One Bit Shy wrote:
> "DavidW" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> 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.
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> 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 there were an organized nation of vampires, then that would make a
> lot of sense. But there's not. And vampires aren't terribly
> sensible anyway. Just blood thirsty in a very literal way. (The
> Master probably would have liked an organized nation of vampires, but
> he had to settle for one group of minions and a local Slayer problem.
> Besides, from his point of view, killing Buffy fulfilled a prophecy
> to his advantage.)
I really liked the Master. I was sorry that Buffy killed him. I like Spike
too,
though. I guess the show wasn't big enough for the two of them.
> From an individual vampire's point of view, the Slayer that matters
> is the one that's in its face. However weak or strong this one is,
> it's still better for the next Slayer to be in some other vampire's
> face.
> Some vampires probably like to kill Slayers to wear as a badge of
> pride. Do you remember what Spike said in School Hard?
>
> Spike: You've got Slayer problems. That's a bad piece of luck. Do
> you know what I find works real good with Slayers? Killing them. ...
> Yeah, I did a couple Slayers in my time. I don't like to brag. Who am
> I kidding? I *love* to brag!
>
> In mythic terms, Slayer vs. vampire is a perpetual battle. They're
> supposed to fight each other. It's what they are.
Okay, all that makes a lot of sense.
>> 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.
>
> "Generation" means the life span of an individual Slayer after she's
> called. It's not an average. One generation might last seven years.
Another
> might last seven weeks. But it's a straight sequence, one
> after the other, which each Slayer representing one generation. (Until
Kendra
> anyway. Buffy seems to have messed things up by being
> brought back to life.)
Yes, it raises the question of whether there would be two Slayers from
then on,
i.e., a replacement for each of Buffy and Kendra when they die, and
replacements
for them, and so on. I don't recall anything about what Kendra was going
to do
when she was sent on her way. Is she off slaying somewhere, or being kept
on
ice?
This is off-topic for this thread, but I just wanted to say how much I
like the
Cordelia character. With her complete self-absorption
and...uh...directness,
she's a great asset to the show. Charisma Carpenter is the perfect actress
for
that part, especially for her voice. She must have had a ball in that
role.
|
