Announcement

Collapse
1 of 2 < >

No HTML

HTML is turned off for security reasons.

Please do not use html in your posts or messages. If you are copy and pasting something from another website and you are having problems with it showing, then it may have html in it. This could be in the form of a website link or a viewable image or an emoji or a special chacter. I am not sure this is the reason we have errors posting.

Some html code can be simply swapped with our Bulletin Board code by changing the greater than/ less than signs with bracket signs. Other BB code needs to done using the buttons in the advanced post editor.
2 of 2 < >

Home Page

The home page address has changed to: http://buffyforums.net/forums/
Please update your bookmark. Otherwise, the home page does not show you are logged in and/or will not let you type into the log in box in the top right. The link at Buffyforums.net to the forums has not yet been updated. So you will experience the error when you enter the forum through that link.
See more
See less

Why is Dru not dust?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why is Dru not dust?

    I'd just like to gauge what people's views are on this. Why does Angel not dust Dru? Is it simply a family connection, guilt or does he not want to destroy his greatest creation?

  • #2
    Simply because she's a popular character and the writers won't want her 'offed'. The characters just have to be made to turn a blind eye.

    Comment


    • #3
      Personally, I never really 'got' the Dru love. I mean, yeah, she's a popular character, but so were a lot of other characters that they offed. I never understood the need to keep her around.
      Para Bellum| Live Journal | Tumblr | Resources

      Si vis pacem, para bellum

      Comment


      • #4
        Because she's a character that can bring a lot of drama to Angel's story. Whenever Angel sees her he's reminded of his past as Angelus and feel's guilty because she's his "masterpiece", and we all know that the writers love coming up with reasons to make Angel feel bad.
        Last edited by Lostsoul666; 09-05-12, 11:00 PM.
        My deviantart: http://vampfox.deviantart.com/

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by sueworld View Post
          Simply because she's a popular character and the writers won't want her 'offed'. The characters just have to be made to turn a blind eye.
          Originally posted by Lostsoul666 View Post
          Because she's a character that can bring a lot of drama to Angel's story. Whenever Angel sees her he's reminded of his past as Angelus and feel's guilty because she's his "masterpiece", and we all know that the writers love coming up with reasons to feel bad.
          I appreciate these are the practical, real reasons but they should at least be providing a character reason for it too. It is like Spike not getting dusted when he turned up at Giles' front door. It was to keep the character, obviously, but the reasoning provided was that he was harmless now (tosh) and because they could use him for information about The Initiative. It seems to me that Dru still being alive can only at best be because Angel has personal feelings for her, at worst because the part of him that is Angelus 'appreciates' what he achieved too much to remove its existence. But the former isn't OK to just then set her free to carry on killing etc. At least Spike (if Lynch's 8 is canon) tried to soul her up and get her sane.

          Comment


          • #6
            Read through all the posts



            Stoney

            I'd just like to gauge what people's views are on this. Why does Angel not dust Dru? Is it simply a family connection, guilt or does he not want to destroy his greatest creation?
            First off, any such question implies that Angel could kill Dru. Dru beat him in “Reunion” (A 2.10?). In “Redefinition” (A 2.11), he set her aflame but that didn’t kill her. In A&F 1.09, it’s implied that Dru is stronger than Faith. Also, there’s always the Spike factor. If Angel killed Dru, Spike would kill Angel.

            Other than that, it seems obvious: Angel loves Dru. Or at the very least, Angel has strong feelings for Dru. Throughout the ‘Daddy’ arc in A&F, that seems to be made clear.

            And Angel’s never tried to kill any of his ‘family’ if it could be avoided. He never went after Penn: and it’s actually Kate that killed Penn. He only killed the Navy Guy because it’s pretty much a ‘kill or be killed’ type thing. He didn’t want to kill Darla: The first time because Darla was trying to shoot Buffy full of bullets; the second time Darla killed herself. While Angel may have killed Spike in “Destiny” (A 5.08) had Angel won that fight, he simply wanted Spike not to be able to be with Buffy. Angel didn’t even kill James: James magic time was simply up.


