the Initiative had a large number of "demons" in captivity, and yet many of the soldiers discounted a supernatural explanation. They saw them as werid mutant animals.

But it doesn't matter what you call the bad beasties; it does't matter what people think they are; it matters how they react to the bad beasties. If vampires were on television, at least people would be able to say "yes, that's a ____ (cult, bunch of weirdoes, team of vaccuum-racers), I recognize them and know how to react", rather than what they do now, which is rationalize things such that they never have to react at all.

The Wishverse showed obvious signs that people can react to vampires in a contextually appropriate way. They still pretended they weren't vampires, but they didn't pretend there wasn't a problem, and they took steps accordingly.

Really, why does the slayer's identity have to be secret?

Because the Watcher's Council is a bunch of controlling bastards, and if they shut the Slayer off from everyone else, and were the only people that the Slayer had to rely on, they could control her much more easily.

Because the Watcher's Council is a bunch of controlling bastards, and if they shut the Slayer off from everyone else, and were the only people that the Slayer had to rely on, they could control her much more easily.

I realize this is the view of a certain portion of the fandom, but it is a very limited view, in my opinion.

The Watcher's Council might have been fearful that a full public revelation of an enemy that could offer eternal youth and vast physical power to people who joined its side would do more harm than good. Take Billy Fordam and multiply by, say, 50,000.

>There's also the fact that while NASA can't send its loudest detractors to the moon to prove them wrong

razzafrazzinCongressgrumblegrumble

I briefly went to a place where I could get NASA to send me to the moon by proclaiming I didn't believe in the moon landing. I lied very enthusiastically. It was a happy place.

I realize this is the view of a certain portion of the fandom, but it is a very limited view, in my opinion.

Well, why do you think that the Watcher's Council insisted that the Slayer keep her identity secret?

Take Billy Fordam and multiply by, say, 50,000.

I think you need to add more zeros.

Well, why do you think that the Watcher's Council insisted that the Slayer keep her identity secret?

Take Billy Fordam and multiply by, say, 50,000.

This. Owen. Joyce. Having to live somewhere. CNN. Stalkers. Madonna having to rent entire floors of hotels when she is in town. Homeland Security and George W. Bush.

Comics and speculative fiction are filled with good and vast explanations for keeping a secret identity secret. I'm not saying that's the only way it could be, just that there are plenty of other and interesting explanations. Also, Buffy as Madonna might be an interesting show (and might not) but it wasn't the one we were watching from WTTH.

Patriarchy=Eb1L, got that anvil, but I just think that the Helpless-only focus on the Council is a limited take on secret identity and other Watcher-related issues and it gets waved around alot. Sorry, didn't mean to pick on you, that's just one of my interpretation hot buttons.

Yeah, I don't buy Giles and Wesley as the only good things the Council has ever produced in several thousand years. I'm sure Quentin Travers is *far* from their only evil malnipulative bastard, but it still seems likely they did quite a bit of good in their way. And regarding the Kendra Slayer method, frankly, there were bound to be plenty of Slayers for whom that would've been a blessing.

I don't think the council should be viewed as good or bad. It's purpose was good. Some of its methods were good, some were bad. Some watchers were good. Some were bad. I think the Council enjoyed wielding the power the secret-identity-issue gave it over the slayer. I don't think that power was its only motive for keeping the slayer's identity a secret, or even the biggest one. I think was a motive, though.