I have webstats on this page, which I remember to check every so often to see, (a) if anyone is actually reading this stuff; and, (b) where they're from.

I'm surprisingly popular in Finland. I don't get that.

And today, about 40 different people have shown up here, which is unsettling. At least one person seems to be running through the archives, which is completely disconcerting.

Should I feel compelled to start being relevant or amusing? The pressure is immense. 40 people went to the trouble to click their mouse buttons...and this place is all the reward they got? I pity the person looking for Relic Hunter slash, as I do the person who searched for CSI fanfiction. Granted, the graphics here are nice, but still. It's hardly the smutfest these individuals were hoping to find. In the end, and pursuant to my usual policy of disregarding reality when it doesn't match up with my expectations, I've decided it's some kind of software glitch, so I'm going to continue talking to myself and my imaginary audience.

I prefer an imaginary audience because they never call you on getting your facts wrong or write you querulous e-mails about your mistreatment of the semi-colon.

I know people capable of defending the mistreated semi-colon, but none of them show up here, thank goodness. I admire their knowledge in a sort of open-mouthed, awed fashion, but punctuation rules have always been a problem for me. I acknowledge this, as I acknowledge the fact that it's only my own laziness that has prevented me from acquiring the skill to use these necessary adjutants to communication.

For those who know better, here are some marks for you: (. . . . , , , " ' ' ' ; ; ; ; : : : )

Scatter them about wherever you feel the page requires them and make me appear smarter, okay?

Now...on to the show.

Yes, I taped Spike BtVS last night. No, I haven't had a chance to watch it yet.

Also, as it turns out, the person who was going to give me tapes had S1-S3 tapes to offer. Since I bought those three seasons on DVD, I was able to offer her my gratitude but tell her she didn't have to bother.

Yes, I checked what I got taped on FX yesterday and hooray! I'm getting at least part of the arc where Spike gets chipped this time around. No, I haven't had a chance to watch the episodes yet.

With a sigh of relief, you tell yourself that at least you won't have to sit through another aimless ramble on the subject of canon demonology or a bitter diatribe against actors who walk around with their mouths half-open all the time.

You're quite mistaken.

When I obsess, I obsess.

Yesterday, half my brain spent the day proofreading and editing account management documentation and the other half of my brain contemplated the question of how the show might have managed to portray Spike in love with Buffy without, as I fear will happen, turning him into a poodle.

I also spent some time contemplating the character of Buffy and acknowledging that my pattern in fandom is to ignore the "hero" character of a show in favor of brooding endlessly over the motivations and morality of secondary characters.

As it happens, I don't find Buffy any more interesting, or any more three-dimensional, just because she's a she. She interests me no more than McLeod did on HL or Fraser did on dS. I find the inconsistencies the character is forced into in the name of moving the plot along irritating an unbelievable. Willow is a lot more interesting.

Anyhow.

I've been considering this "human personality" versus "demon personality" thing, which seems to be worrying me more than it should. (For those keeping score, we have now arrived at today's topic.)

I started with this whole id, ego, superego approach, but that's too simplistic, so I've gone back to deciding to accept the premise that some kind of demon spirits loiter around the ether, waiting for a human to get bitten, then they swoop in and take over.

(Do you suppose they follow vampires around, hoping to get lucky, or are there so many of them that there's always a spirit handy when you want one? Is the delay that takes place before the body reanimates caused by a demonic version of commuter traffic or because there are six of them duking it out over who gets the body?)

(How about animals? Can you vamp an animal? Could you turn a wolf or a monkey into a vamp? If not, why not? Surely the potential a wolf or a wild dog has for wreaking havoc is substantial? What is this affinity for humanity? Is it a sort of race war carried on by demons who remember when they ruled the planet?)

Not to digress, although I already did, I'm also considering the "strength" of the vampire, as reflected in (1) longevity, and (2) sheer evilness.

What does the "human personality" bring to this equation? Does the "demon spirit" bring anything more than a renewed ability to walk and talk and a connoisseur's interest in blood types?

