Re: Should vamps protect some slayers? [spoiler]

In article <cvoYj.2805$aS1.755@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 "DavidW" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> As I mentioned in another thread, I am new to BTVS. I am just coming up
to 
> the
> end of season 2. I am thinking back to the episode with the other
slayer,
> Kendra. She turned up because Buffy had died, very briefly, earlier on.
This
> implies that when one slayer dies, another will soon replace her. From
the
> vamps' point of view then, there's no point in killing a slayer unless
that
> slayer is a particularly strong one like Buffy, since the replacement is
most
> likely not going to be as strong. Conversely, if the current slayer is a
> particularly weak one, wouldn't it be in the vamps' interests to protect
her,
> since if they kill her the next one is likely to be stronger?

if they kill the slayer on the spot
the next slayer might be on the other side of the world

also vampires tend not to be great strategic thinkers

> Also, there seems to be a contradiction between having a new slayer as
soon 
> as
> one dies and one slayer per "generation", unless "generation" is just
the
> average time they last rather than a rule set down by the powers that
be. If
> there's really only one per generation then vampires should try to kill
them 
> all
> as soon as possible so they can have up to about 20 years slayer free.

as soon as one slayer dies the next starts very soon after
if not immediately

generation seems to be just part of the opening
rather than the actually slayer premise

arf meow arf  -  everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven