s02e07 — Lie to Me

OK, but how? In the Angel episode, we are shown that the bitten one must drink the vampire's blood. Do you really think that all those Buffy guards in the cemetery until they get out of their graves were given blood by vampires to drink?

Or does the bitten person have to die and then he becomes a vampire? I'm already in the fifth season, but I haven't received a clear explanation from the series.

@EyeOfTheRaven: the bitten person becomes a vampire only in two cases:
1. He drank the blood of a biting vampire (and it seems that he still has to die after that).
2. He died after a vampire bit him. But if too much blood is drunk, he will just remain a corpse. That's why not all vampire wives in Buffy become vampires.

@id185073937: Um, where does the second option come from? Vampires almost always drink themselves dry here, they don't turn as much as they drink.

@EyeOfTheRaven: In the very first episode, in the second dialogue with Giles, Buffy explains in detail exactly how vampires convert. " To make you a vampire, they have to drink blood from you, then you drink their blood. They usually just kill.
So, yes, all these fresh-faced people from the cemetery were given their blood by other vampires. They do it for fun sometimes, we've seen.

@MrsChimodanova: Well, I told you: if you drink too much, you remain a corpse.

@MrsChimodanova: the second option also works. Remember the Buffy's ability test episode. In the third season. Where she was temporarily stripped of her slayer abilities. There, a vampire in a straitjacket turned one of his guards. Did he give him his blood to drink? - no. He just grabbed him by the throat and drank enough to make him die. And when he turned, he also commented that he was glad that he had turned after all, because he had been lying for so long that this one was already afraid that he had drunk too much. I think the same convert let him out of his shirt and that's how he got out, right? I don't remember exactly anymore. I remember that he was able to tear off his shirt so that he could grab that warden when he was giving another pill.

@MrsChimodanova, to be honest, it's kind of doubtful. As far as I remember from the transformations of Angel and Spike, after drinking blood, they immediately turn into vampires. But the vampires from the cemetery were obviously dead for several days (well, while they were lying in the morgue, while they were buried - it all takes at least three days, or even more). Well, it's clear that these are still my quibbles, but thanks for the explanation)

@id185073937: SPOILERS the whole branch is neat



I checked that episode: how he turned this supervisor was not shown at all. The vampire grabbed him by the throat, the end of the scene. In the next one, the guy is lying on the floor, the vampire is licking his fingers, satisfied. About "he was afraid that he had drunk too much" and it can be interpreted that, for example, he could have died before he was given vampire blood.
In your opinion, it turns out that you can turn away from any bite. I somehow trust Buffy's words more, xs.

@EyeOfTheRaven: they did not immediately turn, the Angel also waited until the funeral, they showed us how he got out of the grave. Spike also said that he got out of the coffin.
There was a moment in Angel in season 2 when it was mentioned that the different times between death and conversion are few, there are many.
Buffy killed vampires in the morgue a couple of times, once right after the autopsy, sometimes in a coffin, but not buried yet.

@MrsChimodanova: How could he have died before they gave him blood? If he had died earlier, he would not have been able to swallow the blood that was given to him. That ghoul clearly said that he was afraid that he had drunk too much. Was he already released there at that time or not? Or did his convert set him free? I just don't remember. Because he could only free one hand to grab the warden. How would he drink blood with one hand, and wound himself, and pour his blood down his throat? Think about the series: there were a hell of a lot of cases where it was very unlikely there could be some kind of blood exchange. For example, somewhere in the seventh season, they exterminated a grandmother who was already lying in a coffin in the retouching bureau. Who, I wonder, would need to exchange blood with a grandmother and deliberately convert her? There are so many such cases that can be explained simply by a random appeal. I didn't drink all the blood, I left too much, for some reason (for example, I scared someone off in the process), the result is a new, unwanted vampire. Well, just like we have with children! But they do the blood exchange with those whom they intentionally want to convert. To be sure already.

@id185073937: Well, what I'm getting at is that mb couldn't swallow?
He wasn't freed, only released his hand, and grabbed this warden with it. Grabbed him by the neck, by the way, so you can also ask yourself how he even intercepted him for a bite.
No, well, the theory is interesting, of course, but I prefer to trust the canon, I'm sorry. And the canon says otherwise through Buffy's mouth. It's not hard for me to believe that vampires turn anyone for fun.

@MrsChimodanova: OK, then let's give another example of following the canons in this series. For example, Buffy was always repeating (like many with her) that when a person is converted, a demon enters the body instead, which appropriates the memories of the deceased. And what do we see in one of the episodes of Angel? The actress woman gave the Angel a magic potion (actually fake), which was supposed to take his soul. As a result, Angel turns into Angelus, so his team already has to dump him into the elevator shaft to knock him out. Then Angel comes to himself, not Angelus. So what's the joke? And the fact (as explained by the author of the fake potion himself) is that the Angel believed that the potion was real and lost his soul on auto-suggestion. What does this mean? - That all these stories about a demon replacing a dead person are complete nonsense that people invented to make it easier to kill their former relatives. But in fact, a person turned into a vampire simply loses the ability to empathize + acquires predator instincts and dependence on blood. In other words, he turns into a psychopath with superpowers. And, the so-called retual of the soul curse is nothing more than magically turning on empathy again. This is the only way to explain the trick with the temporary soullessness of an Angel and the finding of a soul by a Spike. In short, it is not necessary to take what the characters say as canon. They often don't know what they're saying.

@Sternenreich:
So in your opinion, the magical activation of empathy is more plausible than the loss and return of the soul? Well, I don't know, but again, this is just your speculation. Later, in season 4, the soul was sucked out of the Angel again and stored in a box, how can I explain this?
The actress wanted to relax Angel " and drugged him, which made him so sick. Angelus is always in Angel, he doesn't go anywhere, he periodically behaves sooooo similar without a drug trick (see all his bullying, one-on-one, or his escapade with Darla in the second season, when he fired everyone). I would rather say that the drugs just "knocked out" Angel magically, leaving Angelus at the helm (To be honest, I have a completely different head, but that's why he's head, so I'll keep him to myself).
Characters, of course, often talk nonsense, and lie, and everything happens, but information about the soul, as well as about the need to drink the blood of a sire for conversion, has never been refuted and was said by experts in this. So these are your headcannons, which I respect, of course, and I have a lot myself, but you don't have to pass them off as canon.

@MrsChimodanova: well, either the creators themselves don't really follow their canons (as is often the case with movies and games), or blood exchange is not the only way. Remember how many cases there are in the series that are not suitable for an explanation with an exchange.
And what does the creators mean by the soul? Did they ever talk? There was Spike without a soul, fell in love with Buffy. I went through the ritual and got a soul, and what happens? The demon in love with Buffy was replaced by the soul of a man who had been missing for about 200 years, flying somewhere in the otherworldly worlds, and then she returns to her native body and immediately also falls in love with Buffy, as if inheriting Spike's personality? And for some reason, the soul, in both cases of Spike and Angel, begins to suffer remorse for deeds committed in the past? Although, the question is, why would she suffer for this, if in fact it was not she who did everything, but the demon who possessed her body all this time? And if everything really worked as it was said, then what, one wonders, would it make sense for a Spike demon to return its soul if after that it would be replaced in the body by a soul (that is, the original owner. That William the poet who died after turning into a vampire and went to the next world), and he is a demon, will he never see Buffy again, and will he not be able to interact with her? He didn't just want to get his soul back, but to try to get Buffy back in this way. What, it turns out that he was working hard for another person all this time to present Buffy to him? No, of course not! Just by the soul, Buffy means the part of a person's personality responsible for empathy and conscience, and not the soul in the sense of a disembodied personality, as it is implied in religions. It's just that it's all spiced up with magic tinsel.