Is, in fact, the "demon spirit" just a handy scapegoat the remnants of the humans' consciences create to excuse their behavior?

What, precisely, does this "demon" or vampire spirit consist of? I know that Buffy, in later seasons, excuses Spike's previous naughtiness (and Angel's, one presumes), during pre-soul days, with the explanation that he didn't have "free will" but I'm doubting that premise.

I mean, yes, we're accepting that whole demon spirit thing, but it's not like most vamps are wild and untamed things, dashing from neck to neck in a frenzy of blood-lust, is it? A certain amount of control is always present, as are choice and decision-making ability.

If there is indeed a lack of "free will" for the human...well, really, how is that possible? It's self-contradictory to the notion that the "human" is dead and that the reanimated body and personality traits have nothing to do with the "person" who used to inhabit the corpse. And you can't say that the "soul" which seems to define "human" in this canon had/didn't have free will because as we've seen the soul is off somewhere, drinking martinis, while all of the carnage takes place, so it's not a matter of the "soul" having free will since it was on leave.

Where does the soul go and how is it possible for some vampires to get "their" souls back? These aren't "their" souls, right? Vampires don't have souls, do they? These are the souls that used to inhabit the vampire-resurrected bodies is all.

Why does a soul have an affinity for one body over another? If such an affinity does exist, it implies an ongoing connection with the body, one that lasts past death, which makes the whole "eaten by worms" thing sort of distasteful, not that it wasn't already.

It also implies that the "person", however you define a unique individual, continues to exist past the loss of "their soul" since "they" are present to "regain" their souls.

Which answers my question (Yes, I'm surprised myself. I don't think I've ever come full circle and arrived at an answer before, have I?) that the evil and the strength of the vampire must be significantly impacted by the "human personality."

That also satisfactorily answers my question about why vampires seem to be, on the whole, such an ineffectual bunch o'goomers.

Viewed like this, though, being vamped seems to be more a matter of upsetting a balance. Removing the "soul" that governs conscience or imposes guilt or whatever it does and substituting, instead, a sort of two-dimensional, demonic "me-generation" inspired selfishness.

I mean, yes, vamping is defined as evil because:

(1) Someone is killed to make a vamp, although I'm starting to have doubts about that part and it seems that what actually happens is someone's body is killed and then reanimated, but the "person" is sort of divided. The "two halves" of this person seem to continue to exist although they function differently when apart.* The "soul," as I said before, seems to head for the hills while the-rest-of-whatever-it-is-that-makes-a-person-a-person-in-this-canon hangs around and contributes their strengths and weaknesses to the "demon spirit" in the interests of future survival, not only for the spirit, but for the remaining "personality." (Proving, among other things, that most people really will do anything to survive.)

(* Right now, I'm awaiting the gratitude of the multitudes. This was a great place to discuss Cartesian dualism and I very nearly gave you an essay on the subject. Count your blessings, okay?

For those possessed of intellectual curiosity and having too much time on their hands, there's an interesting and possibly relevant discussion here.)

(2) Vamps kill (actually kill-until-dead) people.

So then, I ask myself, if vampires fed primarily on mice or birds, or simply required huge amounts of animal blood in order to subsist, would they still be considered such an evil? Isn't it, in the end, the whole jumping out of bushes and biting passersby shtick that really annoys the populace?

I suspect I'm wandering from my original point. I usually am by this time.

Hmph. I checked and I'm still discussing the same topic!

I'm astonishingly linear today. I mean, I don't remember where I was going, but I'm going there by a fairly direct route. That's progress, right?

Ah, yes. Evil, and blaming demons for same. If I prove to have further thoughts, I'd probably better save them for a new entry. This is getting absurdly long and I just remembered that I made a resolution to stop spending hours blogging when I'm supposed to be working.

Next time: Longevity: Do it really make you smarter or do you just learn to dread rainy Sundays?
Coming soon: The Soul: What is it and how do I get the tarnish off of mine?