            * Other than that, she’s a popular character, Juliet Landau is interested in writing for the character, she’s still a possible romantic interest for Spike, etc.
            Last edited by MikeB; 14-11-12, 03:13 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by MikeB View Post
              First off, any such question implies that Angel could kill Dru.
              True, you could just rephrase to - why doesn't Angel not try to dust Dru?

              Also, there’s always the Spike factor. If Angel killed Dru, Spike would kill Angel.
              First off, this statement definitively decrees that Spike would and could just kill Angel. I don't think that Spike would kill Angel for dusting Dru. Your assertion and my response are entirely speculative.

              Other than that, it seems obvious: Angel loves Dru. Or at the very least, Angel has strong feelings for Dru. Throughout the ‘Daddy’ arc in A&F, that seems to be made clear.
              I think this is probably where the truth of it lies. It is for the history and familial connection.

              And Angel’s never tried to kill any of his ‘family’ if it could be avoided. He never went after Penn: and it’s actually Kate that killed Penn. He only killed the Navy Guy because it’s pretty much a ‘kill or be killed’ type thing. He didn’t want to kill Darla: The first time because Darla was trying to shoot Buffy full of bullets; the second time Darla killed herself. While Angel may have killed Spike in “Destiny” (A 5.08) had Angel won that fight, he simply wanted Spike not to be able to be with Buffy. Angel didn’t even kill James: James magic time was simply up.
              So he doesn't do it/doesn't want to do it until he decides that he has a good enough reason to do it. Dru kills all those lovely innocents Angel is always brooding about protecting, there I have found a reason for him.

              * Other than that, she’s a popular character, Juliet Landau is interested in writing for the character, she’s still a possible romantic interest for Spike, etc.
              Giles was a popular character that Joss felt only stayed relevant in his death. Dru I find has had very little progression and when they gave her some in A&F they took the changes away again. She will always have potential storylines with Angel and Spike because they are family. I don't think that she is a particular romantic interest for either of them seriously but we have had our 'in love' conversation elsewhere, there is no need to repeat it.

              Comment


              • #8
                I think the main reasons Angel doesn't kill Dru right now are twofold:

                1) he feels lots and lots of guilt and can't actually face that/deal with that.

                2) Right now, what Dru is doing is not actually slayable. The delicate balance set up by Harmony makes vampires not stakable on sight -- because while it may be wrong to suck people's blood even consensually, it still is not the same kind of proximate threat to life that it used to be. And I do tend to be more existentialist than essentialist about What To Do About Vampires, so I buy this. Vampires can be deeply, even essentially evil -- but if they are not doing anything that is a direct threat to human kind that goes against people's consensual wishes, then I don't think they should be killed.

                Dru, in A&F, was doing something that her followers were consenting to. The only thing that she did that someone didn't consent to was try to suck Angel's pain away. Probably she is going to go kill people now that she's crazy again -- and in that sense, maybe Angel should have killed her. But as long as the Harmony rules are in place, vampires are presumptively following them. Dru should be staked if and when she actually breaks them.

                There's also 3) which is that Angel probably couldn't get to Dru in time to actually stake her when the whole room full of people were attacking.

                I say all this, but I was underwhelmed by the writing for A&F 9.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Plastic stake, dude. Logical motivation for characters need not govern; plot armor is plot armor.

                  I mean, I'm okay with it, because I think there are interesting things to do with Dru (although making her sane would have been that, and it was temporary. Kinda like what would have been a visionary way to navigate through the shanshu muck by having Angel's "After the Fall" human turn be the real deal, but whatever).

                  Personally, I don't think "slay on sight" has or should ended -- we've seen Buffy doing it, for instance, before she even understood about zompires. It wasn't depicted as a flaw in thinking. I get that Dru was doing something her followers agreed to, but... she's a vampire. Soulless vampire. "It's Tuesday" is about as nuanced a reason as you need -- which, again, is a lesson taught consistently throughout the run of the franchise. "He insulted my BO"/"he didn't laugh at a joke" -- valid reasons, all, for killing a soulless vampire that you've never seen actually hurt anyone.
                  Last edited by KingofCretins; 13-06-12, 07:19 AM.
                  sigpic
                  Banner by LRae12

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Local Maximum View Post
                    2) Right now, what Dru is doing is not actually slayable. The delicate balance set up by Harmony makes vampires not stakable on sight -- because while it may be wrong to suck people's blood even consensually, it still is not the same kind of proximate threat to life that it used to be. And I do tend to be more existentialist than essentialist about What To Do About Vampires, so I buy this. Vampires can be deeply, even essentially evil -- but if they are not doing anything that is a direct threat to human kind that goes against people's consensual wishes, then I don't think they should be killed.