@MrsChimodanova: And, if we talk about someone's words, then in general, in such cases, it is necessary to rely not on the words of the characters of the work, but on its authors. That's something that can be put into the canon. And even then, often the authors themselves will weave so much that they themselves do not know how to explain it logically later. How it happened in a vivid way with the canon in the Fallout universe. Once, a long time ago, a developer, from hell to do, came up with the idea of experiments in every shelter, which now the developers have been pushing for decades to give at least some logical justification to this nonsense. And they don't deny it themselves)

@Sternenreich: Well, to be honest, I don't remember any cases that wouldn't be suitable.
With a soul: That's not how it works. The demon that makes a vampire a vampire is not going anywhere. If he disappeared, probably Angel and Spike would have become people with a soul, well, or would have died - you can speculate as much as you like, we were not shown such an example in the series. The soul coexists with a demon, a demon with a soul, a vampire with a soul - the main description of the Angel of the entire series. The evidence is the next episode (the demon inside the Angel killed Aegon or whatever it was, summoned by Giles), again, the fact that the demon remained in the Angel when the soul was thrown out of him.
He suffers from conscience, because the memories are from the first person, well, you can review season 7 and listen to what Spike says about how his soul burns and so on. They didn't tell us directly why, but the general message is that the soul gives vampires moral guidance, and they understand how much evil they have committed.
Again, season 4 of the Angel, the soul in a box (or a cone, I don't remember) - how do I explain this? Quite a separate kind of essence of a dead person. You can make up a lot of things around, but this will not have anything to do with the series under discussion.

@Sternenreich: well, we obviously won't get along here, because I adhere to the concept of the author's death and for me what is said inside the series, by the characters, outweighs the words of any of the creators.

@MrsChimodanova: Our dispute is like a dispute between a scientist and a believer. I give you logical arguments and explanations, and you give me faith in dogma/canon. What you call a canon (besides, where is the proof that this canon exists outside your head?) generates logical paradoxes. I am giving a logical explanation that puts everything in its place and does not contradict itself. Read what you are writing for yourself. You refute yourself and confirm my words in passing!
The point is not that the demon disappears somewhere, but that it no longer controls the body. Why would a Spike demon put himself in such a situation? You yourself, in your own words, say that: the soul gives vampires moral guidance, and they understand how much evil they have committed. You are talking about the soul as a part of the personality, not as a separate personality. Why is it that suddenly the soul-personality, after returning to its own body, cannot control it, and the demon continues to do this, but at the same time feeling someone else's remorse? On the one hand, you have an Angel with a soul - this is a person with a body possessed by a demon and he talks about this demon as if it is an entity that sits in it, but at the same time an Angel-man (Angel-soul) rules the body. On the other hand, you get a Spike as a demon with a body, possessed by a soul, and in this case the demon already speaks of the soul as some kind of entity whose remorse he feels, but at the same time the demon remains behind the wheel. (since he speaks of the soul in the third person, just as an Angel speaks of a demon in the third person. Are you using this as an argument?). All this is some kind of pulling an owl on a globe, in an attempt to protect some kind of canon. My explanation logically unties everything - all these demons and souls are just metaphors.

@MrsChimodanova: Rather, demon possession may exist (and this is the source of the vampire's mystical power), but it turns out to be like a body possessed by a demon, but the original remains inside, just " loses the soul " - the ability to empathy. Then logical paradoxes do not appear. Where does the soul come from in the vessel? It's just that it's a mystery series! They might as well have put it up as a conclusion in a vessel of a part of the soul (personality) and no one would have any questions! In Silent Hill, a person was generally divided into two people and the author lived with it calmly and did not sweat it.

@MrsChimodanova: You're contradicting yourself here again! You say "I adhere to the concept of the author" and immediately say that the words of the character prevail over the words of the creator! 🤦🏻‍♂️ And who created this character and put words in his mouth? Only the creators of the character, the script, the director, can talk about what was meant at this or that moment! And then, often the author will sketch something there on his knee, without bothering to think it over logically, and then fans have been fighting among themselves for decades in search of logical explanations for what he has done there, trying to solve all these logical paradoxes that he created with his hack, and he himself has to either make a mysterious appearance, like "there is a true meaning, but I won't tell you", or join the fans himself and invent the same absurd explanations himself, in an attempt to patch his own holes")

@Sternenreich: And of course, you are the scientist here. I can easily turn it around, but the analogy is still not an argument. I am not operating with dogma, but with the facts I saw in the series, I am not composing anything, you can review the points to which I refer.
I speak about Spike's soul the way he himself spoke about it - it's inside me, the missing part, it just burns and that's it. He spoke exactly as if he were a demon and his soul was something foreign. Why did he put himself in such a situation, he also spoke (though not quite directly, in a half-delirium). He didn't think it would hurt so much. I wanted to change.
The angel is just talking about the demon, as about something living inside him. So it's not my fiction either. If you want, you can say that there is no logic, or maybe the fact that they received souls in different ways influenced, if you like.
Souls and demons are metaphors, of course, I don't argue with that, it's just not about that. I'm talking about how magic and vampires work inside the series. So, wherever you spit, it's a metaphor or some other means of expression. Doesn't negate the fact that some specific vampires have souls.

Of course, they could have enclosed a part of the personality in a vessel, but they only enclosed the soul. Inside the series, this is an undeniable reality. And this owl does not climb on the metaphor globe) If you want, I can throw another one - Spike-then what burns? Empathy? He cut himself, and deeply, from this pain. What for?
What does Silent Hill have to do with this? We kind of discussed Buffy, I suggest leaving Silent Hill for comments under it.

@Sternenreich: I said, "I adhere to the concept of the author's death." It's a little different. Google it. There is no contradiction here. I consider the series as a complete work, the authors of which said everything they wanted through the characters, the script, etc., and additional comments from them are not needed.

@MrsChimodanova: "she's inside me", "the missing PART", "she just burns and that's it".
Just the same, he talks about it all here, as a part of himself, and not as a separate one entities/personalities inside him! That is, you again confirm my words by giving arguments that allegedly contradict them!
Naturally, an angel talks about a demon in himself, and he can perceive it as something real, but a person can also talk about a demon inside himself, even as something real. 🤷🏻‍♂️ The question is, what exactly is called a demon or a soul? So Anya became Anyanka and thus became a demon of revenge. Angelus (Sven during his lifetime, as far as I remember) became a vampire and thus became a demon (technically a dead man possessed by a demon), but who said that this demon that this body is possessed by is not himself? Anyanka became a demon and no one said that it wasn't her, but a demon replaced her instead. The characters can say anything in words, but they are just characters. How do you know they really know what they're saying? How did Buffy even know about all this soul stuff? Because that's what the caretakers told her. Where is the proof that this is not just a trick to make it morally easier for slayers to exterminate vampires? Have the caretakers ever lied to them? 😄
Spike has regained his empathy ability. Empathy breeds remorse. In the series, the soul is the part of the personality that is responsible for empathy. A part of the personality or ability was enclosed in the vessel, if you want. Just as they could show the same magical abduction of the slayer's abilities and you would not have any questions about it. Because it's a mystical, teen TV series! It's just that my explanation logically puts everything in its place.

