what we choose to talk about. If you don't like the debate, you don't have to read the thread.

Writing should feel easy, like a monkey driving a speed boat.
Jul 26 2007 12:34 am   #59Scarlet Ibis

GB- don't run scared.  Please share your thoughts anytime :D  And hey, it's to be expected in debates.

Eowyn- Didn't say that all members of the Order of Aurelius were masters.  However, if there are only masters, fledglings and minions, it's pretty easy to put who in what category.

Harmony was a leader for five minutes- not a master.  I brought her up to show that minions do in fact exist in the Jossverse. 

As for The Master, I think it's reasonable to say, or infer that he was a vampire of importance.  Besides the fact that he was incredibly old, that all he had was his vamp visage, and even when he dusted, his bones remained, and that he in fact was the head of an Order, I don't think referring to himself as "The Master" was just a fancy idea he had one day.  Joss showed it to us that way to show that there is a difference between him and other vampires.

So, earlier, when you said "I think the amount of blood given is significant as to what type of vampire the person will become.".... you were just making that up, right? If that's your opinion, write it into your fanfic. But why would you bring it up in a discussion of what is and is not canon, when you know it's not canon?

I assume that starting with a sentence with "I think..." is clear to all who can read that yes, that is *my* opinion, and not a fact.  "I think," "I feel," are clearly not sentences that announce I'm about to state a fact.  I didn't say "I know," or "I saw," it was meant to be interpreted as "In my opinion."  Clearly, you missed that.

But you're making a leap from what we see to what you want to believe without justifying it. Yes, there are orders of vampires. But other than the Master's claim, what evidence is there that any order or family is better than another?

So, how else would you interpret it, then?  If Joss wanted us to think of the Master as just another manipulative, egotistical villain that wanted to have things done and viewed in a certain way, he would have made that clear as he did with other villains.  By presenting us with this information in s1, I think it's reasonable to conclude that even though most vampires don't follow tradition, and more than likely other, if not most orders have fallen apart, they did in fact exist, and pay homage to the old ones. Joss made it clear several times on both shows that The Master was all about tradition, and I don't see Joss being frivolous with naming him. 

The Master and all that he has said were very specific.  Why all the conversations about it- the order, the court?  Surely Joss was more creative with names for his characters then coming up with something as simple as "The Master" without it having some sort of actual meaning besides the villian taking a liking to it.  He was called The Master simply because he was one.

Also take into account The Annointed One, the Harvest, and the fact that the Master was trapped underground in that church- that wouldn't just happen to any ordinary vampire who christened himself with a special nickname in reference to being superior. Even if he was old as hell.

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 26 2007 01:48 am   #60Always_jbj

Scarlet said: Also, The Master refers to the members of his order, the ones that he made, as his children, and that they're family.  He also mentions how Angel was supposed to sit at his right hand in his court, and Darla says it was to have been for a thousand years.  Therefore, there were orders, and masters, and lesser vamps known as minions. Canon.

All that proves is that he was a pretentious git with delusions of granduer and the ability to lead and/or delude his followers...it doesn't PROVE that the 'Order of Aurelius' was better than any other... or even for that matter that 'orders' as such even existed outside his own private little party... anyone can SAY these things, it doesn't mean his words have any more validity than any other cult leader throughout human history who leads through a combination of fear, grand promises and ritual, claiming that he and his are above everyone else and will rule the world blah blah blah.

Also take into account The Annointed One, the Harvest, and the fact that the Master was trapped underground in that church- that wouldn't just happen to any ordinary vampire who christened himself with a special nickname in reference to being superior. Even if he was old as hell.

Why not? Yes, there was a prophecy about him--he was a strong and dangerous vampire and he was in Buffy's town, it's quite reasonable that there would be a prophecy about him. The point is that you are taking something from canon and twisting it to 'prove' something you have inferred... that doesn't make it canon.

Madpoetess sums it up well in her essay on canon vs fanon (spander) : Just because something isn't inconsistent with canon, doesn't mean it is canon. It just means it's plausible.

Golden Buffy--unlike Eowyn I love fanon, I use it in quite a number of my fics--but I think it s important that you KNOW that what you are using is fanon not canon. 90% of the time it probably doesn't matter what is and what isn't canon--but when someone comes on and asks a 'canon' question and people pipe up with 'fanon' answers then it does matter. Also there are a couple of award sites out there with categories specifically for fics that adhere to canon--in this case it really is helpful to know what is and what isn't canon.