                    Dru, in A&F, was doing something that her followers were consenting to. The only thing that she did that someone didn't consent to was try to suck Angel's pain away. Probably she is going to go kill people now that she's crazy again -- and in that sense, maybe Angel should have killed her. But as long as the Harmony rules are in place, vampires are presumptively following them. Dru should be staked if and when she actually breaks them.
                    As King says really. Harmony's rules mean that potential killers are trusted more, that is all. Any fledgling out of the grave could have potentially be given the choice 'I kill you now or you promise to never kill a human, only ever take blood by permission'. Vampires haven't become any more trustworthy or more able to feel motivation of self preservation. How in the new society are people supposed to identify those vampires who have agreed to not kill them and those that haven't? Because, as Jack Shaftoe and I have just been saying on another thread, this situation just makes people vulnerable to vampires because they trust them, noone has pretended every vampire is playing ball I don't think.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Stoney View Post
                      As King says really. Harmony's rules mean that potential killers are trusted more, that is all. Any fledgling out of the grave could have potentially be given the choice 'I kill you now or you promise to never kill a human, only ever take blood by permission'. Vampires haven't become any more trustworthy or more able to feel motivation of self preservation. How in the new society are people supposed to identify those vampires who have agreed to not kill them and those that haven't? Because, as Jack Shaftoe and I have just been saying on another thread, this situation just makes people vulnerable to vampires because they trust them, noone has pretended every vampire is playing ball I don't think.
                      I definitely think all this is in play. But I don't think it's so simple to dismiss the situation. Pre-Harmony's rules, with a few exceptions here and there, there was no real way for a vampire to get human blood without killing. Now they've got a quaint setup with willing customers as long as they don't break the rules. It's not a matter of ethics -- it's a matter of

                      I don't think it's clear that the situation is worse for humans. It's different. There are new disadvantages. But many vampires that used to be roaming about killing now have a setup that disincentivises killing. People who let themselves get bitten are probably in more danger now than they were before of vampires breaking the rules once they've already gotten them. But people who refuse to get bitten are probably in a better situation, since now they are aware that vampires exist, and vampires are less likely now to attack random stragglers as opposed to people who are offering themselves willingly.

                      If vampires get staked even if they follow the rules -- then that removes what tenuous incentive there is to play by said rules.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The thing is vampires don't kill just to feed. They love killing and torture and rape and so on. So I find it hard to believe they would have the self-control to follow Harmony's rules. Many, probably most would want to have it both ways - pretend to follow the rules to ensure their survival and still kill for pleasure when the opportunity presents itself. There must have been thousands of cases of people being murdered by such vampires which should have made people stop believing in the very idea of Harmony's rules. There also should be all kinds of religious and other organization not buying the idea of reformed vampires in the first place. Very little of this is actually reflected in the story itself, it's mostly just an excuse to not stake whoever vampire the writers want to keep safe and insert some cheap Harmony related jokes.

                        And if the majority of vampires can indeed repress their murderous impulses, one wonders why it was okay to kill them on sight for so many years.