@MrsChimodanova: I consider the series as a complete work, the authors of which said everything they wanted through characters, script, etc., and additional comments from them are not needed.
What kind of nonsense is this?! Only the creator of the work can truly know what he wanted to say and thus know whether he was able to say it all in the work or not. And the fact that you, instead of the creator, undertake to assert that there is a canon here and what is not, only says that you really believe that you understand the work at the level of its creator, that you take on his role in approving the canon. It's like the apostles claiming that each of them understood Christ's teaching better than the rest of the apostles. That's why I compared our argument to religion.
My position is that life teaches you not to trust words, but to look at facts. And no matter what anyone says, if the real course of things contradicts the words, then these words are untrue, not facts. This is the position of an adult. That's why I'm not relying on what anyone in the series said, but on the facts that are shown in the series. Here is a logical picture based on the facts from the series. In words from the series, no. So where is the truth? - In the facts.
Or the truth is only that the creators did not take the series so seriously as to make ENT logical in it (and this is also noticeable in the series several times), since for them it is just a children's work, and we are not fighting childishly here because of it. 😁😄 This often happens with works that have become iconic. And the creators and fans who take the work too seriously are to blame. 😁

@Sternenreich:
How did Buffy even know about all this soul stuff? Because that's what the caretakers told her. Where is the proof that this is not just a trick - you produce entities. And where is the proof that this is not a dog's dream? That Buffy didn't invent Sunnydale and everything that happened because she went crazy at 15? There is no evidence, as there is no evidence to the contrary, where does such an assumption come from? To tie up your oh-so-coherent explanation, supposedly putting everything in its place?

A person can also talk about a demon inside himself, even as something real.;
Maybe. But the Angel was talking about a very specific entity that makes him a vampire.

"Anyanka became a demon and no one said that it wasn't her, but a demon replaced her instead"
Anya is a demon of retribution, how they work in terms of the soul, there is no information. Anyway, the dialogue is about vampires.

Spike has regained his empathy ability."
Still doesn't explain what he was trying to carve out of his chest (remorse?), or how he managed to feel empathy for Drew, Buffy, Dawn, Tara, Willow, and so on down the list before he got a soul.
And then where did we get characters like Warren, for example.

@Sternenreich:
"you, instead of the creator, undertake to assert that there is a canon here,"
Naturally, the series is the canon for the series, what is it all about? I'm not strong in theology, but here in the fd it's usually an axiom. What, excuse me, is the teaching of Christ, we are talking about a 90s teen TV series. And don't you dare to assert "instead of the creator" when you say that the soul = empathy? The creator literally said something else in the words of the characters, which is what I'm telling you, but my references to specific scenes are "maybe a trick", and yours, then, are logical explanations? It turns out to be very convenient. For you.
First of all, read about the death of the author, then refute this approach.

My position is that life teaches you not to trust words, but to look at facts."
That's what I understood. You operate with facts - what seems logical to you or not. I use words - what the characters in the exhibition said and how they reacted to certain events.
It all fits together.

@Sternenreich:
"the creators did not take the series so seriously as to make the ent in it logical"
The creators took the series seriously enough not to put ENT at the forefront. And this is also quite noticeable.
Ent, indeed, contradicts itself in places, not to mention numerous retcons and just blunders. Nevertheless, the answers to the questions we are discussing have been given, and very specific ones, and I do not see the point in producing entities unnecessarily.
You like your logical explanation - please put the flag in your hands. But do not claim that it is the only true one, and the rest are just inventions of fans who take the work too seriously.

@MrsChimodanova: 1. The evidence is based on the facts shown in the series, and not on someone's words. For example, Buffy also heard that vampires are afraid of garlic and once hung a room with it, but it was never shown in the series whether this was true or not. How did she know about this? From the legends (she said herself that she didn't know if it worked or not). But how could she know about souls? In the same way - only from someone's words (she hadn't even met an Angel yet). And you use her words as an argument. Allegedly " the author in her words ". Well, the author is dead! So then it is you who should proceed not from what the author put in there, but from what the facts in the series say about what is happening. So it turns out that I am the one who adheres to this concept! 😁
2. But a very specific essence makes me human! Is there a contradiction in this? Can I talk about her in the third person? Here's a demon Angel with a soul. Or to paraphrase - a predator capable of empathy.
3. Some people try to cut muryavy from under the skin. Do ants exist too?
But Ted Bundy once worked in the support service and even saved more than one person from suicide. Did he have empathy for them? 🤔 A.H.U. E.G.O.Z.N.A.E.T.

@MrsChimodanova: I give a logical explanation to the scenes that you give, and this eliminates the contradictions that these scenes generate.
"The death of the author" simply emphasizes the already obvious thing - that the works can be interpreted. But the main thing here is what question to ask. If "what did the author want to say?", then the meaning embedded by the author certainly exists. If "how do I see the meaning of the work?", then, accordingly, you are free to think about everything yourself. But all this is relevant when it comes to the idea, the idea, the meaning. We are not discussing the idea or meaning, but the mechanics of the world in this work. And this is not surrealism, there can only be one answer, and this is not a question of interpretations of ideas and subtext, but about specific mechanics. Is there gravity in Buffivers? - There is. We know this because we see him. What if Buffy starts claiming he's not there? Will you also say that he is not there and the author speaks through the mouth of the hero (who also died)?

@MrsChimodanova: and here's another great example: when Darla was pregnant, she also began to experience empathy! Did she have a soul at the same time? She said that this is how the child inside her affects her. So, was it his soul that possessed her then and at the same time remained in his body too? Are they also tricks of the soul? The attitude to the word "soul" in this series is interesting, don't you think?
And the answer is simple - the child in the womb evoked the maternal instinct in Darla. It was so strong that it even restored her empathy for a while. That's why she committed suicide, because she was afraid that when the child came out of her, it would all die back and she would kill him. 🤷🏻♂️ What's with the soul? Is she already acting from a distance too? "Both to myself and to people"! Mystical Bluetooth, so to speak! 🤣

@Sternenreich:
The words spoken in the series are facts for us as viewers. Everything the characters say has a purpose. In this case, the goal is a brief digression for us on how vampires work in Buffy. This has never been refuted => this is a fact.
Another moment was in the season 3 finale. Angel bites Buffy to heal from the poison. At the hospital, when asked if she would turn now, he replies: "No, she didn't drink my blood." No, she didn't drink blood and I didn't drink enough. Only the first one. Although he drank so much that she almost bled to death.
I consider this issue closed.

@Sternenreich:
And again about the soul. About the ants - okay, the argument is convincing, Spike is really not himself at that moment. We will not count it.
But what about empathy? Does Spike have it or not? You claim that you didn't, because it turns out that "returned the soul" ="returned empathy", right? And before that, what happened? I don't know anything about Ted Bundy, I'm not interested in him, but I've seen Spike. On the screen, close-ups. With emotions that show empathy, and all that. Why did he protect Don at the beginning of season 6, in the offseason, Buffy when she's dead? "X knows him"? Not very convincing, sorry.