I am not saying that canon is better than fanon, not at all... just simply that we need to be able to recognise the difference and not preach fanon ideas as being canon.

Aim from the heart
Some will love and some will curse you, baby
You can go to war
But only if you have to 


Fanfic ~*~ Artwork ~*~ Live Journal
Jul 26 2007 02:00 am   #61Scarlet Ibis

What did I twist and how?  And if it is plausible, and there is nothing canon wise to contradict the plausibility that canon itself showed us, then what is the problem?  One make a conclusion based on the facts given from canon logically.

In fact, I'd say it's probable since they introduced the terms in the first place as opposed to just plausible.  Many things can be plausible when it comes to vampire lore, and honestly, I didn't put much thought into it before BtVS.  The whole idea of masters, sires and orders I got from the Jossverse.

And in regards to any prophecy on the Jossverses, yeah, that pretty much means that particular character, good or bad, is of some kind of importance.  Their place in the world is always significant, regardless of their purpose.

It is true that in canon, the term "childe" specifically is never mentioned directly (not that I ever said that it was).  But the other stuff is.  And I never personally used such a term in any of my fics anyway.

And I'm not preaching, but I do feel as if I'm being preached at.

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 26 2007 02:29 am   #62Eowyn315

However, if there are only masters, fledglings and minions, it's pretty easy to put who in what category.  

That's the problem right there. NOTHING on the show indicates that there are ONLY masters, fledglings, and minions. Why are you so determined to put every vampire into one of those categories? Why can't there be some vampires who are none of the above? That's the part of your argument I just don't understand.

I don't have a problem using the term "master vampire" with the generic definition, "a vampire who has minions or other vampires who answer to him/her." In that context, it's no different than a human "master" who has slaves or servants. Under that definition, Spike, for example, would be a master vampire in season 2 (and the beginning of 4) because he has minions. But he would lose that status once he becomes chipped and no longer has minions. Harmony would be a master vampire in season 5 (for about five minutes) because she has minions. And the Master would be a master vampire, because he has an entire family that serves him and obeys him.

What I do have a problem with is the fanon idea that "master vampire" has a mythical connotation - that "master vampires" are somehow different from other vampires, either by age or bloodline or enhanced powers or whatever. There is no mythical difference between a "master" vampire and a regular vampire. (And when I say "have a problem with," I mean I have a problem with accepting that particular idea as canon. I don't have a problem with someone using fanon in their fics, as long as we know that it *is* fanon.)

As for The Master, I think it's reasonable to say, or infer that he was a vampire of importance.  Besides the fact that he was incredibly old, that all he had was his vamp visage, and even when he dusted, his bones remained, and that he in fact was the head of an Order, I don't think referring to himself as "The Master" was just a fancy idea he had one day.  Joss showed it to us that way to show that there is a difference between him and other vampires.

I agree that the Master was a vampire of importance. But... that doesn't support your claim. You're saying there are only masters, fledglings, and minions. If "masters" are special in that they only have their vamp visage, leave bones behind, and are the head of an order... then the *only* master we've seen is *the* Master. So, by your definition, every other vampire we've seen is a fledgling or a minion. Which we know is not true, because... Angel, Spike, Darla, Dru, Penn, Kakistos, the Prince of Lies... I don't think I need to go on.

Joss made it clear several times on both shows that The Master was all about tradition, and I don't see Joss being frivolous with naming him.

I agree... but just because he's named "the Master" doesn't imply everything you're suggesting. It implies that he's a powerful vampire with a group of obedient followers beneath him - that's all. It doesn't imply your "only masters, minions, and fledglings" theory. It doesn't imply that "master" status is passed through bloodlines.

but when someone comes on and asks a 'canon' question and people pipe up with 'fanon' answers then it does matter.

That's exactly the point, Always... someone *did* ask a question (I think it was originally "how do you make a vampire?") and while I can forgive people for not being obsessive and knowing the canon answer off the top of their heads, giving fanon answers as a response is only going to confuse people and perpetuate false information.

And if it is plausible, and there is nothing canon wise to contradict the plausibility that canon itself showed us, then what is the problem?