                        If vampires get staked even if they follow the rules -- then that removes what tenuous incentive there is to play by said rules.
                        Vampires always had an incentive to stay low but from what we saw they rarely did so, preferring to kill as often as they can, even in a town with a Slayer. More importantly, what's the incentive for the humans to not exterminate the vampires? None.
                        Xander: "Willow, you are the best human ever! I adore you! Well, that's the cookies talking, but you rock!"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Local Maximum View Post
                          I definitely think all this is in play. But I don't think it's so simple to dismiss the situation. Pre-Harmony's rules, with a few exceptions here and there, there was no real way for a vampire to get human blood without killing.
                          Yes there was, stop drinking before the person dies. The society knowing about vamps, suddenly realising is one thing, Harmony's rules are another. It isn't even like they are trying to set up a Pratchett-esque black ribbon society so those who are swearing to be functioning society members make themselves accountable everyone is just assuming the creatures that lived outside of society for centuries have collectively decided to abide by the rules decreed by Harmony-bleeding-Kendall, it is ridiculous.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
                            Personally, I don't think "slay on sight" has or should ended -- we've seen Buffy doing it, for instance, before she even understood about zompires.
                            We've seen her slay vampires who were chasing their potential victims in alleys. We haven't seen her go and slay vampires who weren't doing anything of the sort. She hasn't been crashing vampire-human parties or trying to slay Harmony on screen like that ill-fated Slayer in S8.

                            Originally posted by Jack Shaftoe View Post
                            The thing is vampires don't kill just to feed. They love killing and torture and rape and so on. So I find it hard to believe they would have the self-control to follow Harmony's rules. Many, probably most would want to have it both ways - pretend to follow the rules to ensure their survival and still kill for pleasure when the opportunity presents itself.
                            Yeah, most probably that's been going on. I think for some vampires pragmatism and desire to live would outweigh the urges to murder, torture, rape etc. (like the blonde from "Carpe Diem" e-comic); others would find ways to pretend to be rule-abiding but do all those things in secret and cover their tracks (after all, that's how most human murderers work); others are contemptuous of Harmony's rules and don't care and just do what vampires always did (like the brunette in "Carpe Diem"). We've seen vampires chasing people in alleys in 8.40 and Buffy dusting them.

                            Like Max said, people who chose to give blood to vampires, have sex with them etc. are in more danger, but people who don't are in less danger if the vampires have an incentive to play by the rules or at least pretend to do so. So, I don't know what the score is in the end. Is it better or worse? It would be interesting to have that explored (we have detectives in the story, why let them investigate suspicions of vampires who crossed the line and killed their human partners etc., and deal with the whole business of how the law treats vampires now) but Joss & DH decided to hand-wave it all instead and introduce zero-dimensional villains in the shape of zombies, err zompires.

                            There must have been thousands of cases of people being murdered by such vampires which should have made people stop believing in the very idea of Harmony's rules. There also should be all kinds of religious and other organization not buying the idea of reformed vampires in the first place. Very little of this is actually reflected in the story itself, it's mostly just an excuse to not stake whoever vampire the writers want to keep safe and insert some cheap Harmony related jokes.
                            True, and it's disappointing. But I guess they could only go as far in ripping off True Blood...

                            And if the majority of vampires can indeed repress their murderous impulses, one wonders why it was okay to kill them on sight for so many years.
                            Well for starters, none of them were doing anything like trying to repress their murderous impulses (apart from the vampires in those vamp bordellos we saw in S5, but Giles thought Buffy shouldn't bother with them and Buffy only started killing when out of personal hurt and anger).

                            More importantly, what's the incentive for the humans to not exterminate the vampires? None.
                            The prospect of losing many, many more lives if they tried? Now that vampires are known to the public, if humans decided to exterminate them, what's to stop vampires from engaging in an all-out war on humans? It's not like they are likely to just wait to be staked. How many vampires are there in the world? All those Slayers would certainly come in handy in that case, and I think vampires would be disadvantaged in that war, especially since they can't come out in the open during the day, but there would be a huge loss of human life much larger than the death rates in Sunnydale. The vampires wouldn't want humans exterminated since they're their main source of food, but they would want to enslave them - they'd probably be going for something like The Master's rule of Sunnydale.
                            Last edited by TimeTravellingBunny; 13-06-12, 01:30 PM.
                            You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Zompires can't be lived alongside though. The swarm that attacked Dowling/Buffy/Spike illustrates this. As they are so ferocious, are apparently siring (Cheung) and have been seen as a mass group twice (this attack and the bodies in the warehouse Severin takes Buffy to), how can the city/world not be in an all out war already? I would rather have the seed breakage as being pretty pointless and have magic return than have this plot farce continue as is.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X