Darla is an interesting character in general, she was a cold-blooded bitch with a soul (human). (Maternal instinct, by the way, does not exist, but okay, I will not quibble with the terms). The attitude towards souls in the series is really interesting, and I can't help but admit that at the subtext level it's always metaphors for something very human, like remorse or love. But this does not negate the literal meaning of what is shown within the lore.
Again, I remind you about the jar with the soul from season 4 of angel.

@Sternenreich:
Will you also say that he is not there and that the author speaks through the mouth of the hero (who also died)?"
It's probably very funny when you don't understand what you're talking about. I don't share the fun, alas. The author died only after he created the work, well. Not before. That is, he meant something, he made some sense. And I'm not talking about the notorious blue curtains (although I'm talking about them too), but about a much simpler thing, about the mechanics of storytelling.

"Is there gravity in Buffivers? - There is. We know this because we see him.
Well, then what is the question, we also see souls. So they are there.

@MrsChimodanova: "Only the first one. Although he drank so much that she almost died of blood loss. Therefore, it was not necessary to clarify this point, because she remained alive. Therefore, the only option why she could still become a vampire was to exchange blood. That's why he clarified this point.
And what about the moment in season 4 where the scientist says that he always knew that werewolves turn without the help of the moon? Is it also true because the character said so?

@MrsChimodanova: So what's up with Darla
and the baby? We're discussing here what exactly is called a soul in Buffy. You are drowning for the literal interpretation of the word, and I am for the metaphorical one. Have you ever heard the expression "a man without a soul"? Does it also literally mean that he has no soul, but only a dead corpse? It is used in the same sense in Buffy, although apparently some characters may take it literally. And Buffy is also a fantasy, so non-material things can be displayed here in the form of magical ones. Do you remember how the slayers got their gift? So what's up, Buffy comes out possessed by a demon too?

@MrsChimodanova: The point about Ted Bundy is that he's a psychopathic maniac, just like the vampires in Buffy. At the same time, he had a relationship with a girl that could end in a wedding, he helped suicidal people. Or Richard Ramirez, for example, killed a lot of people, but for some reason let the girl go because he regretted it. Psychopaths are prone to some glimpses of emotion. They are also capable of loving, but in their own way, in a psychopathic way. Does Drew, for example, like Spike? And Spike, being a vampire without a soul, loved his mother? Remember season 7.

@MrsChimodanova: and once again about the jar. The first slayer was infused with the powers (=abilities) of demons, from that she became a slayer and this gift began to be inherited. That is, literally, the abilities of demons were instilled into her in the form of a black cloud. Just like the ability to compassion/empathy was instilled in the form of magical light in a jar Because it is FANTASY. You can do the same with memory here. Think back to the season where Willow screwed up and everyone forgot who they were. How did their memory come back to them later, do you remember? How was it visually shown?
And how did everyone's voices disappear, do you remember? Where did those voices go, remember?

@MrsChimodanova: Once again about the vampire in a straitjacket: do you mean to say that he held the guard with one hand, drank his blood, then bit through it himself and somehow held him with one bitten hand and forced him to drink his blood from the same hand? Or poured it into the mouth of the unconscious? In any case, have you seen traces of blood anywhere on the guard's lips or face? This whole scheme sounds like nonsense. Especially at the moment of trying to implement it in practice. There are too many moments in Buffy where the explanation of the blood exchange sounds strained.

@Sternenreich:
And what about the moment in season 4 where the scientist says that he always knew that werewolves turn without the help of the moon? Is it also true because the character said so?"
Are we going to take the context into account or what? In the first episode, there is an exposition, the establishment of the rules by which the series plays. This has never been refuted, although there were doubtful moments.
Your example is a mockery of ignorance of the Initiative of literally nothing. They didn't know about the Slayer, they tried to put Willow under quarantine "suddenly she was turned", although she was alive and not even bitten (Spike tried to bite her when with a chip), and then the continuation of this series. Are you fucking laughing with such examples?

"Have you ever heard the expression "a man without a soul"? Does it also literally mean that he has no soul, but only a dead corpse?"
In reality, no one has ever seen people's souls, unlike Buffy. We saw them as literally an object, season 4 of angel (the bottle), season 4 of Buffy (Katie, the demon neighbor, sucked their soul out of her, which looked exactly the same as the substance in the bottle), again, the eyes of both vampires shone every time their souls were restored (this is indirectly I agree, it can be attributed to the magical effect. although, again, it is similar).

"And Buffy is also a fantasy, so non-material things can be displayed here in the form of magic."
What is the argument here? There was no talk about the materiality of the soul, only about its existence.

Do you remember how the slayers got their gift? So what's up, Buffy comes out possessed by a demon too?"
If I remember correctly, Buffy has the powers of a demon, not literally a demon.

"You drown for the literal interpretation of the word, and I for the metaphorical one."
Well, not really. I drown for the fact that the metaphors are there for the audience only, but for the characters the souls are literal. And all your thoughts have a right to exist, but only for the audience.

@Sternenreich:
"vampires ... They are capable of loving, but in their own way, in a psychopathic way. "
Oh, well, I can stir up controversy here too. All people love in different ways, love in general is a very philosophical concept, which everyone deciphers who is into what.
But getting back to the topic. Still, does Spike have emotions? And empathy? Then what is the point of including it through receiving the soul (Lord, why do you have so many layers of this construction, explain to me at the same time), if it (empathy) already exists?

"about a vampire in a straitjacket"
You will review this scene: he grabbed the poor observer by the neck with his whole paw, from shoulder to chin. If it seems doubtful to you that he ate it with one hand + fed it, explain to me how he bit through his own hand at all. Because there is literally no place to bite.
And honestly, the dialogue went on the tenth round. I already wrote the same thing about this guy a few comments ago.

"Because it's FANTASY"
If this is FANTASY, then what is wrong with the explanation given to you about the soul? Why claim that this is empathy? I'm not happy with the idea of empathy, because Spike, Drew, and Harmony have it there (season 5 of Angel). For me, the soul in buffivers is more about a moral compass, about understanding what is bad and what is good. Because even Angelus has empathy in terms of understanding other people's emotions, and that's who a natural psychopath is.

"so what's up with Darla and the baby?"
Okay, if you insist. The literal explanation given by the series is that Darla has a soul at that moment- not her own, but nevertheless. The connection between the baby in the womb and the mother is certainly not at a distance. The child was literally a part of her body at that moment.
At the same time, answer my question: why was she such a bitch as a human being? She killed an actor guy there purely to frame an Angel, if anything.

@Sternenreich:
"Remember the season where Willow screwed up and everyone forgot who they were. How did their memory come back to them, do you remember? How was it visually shown?"
What is the point? That different magical effects are often shown as glowing things? Okay, you can't argue with that. What does this prove? We literally have something that turns Angelus into an Angel (and vice versa, if it is extracted). How does this fit in with your initial take that empathy was enabled?