The problem is that, just because it doesn't contradict canon, doesn't mean it *is* canon. It means you have the freedom to postulate your own ideas and be creative in writing fanfic without contradicting what we're told is true. BUT when the question hinges on "what is canon?" giving a fanon answer doesn't cut it.

Writing should feel easy, like a monkey driving a speed boat.
Jul 26 2007 03:49 am   #63Always_jbj

I don't have a problem using the term "master vampire" with the generic definition, "a vampire who has minions or other vampires who answer to him/her." In that context, it's no different than a human "master" who has slaves or servants. Under that definition, Spike, for example, would be a master vampire in season 2 (and the beginning of 4) because he has minions. But he would lose that status once he becomes chipped and no longer has minions. Harmony would be a master vampire in season 5 (for about five minutes) because she has minions. And the Master would be a master vampire, because he has an entire family that serves him and obeys him.

What I do have a problem with is the fanon idea that "master vampire" has a mythical connotation - that "master vampires" are somehow different from other vampires, either by age or bloodline or enhanced powers or whatever. There is no mythical difference between a "master" vampire and a regular vampire. (And when I say "have a problem with," I mean I have a problem with accepting that particular idea as canon. I don't have a problem with someone using fanon in their fics, as long as we know that it *is* fanon.)

Exactly!! Well said, Eowyn.

And 'fledgling' is also a fanon term...it was never used on the show.

Aim from the heart
Some will love and some will curse you, baby
You can go to war
But only if you have to 


Fanfic ~*~ Artwork ~*~ Live Journal
Jul 26 2007 04:22 am   #64GoldenBuffy

Always said: unlike Eowyn I love fanon, I use it in quite a number of my fics--but I think it s important that you KNOW that what you are using is fanon not canon. 90% of the time it probably doesn't matter what is and what isn't canon--but when someone comes on and asks a 'canon' question and people pipe up with 'fanon' answers then it does matter. Also there are a couple of award sites out there with categories specifically for fics that adhere to canon--in this case it really is helpful to know what is and what isn't canon.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying that we as fic writers and readers should know the diefference between canon and fanon, all i was saying is we should get so "hot blooded" over the matter where it feels as if we're attacking each other. And your right, we should know. I know there are author's out there who stick to writing canon only fic. i really don't like them since buffy stays a bitch and we really don't get our happy Spuffy. Debating is good, and myabe it's just be but it seems like the defense walls have gone up and everyone is slinging stones. 

And in the air the fireflies
Our only light in paradise
We'll show the world they were wrong
And teach them all to sing along
Jul 26 2007 04:28 am   #65Eowyn315

And 'fledgling' is also a fanon term...it was never used on the show.

Very true... although that one doesn't bother me as much, since there's really no connotations to it. It's just a shorter way of referring to a newly-risen vampire. It doesn't have the mythos behind that something like master vampire, sire/childe, or claiming has.

Writing should feel easy, like a monkey driving a speed boat.
Jul 26 2007 04:34 am   #66GoldenBuffy

Where did claiming get it's start? I don't recall ever reading anythign about it, but it's not like I've read every book on vampires. But who started it and when?

And in the air the fireflies
Our only light in paradise
We'll show the world they were wrong
And teach them all to sing along
Jul 26 2007 04:39 am   #67Always_jbj

LOL...I agree, Eowyn...that was in response to there being three types of vampires... master, fledgling and minions.

My objection is to the terms fledgling, minion and Master being thrown around as having that mystical conotation within canon-- ie minions are 'lesser vamps' who don't have the same 'bloodline', fledglings are childer or Master vampires in the making etc...As far as I can see, there is one type of vampire in canon--where they stand in their 'social hierachy' then depends as much on their individual characteristics as it does with humans.

Aim from the heart
Some will love and some will curse you, baby
You can go to war
But only if you have to 


Fanfic ~*~ Artwork ~*~ Live Journal
Jul 26 2007 04:41 am   #68Always_jbj

GB, I read something a while back on who was speculated to have started 'claiming', alas I can't remember where I read it or who it was purported to be.

Aim from the heart
Some will love and some will curse you, baby
You can go to war
But only if you have to 


Fanfic ~*~ Artwork ~*~ Live Journal