@MrsChimodanova: so the point is that Buffy literally repeatedly shows the ability to select or give different abilities or abilities to certain characters! The slayers were given demon powers, the residents of Sunnydale were robbed of their ability to speak, Willow took the memory from her friends. And all this in the form of magical effects. Therefore, the argument that the soul is somehow shown in the series using visual effects does not prove that it should be taken literally. You just took it as an axiom that only the words of the characters should be perceived as canon or explanations of everything that happens in the series, but you don't care about events and if they contradict the words of the characters, then you need to give up on them. And they also took it as an axiom that the author (who is your Schrodinger's cat and he is alive when it suits you) conveyed the meaning of the series only through character dialogues. But that's just your belief. Both in life and in works, it is foolish to rely only on the words of people. There is no reason to believe that the author is trying to reveal the ENT in the words of the characters. For example, I can also write a script where the characters will explain everything in their own way, and the facts in the plot will contradict this, but this will not be refuted out loud anywhere, and I will make fun of the fans who will drown for the words of the characters, as for the canon. Because you need to be able to analyze information, and not rely on someone's words written on the fence. In the works, the meaning can be conveyed as a whole, and not only by the replicas of the characters. It's stupid to take only replicas into account. I have shown you why you should not take the replicas of the characters of the series as a justification for the canon. Because then it does not correspond to what is shown in the series and this generates logical contradictions. But if you look at everything together, you get another explanation that unleashes these contradictions.

@MrsChimodanova: "How does this fit in with your initial take that empathy was enabled?";
The meaning of the explanation using psychopathy is that in the case of psychopathy, empathy does not seem to work, literally, but this ability is underdeveloped or (in the case of vampires in Buffy) suppressed. And here, as in the case of the rest of the high feelings, we are talking about the fact that there may be some kind of glimpses in one form or another (often perverted). In Buffy, with vampires, we see exactly the same picture. Spike loved his mother so much that even becoming a vampire without a soul could not completely suppress this love, which somehow expressed itself in him after conversion. Ed Gein, for example, collected body parts and made masks of human faces for himself, but at the same time he was attached to his mother. One did not interfere with the other, as they say. Empathy is not only the ability to understand emotions (psychopaths are also capable of this), but the ability to share and empathize with them. That is why "with a soul" vampires begin to repent of what they have done - because they feel sorry for their victims. And Angelus understood perfectly well what is good or bad (as all psychopaths understand perfectly well). It's just that in one case he doesn't give a shit about it ("without a soul"), and in the other he doesn't ("with a soul"). Psychopaths understand perfectly well what is considered good and what is bad, they just don't care about it.

@Sternenreich:
"Buffy literally repeatedly shows the ability to select or bestow different abilities or capabilities"
How does this confirm that there is literally no soul in the series? Why can we give the ability to speak, but not the soul? So we can take the memory taken from the Scubis literally, but is the soul necessarily a metaphor?

"You just took it as an axiom that only the words of the characters should be taken as canon or explanations of everything that happens in the series, and you don't care about events"
Are you reading me through the word? I cite the example of the bottle, Katie, the emotions on Spike's face (yes, there is empathy too), the same Darla-a human and other people who, by definition of the series, have a soul, but do not show empathy for something. It's not just words.

"And they also took it as an axiom that the author (who is your Schrodinger's cat and he is alive when it suits you) conveyed the meaning of the series only through character dialogues."
And let's reread my previous comments and save me the need to repeat myself?

"another explanation ... unleashes these contradictions.
Well, probably not everything, since I have so many questions for you, mm? There are no fewer holes in your explanation, so there is no need for it.

The soul in the series is a very voluminous concept, which includes a lot of everything and is used for numerous metaphors. For each vampire, it literally means different things (for example, Darla did not show remorse for her previous actions, unlike Angel and Spike). To reduce it to empathy is to steal a bunch of other meanings.

@Sternenreich:
"For example, I can also write a script where the characters will explain everything in their own way, and the facts in the plot will contradict this, but "out loud" this will not be refuted anywhere."
Yes, yes, I know, this technique is called an unreliable storyteller, you didn't invent it. If it is used in Buffy, it is rarely used, I can't give examples right away. In any case, such a move has a purpose, just like any other. What is the purpose of the consistent deception of us - in your opinion - regarding the mechanism of transformation into a vampire?
Or calling empathy a soul? Why not just say empathy, if that's what it meant?

@MrsChimodanova: Okay, I remembered a couple of examples.
Fool for love, episode 7 of season 5, Spike tells Buffy about his life and turning into a vampire. He says, "I've always been bad," and then they show us the charming William, the poet, composing poetry for a girl.
Storyteller, the episode about Andrew in season 7, 16, I think. Andrew is a classic example of an unreliable narrator, and the series does its best to demonstrate this to us (Andrew tells the same story with different endings literally several times in a row).
Do you see the difference? The reception has a purpose. And it turns out that, well, they just lied to us to lie. Scripts don't work that way.

@MrsChimodanova: "How does this confirm that there is literally no soul in the series?"
This argument was used to show that anything can be visually displayed in the series, so this cannot be considered proof of the existence of a soul in the classical sense of the word. That's exactly what you used as an argument for her literal existence.
"Darla is a person and other people who, by definition of the series, have a soul, but do not show empathy for something. "
The subject of our dispute is whether to interpret the word "soul" in its classical sense (as a disembodied human personality) or as a word that refers to the ability to empathize and compassion. Therefore, if Darla did not initially have this ability strongly developed, then the magical acquisition of a soul would not have given her anything. Well, or at least, maybe just a little bit, if she was no longer a psychopath in her lifetime. Here, in any case, if we interpret the soul literally, then again, it would not have changed anything for Darla, since in this case it would have returned to the body of her former owner, who was already no kinder than a vampire. In other words, turning into a vampire suppresses empathy, but Darla didn't have much to suppress there anyway. But if in the series her soul was returned to her and she would begin to feel remorse, then it would further confirm that the authors mean by this word exactly the ability to empathize and regret, only for them the soul is a kind of magical an ability that is not tied to the original personality of the owner, and again, not his literal, disembodied personality. Otherwise, the return of the soul/Darla's own body wouldn't have changed much. Do you understand the logic?

@MrsChimodanova: in this case, the authors intended to show the character's lies, so they showed the truth right away. In the case of how the characters explain their understanding of the world in which they live, 100% confidence can only be that they understand it that way, but this cannot 100% mean that this is how the author explained the ENT of the series to the viewer. There are two options here: either the author conveys the essence with the help of a whole picture and then we need to look at everything, not just at the words of the characters, and if there is a contradiction with them, then look at the picture as a whole, and draw conclusions from what this picture tells us. Either the author just doesn't really follow the logic of the concepts that he builds, or just changes them on the go. Let's say at first it seemed to him that it was better to come up with the concept of the soul as something literal, and then he decided that it was not quite suitable (scripturally or dramaturgically, for example) and it was better to change it somewhat into a less literal interpretation, and this eventually gave rise to contradictions between the words of the characters at the beginning of the series and the fact that what we see in the course of his story. And they simply did not consider it necessary to clearly explain or display the change in this concept, since this is just a youth series. A striking example is the concept of shelters in Fallout. At first, it was just the mistakes of the staff of the shelters, but eventually it turned into experiments in each of them, which gave rise to this problem when they still cannot clearly substantiate this concept. An example of a Fallout in order to show how it happens when creating works of art.

@Sternenreich:
Anything can be visually displayed in the series, so this cannot be considered proof of the existence of a soul in the classical sense of the word."
But after all, both memory and voices existed quite literally, and were literally taken away, as well as returned. Why doesn't it work with the soul? In all cases, there is both a literal interpretation of the concept and a metaphorical one.

"Therefore, if Darla did not initially have this ability strongly developed, then the magical acquisition of a soul would not have given her anything. "
Super! That explains the cold-blooded bitch Darla. And also explains the suddenly soft, sobbing Darla, who killed herself in order not to stop loving her child. The little one has a different soul! More compassionate. Innocent, maybe, but that's my interpretation.

@Sternenreich:
Returning to the question of turning into a vampire: yes, an unreliable narrator can easily play for a long time. Buffy is not the case. The need to drink Sire's blood is repeated from time to time, by different characters, both by the vampires themselves and by those who hunt them, in different situations. It is also shown, since words are not an argument for you. Is this the whole series trying to fool us? What for? There is no resolution to this deception.
If it's easier for you to think that there is some other way to address - the flag is in your hands. Who am I to interfere with other people's heads? I'm sitting myself, surrounded by them, and I'm writing ff and a lot more. You just don't have to claim that this is the canon, that's all.

"Either the author just doesn't really follow the logic of the concepts that he builds, or just changes them on the go. "
Bingo. In Buffy, Laura's consistency is not in the first place. Buffy is primarily about drama, about humor, then somewhere at the end of the list about ent. Take, for example, the fact that the speed of spraying a vampire directly depends on its importance to the plot (or whether it has a joke in stock).
This does not negate the fact that the soul exists as a concept in the series. It just says that this concept is flexible and is used in different ways. You want to build a slender ENT where it was not originally there. The flag is in your hands, again, but this does not make your theory canon)

@MrsChimodanova: But after all, both memory and voices existed quite literally, and were literally taken away, as well as returned. Why doesn't it work with the soul?"
The point is that these moments show that abilities may well be displayed visually in the series, which means that displaying manipulations with the soul does not prove that it is literally the soul, in the classical sense.
"And also explains the suddenly soft sobbing Darla, who killed herself in order not to stop loving her child."
She killed herself not to kill him. Since Darla has never been shown in the series as a pregnant person, we cannot judge the level of her maternal instinct, which means we cannot say that she would treat the child in herself differently than being a vampire. Judge for yourself: why does a vampire feel the soul of a child in his body and at the same time is also exposed to it, BUT at the same time a living, human mother does not feel this soul and is not exposed to it? Why does it only work on a vampire? After all, a heartless mother is an analogue of a soulless vampire (in this situation). Therefore, it would be more logical to explain that the child, being in her womb, awakened Darla's maternal instinct (just as he would have done if she had been alive) and the reason here is precisely Darla herself - that although she was a bitch in her own right, but apparently not so much that she didn't care to threaten the life of his own child. That's why her condition (pregnancy) affected her like this. Just like Spike's conversion to a vampire still didn't take away his love for his mother. Because this love was too strong in him and it could not be completely suppressed by vampirism.

@MrsChimodanova: The fact that only one way of turning into a vampire was verbally mentioned is also not proof that there is really only one way in the series. What is shown in the series shows that there is also a second one, thanks to which, conversion to a vampire can happen accidentally, without the will of the sire. There are so many "spontaneous" vampires throughout the series.
And since you are presenting replicas as proof, then quote where it says that without blood exchange, conversion is in no way possible. That's right, so that the wording and the situation do not leave room for other interpretations. The fragment where Angel says Buffy didn't drink his blood definitely doesn't fit. I've already told you why.

@Sternenreich:
"displaying manipulations with the soul does not prove that it is literally the soul, in the classical sense."
This proves that empathy was not suppressed by vampirism, as you claim, but that there is some substance, essence, something that is extracted/returned back. In the series, this something is called a soul, you can at least call it a bald devil, the canon will not change from this.

" quote where it says that without blood exchange, conversion is in no way possible"
Season 1, Episode 1. "- Will he rise up? - no. He's just dead. - How can you be sure? "To make you a vampire, they have to drink your blood, then you have to drink their blood."
Are you kidding me? This is how our dialogue began!
Buffy is sure that the boy will not rise up. If there is another way, how does she have this confidence? She's a medical examiner with experience measuring exactly how much blood was drunk and isn't there a chance that there's still not a bit left for resurrection?

This last part of our conversation actually reminds me of nonsense. The burden of proof is on the approver, I cannot prove that something does not exist. It was not mentioned, something else was mentioned (the opposite), but should I find you a quote where your fantasies are refuted by the words of characters who have never heard of them and did not suspect? Then please prove to me that there is no kettle flying around the Earth, and I will listen to you carefully.

@Sternenreich:
Let's return to the long-suffering Darla.

"if Darla did not initially have this ability (empathy and compassion) strongly developed, then the magical acquisition of the soul would not have given her anything."
" Therefore, it would be more logical to explain that the child, being in her womb, awakened the maternal instinct in Darla."

The magical acquisition of a soul, in your opinion, would have given her nothing. Is it the maternal instinct (which does not exist)! And what makes it more logical than the literal interpretation of the serial version?
Let's go over the points again:
- you are suggesting that Darla either does not have empathy, or she is underdeveloped.
- nevertheless, the maternal instinct in her awakened something that does not exist and never existed. Just like a vampire, please note. That is, even what was not particularly there was additionally suppressed, following your logic. And what is this maternal instinct of yours, in that case, let me be curious?

"her condition (pregnancy) affected her like this. Just like Spike's conversion to a vampire still didn't take away his love for his mother."
Exactly the same? Are you sure? The situations are completely different from all sides. Spike was a convert, and he literally killed his mother (twice). Both times out of love, please note. Pretty typical vampire behavior, in my opinion, in his personal style.
Darla hated the baby for most of her pregnancy, almost until the birth. She tried to get rid of him, to kill him (she talks about it). In the end, something changed in her and she already killed herself so that he would survive. Just somewhere in the area of how the soul ended up in it!

"if her soul had been returned to her in the series " and she would have begun to feel remorse, then this would have further confirmed that the authors mean by this word exactly the ability to empathize and feel sorry"
And this is the moment. Darla with a soul just contradicts this statement! It turns out that the soul does not give empathy to all vampires. Mb still, the soul is a more complex concept, huh?

@MrsChimodanova: "This proves that empathy was not suppressed by vampirism, as you claim, but that there is some kind of substance, essence, something that is extracted/returned back. In the series, this something is called a soul, you can at least call it a bald devil, the canon will not change from this.
Just as there is a certain black substance that was introduced into the first slayer to endow her with the powers of demons. It literally shows that powers or abilities can be visualized in the series. And you can call anything whatever you want. This does not mean that this name should be taken literally.
"She is a medical examiner with experience in measuring exactly how much blood was drunk and is there any chance that there is still, well, definitely not a bit left for resurrection?"
She is a sixteen-year-old girl who has only recently been trained and who still has very little experience. The only corpse I remember in the first episode is the guy who was killed by Darla in the beginning, at school. You might as well ask, how could Buffy be so sure that he certainly wasn't having a blood exchange? This is just her assumption, which she is sure of, because she is SIXTEEN YEARS OLD (if not fifteen). At this age, people are not very critical of their thoughts and words. And even if the observers did not tell her anything about other ways, it does not mean that there are none. Ask Giles when werewolves turn and he will say: "During full moons." But we know that there are exceptions, such as Oz, and there may be something else. It was shown in the series, but no one voiced it in advance. Just as it was shown repeatedly how people became vampires, while not showing any blood exchange. The clearest example is the same scene with the psycho vampire in the box.

@MrsChimodanova: And at what point did the soul appear there? That is, it was the soul of a child, but for some reason his soul did not immediately affect it, but only at the very end? There's no contradiction here, is there? Do the creators of the series want to say that the soul in the child appears only at the moment of birth? And before that, is it just a vegetable without a soul (read consciousness)? Isn't it funny yourself? 😆
But the biological explanation is more appropriate here - the longer the gestation period, the greater the influence of the fetus and hormones on the mother, respectively, the greater the effect. By the way, I'm not saying that Darla was a psychopath during her lifetime. I told you that we cannot judge her attitude towards children, since she did not have any during her lifetime. But the biological explanation perfectly explains everything: a shorter pregnancy period - Darla's psyche was exposed to less time. In the end, the effect reached a peak when it was able to "slow down" what was suppressed by vampirism in Darla. Besides, who told you that her love for the child woke up suddenly? Because she hadn't stated it before? Humans (or vampires) are complex creatures. They can experience a lot of things inside themselves and try to cope with it in different ways, just as their actions can be very contrary to themselves or their inner experiences. Yes, even cats can kill their kittens, motivating it by taking care of them, not to mention the inconsistency of people. And if you just hatched yesterday and you don't know what is meant by the term "maternal instinct", then here you are, read Wikipedia:

https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BA%D1%82

@Sternenreich:
A certain black substance was also quite specifically called, by the way. Like souls. "This does not mean that this name should be taken literally."
And how should this be perceived? Is this a metaphorical card game? Why breed entities?

"And even if the observers did not tell her anything about other ways, it does not mean that there are none."
There are none. Not in this series, not in Buffivers. Vampires say the same thing, since you don't believe the watchers and slayers. Again, I repeat that such deception simply has no purpose.
In the scene with the psycho vampire, even how he bites is not shown. Following your logic, he could have turned this poor observer by the power of his mind. And what? They didn't show it to us! Anything could have happened there!
Again, you're dodging the question (for the umpteenth time): How did he bite him at all if he covered his entire neck with his fingers? I think he just twisted his neck, and then he cast a spell. We have a third way of contacting you!

@Sternenreich:
"And before that, is it just a vegetable without a soul (read "consciousness")? Isn't it funny yourself?"
Very funny! I don't know which is more important - that you wrote a vegetable with a soft sign or that you think that an unborn baby has consciousness. The soul may be a theological and controversial issue, here I wash my hands. But consciousness?! You're kidding, right? He's not a vegetable, he's a fruit. He has no consciousness.

"But "the biological" explanation here is more than suitable"
A biological explanation in a fantasy series? Don't you feel sick yourself? The next point I suggest is to find out if vampires have hormones and how they are generally produced, given the dead... all (no).
In the 17th century, Darla did not have children, but nevertheless we had enough screen time with Darla the human so that a couple of messages earlier you concluded that she was close to psychopathy? I quote you in my last message. So what did she have "suppressed" and what was "disinhibited"?

Besides, who told you that her love for the child suddenly woke up?"
Oh, how convenient! Everything that does not fit into your theory is just a lie of everyone always! Beauty, very scientific (you compared yourself to a scientist, right?)! Well, probably, since words are not an argument for you, her actions and attempts to get rid of the child told me that love woke up suddenly? Like her words, yes.

@MrsChimodanova: I repeat to you that the series literally shows, repeatedly, the possibility of visual display and manipulation of concepts such as abilities, powers, memories. Therefore, it shows that in the laura of the series this is possible. And you can call something whatever you want. This does not give grounds to interpret the name literally.

"Vampires say the same thing, since you don't believe the observers and slayers. Again, I repeat that such deception simply has no purpose.

What does deception have to do with it? No one talks about cheating. It was just that one thing was said out loud, the other could not be mentioned, but shown, without explanation. Why does the vampire say: "And I was already beginning to be afraid that I had drunk too much"? Because if a person dies of blood loss, they won't become a vampire? That's how he's going to die when he becomes a vampire! In the series, this is literally implied! Spike says in the musical series that his heart is not beating. So all the vampires in Buffy are dead. Well, what difference does it make if a person died before or after conversion? This means that at least a certain amount of blood must be present in the body in order for conversion to occur.

"In the scene with the psycho vampire, even how he bites is not shown."

Actually, when you grab someone by the neck with one hand, the neck is completely closed only from the side where there are four fingers, and where the thumb is much more space. We don't have claws like crabs. 🤷🏻‍♂️

@MrsChimodanova:
"Very funny! I don't know which is more important - that you wrote a vegetable with a soft sign or that you think that an unborn baby has consciousness.

You are confusing consciousness and self-awareness. The fetus can feel, touch, hear, sleep, move. This is consciousness.

A biological explanation in a fantasy series? Don't you feel sick yourself? The next point I suggest is to find out if vampires have hormones and how they are generally produced, given the dead... All (no)".

Does the blood in the bodies of the heroes of the series pulsate due to magic? Do the laws of physics work at the expense of magic? Do scientists (not the Initiative) study the laws of magic in laboratories? Do people's gadgets and cars work there at the expense of magic? So you can also weave biological explanations, weaving it with the fantasy ent of the series. ACTUALLY, THIS IS HOW IT IS DONE IN THE SERIES. How did the chip in Spike's brain function? Did you use magic to find out when Spike intends to harm living beings and when he doesn't? Of course, at the expense of magic, because this is fantasy, right? In fantasy, everything is done only through magic! 🧌

"In the 17th century, Darla did not have children, but nevertheless we had enough screen time with Darla the human so that a couple of messages earlier you concluded that she was close to psychopathy?"

I just assumed what she might be like. Maybe she was a psychopath, or maybe she wasn't. Maybe she was a sociopath (and that's another thing). Anyway, even psychopaths have peculiar exceptions in attitude or behavior.

@MrsChimodanova:

Well, probably, since words are not an argument for you, her actions and attempts to get rid of the child told me that love woke up suddenly? Like her words, yes."

I knew you'd say that, so I knew I'd have to explain.:

While the effect on Darla's mind is weak, she is angry at the child, trying to get rid of him. Gradually, something arises in her that is alien to her vampire nature - love. And that pisses her off even more. What are the attempts to get rid of. But the longer the period, the stronger the feeling of love and the fiercer the internal struggle goes on inside Darla's consciousness. In the end, at the end of the term, the impact is so great that " defeats the vampire inside " her and realizing the direct threat to the child's life from herself, love for him outweighs even a sense of self-preservation and Darla decides to sacrifice herself, fearing that the attitude towards the child will change when he does not she will be influenced by being inside her (as all children influence their mothers by being in their womb).

@Sternenreich:
Tell me honestly - it's just fun for you to repeat the same thing a hundred times, right?

"This does not give grounds to interpret the name literally."
Answered above.
"What does deception have to do with it? No one talks about cheating."
Answered above.
"Why does the vampire say: "And I was already afraid that I had drunk too much"?"
Answered above.
"This means that at least a certain amount of blood must be present in the body for conversion to occur."
You made that up. Apart from the remark of this one, your beloved, vampire, there is not even a hint of this. Also answered above.
"when you grab someone by the neck with one hand, the neck is completely closed only from the side where there are four fingers, and where the thumb is there is much more space"
And you will reconsider this point after all.

Spike says in the episode musical that his heart is not beating. So all the vampires in Buffy are dead."
And suddenly Spike's words that his heart wasn't beating became an argument that all vampires were dead. And what about trusting only the facts?

"The fetus can feel, touch, hear, sleep, move."
A quick Google showed that with the proof of consciousness in the fetus, too, everything is not so clear.
Anyway, let's go back to the shower. This is your poetic description of the love growing in Darla - how does it contradict the fact that this happens under the influence of the child's soul? Does the word itself distort you so much, or what is the problem?

You do realize that the science at Buffivers is very conditional, right? You are trying to bring your own explanation under an already existing one. If you remember the Buffivers scientists, then this is how to start analyzing Fred's inventions, for example, from the point of view of real science. It can be fun, but it has little to do with the series.

@MrsChimodanova: "You made it up. Apart from the replica of this one, your beloved, vampire, there is not even a hint of it."
What is the logic of this replica? That too little blood could prevent conversion to a vampire. Or can you find a different logic in these words? In this scene, we see the following facts: the guard was bitten, was dead, turned into a vampire. What do we know for sure? "The dead can turn into vampires. We know this well not only from this scene, but also from many others. For example, Buffy has a lot of scenes where vampires either climb out of the grave or turn into a coffin (examples: Buffy's classmate, killed by Angelus, in the second season. An old grandmother who turned into a coffin in season 7. A vampire who turned in the morgue, in the fifth season, being also already dissected). The question is: why the fuck should the presence of blood in the body matter if the body died anyway? Only if a bloodless body can't turn into a vampire. Death itself is not an obstacle to conversion (as I have already shown from the examples), so that vampire did not mean that he was afraid to kill the guard, draining him too much. The words of a vampire in this case are quite suitable as an argument, because in this case they do not imply subtexts, but are literal. Terms whose literality can be questioned are not used here.
And suddenly Spike's words that his heart wasn't beating became an argument that all vampires were dead. And what about trusting only the facts?"
In this case, everything is simple: the heart is either beating or not. From the examples above, we know that the vampires in Buffy are medically dead. They have no pulse and no breathing. Spike's words only voice this. There is no room for interpretation here: either yes or no. Either it beats or it doesn't. Coupled with the facts and words of Spike, who has no need to lie and whose words cannot be interpreted in many other ways, such an obvious conclusion is made.

@Sternenreich:
"What is the logic of this remark?"
We started the conversation with this, just reread it.

"There is no room for interpretation here: either yes or no."
Okay, I assumed that I would have to explain, but I hoped that you would understand anyway. I don't question the deadness of vampires, nor the fact that their hearts don't beat. I just decided to emphasize a funny point: you use Spike's words as an argument, although several messages above reproached me for using the words of the characters as evidence.

And can I please have an answer about Darla? I was asking something there just one message ago. Or will you admit defeat?

@MrsChimodanova: "I just decided to emphasize a funny point: you cite Spike's words as an argument, although several messages above reproached me for using the words of the characters as evidence."
In this case, you can cite Spike's words for two reasons:
1. The question of the presence of blood circulation does not imply a difference of interpretation. It either exists or it doesn't. And Spike knows for sure if his heart is beating or not.
2. The fact that vampires are clinically dead is confirmed by various facts from the series, not just Spike's words.
"And can I please have an answer about Darla? I was asking something there just one message ago. Or will you admit defeat?"

@MrsChimodanova: Yes, here we can admit that the case of Darla can be interpreted in both ways, so her case is not suitable as an argument. But there are other moments, such as Angelus' words in the episode "Innocence". How does he argue that he didn't kill Buffy? He says it's too easy for her. He wants to make her suffer in the most terrible way to get back at her for making him feel like a human being. Why is he talking about the Angel as himself?

@MrsChimodanova: As if Angelus and Angel are one person? If Angelus was a separate person - a demon, and the soul was another person - a human Angel (or Sven, as he was called during his lifetime, as far as I remember), then how could she make a demon feel like a human? With this interpretation, the only thing that the demon knows about being human is from the memories of the former owner of the body, but in that case, what difference does it make to him? Some memories are more, some are less. Angel/Sven had been human before Buffy, so what? Moreover, for about a hundred years as a vampire with a soul, when he actively did good without Buffy. This phrase is logical only if Angelus is aware that he and Angel are the same person. One person, not two different entities and personalities: a demon and a human soul sharing one body. That's why he perceives the experience of a relationship with Buffy as something so personal and hurtful to him. Which makes him ashamed of himself. And it is not difficult to notice that, for some reason, as Angelus, he continues to have a strong passion for Buffy, only now in a vampire manner. Why is it that in Buffivers, the soul and the demon in the vampire are always so closely intertwined, and in both directions? The vampire Angelus inherits his love for Buffy from the human soul of an Angel/Sven, like the human soul, William for some reason inherits the love for Buffy from the vampire Spike (at the same time, as if William had always been a human, all this time in Spike's body and did not go anywhere. Without a history of relationship development, but just once and - I love you too!).

@Sternenreich: The angel's name was Liam (probably short for William?)

If that's the case, then Spike and Angel have the same names during their lifetime, before turning into vampires.

@detraque: Wow, it's interesting after 20 years to find out such a small but interesting fact.👍

@EyeOfTheRaven: Wikipedia says <3> and it probably happened in Angel a couple of times, because I remember this fact even before reading the wiki)

@S1S13AF7: I think it was about Will being shy of boys)

@tevladka: Apparently it will be later, because Spike's past has not yet been revealed at all.

The last time I watched the series as a child, I remember almost nothing about the plot, what will happen next)

@tevladka: vampires = psychopaths. The soul is a poetic metaphor. Psychopaths can also love, but in a psychopathic way.

I don't know how much I agree with the comparison with psychopaths, but vampires really have their own way, there's no point equating them with people and their feelings.

@detraque: I do not have enough knowledge of English, alas)

@StasyaVasya: Russian subtitles to help)

@Miss_Foxy: I like to think that Buffy's point of view in Buffy, and the dark, mysterious boyfriend is exactly her perception. And in "Angel" the Angel's own point of view, and there he is clearer to us, and acts stupidly more often.

@QueenOfGems: I think that's the way it is. Can be divided as female gaze and male gaze

@QueenOfGems: I'm curious, why are they "minus"?

@Miss_Foxy: Oh, I accidentally)

@detraque: yes, I stumble on the Internet, here and there)..there are plenty of them, actually)

@Miss_Foxy: you can find anything on Tumblr, and there are a lot of them in VK)

@EyeOfTheRaven: I checked, and it looks like all roads really lead to tumblr)) It really has EVERYTHING)