April 2002 posts
James Marsters Concert --
Dochawk, 14:06:40 04/15/02 Mon
Is anyone else going to the JM concert this weekend? if, so leave me a message.
[>
Re: James Marsters Concert -- Grace, 22:49:04 04/15/02 Mon
Would you please tell me the details about the concert? Where? When? I'd like to go.
[>
Re: James Marsters Concert -- Anneth, 08:52:38 04/16/02 Tue
I'm going; flying down from Sacramento Saturday afternoon and dragging an old friend along with
me. (He's never going to stop teasing me about it, either...)
Anneth
Excerpts from Jane Espenson's
Commentary on Room W/A Vu -- Marie, 16:38:09 04/15/02 Mon
The following are excerpts from Jane Espenson’s commentary on the DVD of Room W/A Vu. Italics
are my own comments/paraphrasing; words in capitals are where JE emphasises that word, and she
is “JE”, Angel is “A”, Cordelia, “C”, Doyle, “D”, Buffy, “B”, simply for my own convenience! Where
things may look a little odd, they’re typed as JE has said them. Also, remember it's not the whole
thing - I left out all the "Oh, Charisma did a great job reacting, here" type things, for instance. I
hope you find it interesting, anyway.
JE starts by commenting that the humour used on A is very different to that used on B – much
darker, and very much character-led. Also that the writers on B watch and discuss the episodes of A,
so that they can keep up with it, and in case they are asked to write an episode, or parts of an
episode.
Scene: C, after moving out of her own cockroach-infected place, has received a complaint from A that
there was peanut butter on the sheets.
There’s a line in this scene where A says “I don’t eat”, which isn’t really true – we’ve seen vampires
eat. Spike on B eats ALL the time. It’s a little bit of a licence – I think vampires don’t get
nourishment from human food, and they don’t really taste it. The episode, called “I Will Remember
You”, where A gets a taste of being human, he can taste FOOD, and it’s a shock to him, like he’d
forgotten how good food was when you’re human, so I think there’s some complicated stuff about
vampires and eating, and I hope we’ve been consistent in it, but this is the type of thing that
sometimes you aren’t and the fans always catch you! The nice thing about that is, if you make a
mistake like that about reflections, or invitations, or any other aspect of vampire life, the fans will
generally solve it themselves, because they want it to be consistent, because they want to believe
that it’s a real world, so they’ll find an explanation that makes everything that they’ve heard be
consistent. It’s very helpful for us!
(Scene where C and D enter the apartment, after viewing the grotty ones.)
This always surprised me, that the apartment had an exterior door. I always pictured it opening
onto an interior hallway (if you remember, guys, this was actually changed in a later episode),
which in my mind made more sense, because A comes and visits her in the daylight. But it is a
beautiful apartment….
JE then goes on to talk about the wall, and that the face-in-the-wall was very simply done –
rubber wall, actor standing behind it, pressing his face into the rubber.
(Scene: in D’s apartment, A’s fight with Griff, the demon chasing D)
The idea of demons having sort of an underworld, a very complicated society, where they live human-
like lives, and have human-like concerns, is something that is very different in the A-world than in
the B-world. We see a lot of characters like Spike, particularly vampires, who live in the human
world and have to steal things, or go shopping, or find their food, and worry about money and things
like that, in the B-world occasionally, but much less. In the B-world, demons tend to just sort of pop
up and go “Grrr”, and they exist in the B-world frequently as metaphors for human causes and
human conditions and human concerns, whereas in the A-world, they, themselves, live human lives.
They’re both very equal. They’re both exactly what you need for the style of stories on those two
shows. But it’s an interesting difference. In A, you’re much more likely to have sympathetic
demons, who are not evil. In B, all else being equal, you can assume that a demon is evil. On A, you
really don’t assume that. There was a whole episode (Judgement) that had to do with A
killing a demon who appeared by all evidence to be evil, and who was not. A ended up having to take
his place, as a champion of someone who needed protecting. You have to be way careful on A that
you kill the right guys!
(Scene: A and D arrive at C’s after her first, spooky, night there)
See – look at him standing there, right where the sunlight could’ve got him. It’s not quite clear how
A safely got to that doorway. (A hands C a cactus plant) He’s just given her a cactus as a
housewarming present, the notion being that… it was supposed to be an implication that C’s very
cactus-like, that she’s got a lot of protective barriers.
Now the way… how does A just walk into that apartment? The way that’s in this particular script is
that, early in the episode, she says “When I get an apartment, you’re, like, totally invited”, and that
gave him the power to enter this apartment, as if he’d had a specific invitation for this dwelling,
which I think is really interesting. In my first draft of this, she went to the door; it looked like he
couldn’t come in, and D said “Hey, A, come on in” and A walked in and C says “Oh, my God, how
could HE invite you in – he doesn’t even live here! These rules are completely screwed up!”, which
was a funny joke, because sometimes our rules DO get screwed up and it might be fun to comment
on it, but I think they were very right to ask me to change that, because it would’ve been very
confusing for the whole rest of the series – it would have made it very muddy about when a vampire
can walk in and when they can’t.
(Scene: back in AI office. C is pouring coffee)
We drink a lot of coffee in A. There was actually an episode of B, I think, where A established that
he doesn’t drink coffee, but I think he’s changed his mind!
(JE mentions here that David Greenwald’s original title was “Room with a View”, and that she
had an alternative title of “Re: Lease”, but decided to stick with the original, just changing the
spelling to “Room W/A Vu” so that it looked like a rental ad.)
(Glenn Quinn’s accent)
There were some things here, where the actor actually HAD that accent, and what we discovered
was that sometimes it would make lines that we thought would sound very clear, actually a little
incomprehensible, because of the loss of the “T-H” sound… He can do an American accent, so we’d
have to go back and have him loop lines with a less exaggerated form of his own accent – so there
was a line, I believe, in the previous scene where he says “Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a death”
that came out “Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a debt”, so you couldn’t tell what the heck he was
talking about, so we had him go back in and re-loop it. Some of the fans, I think, felt that his accent
came and went. That wasn’t because of the way he was doing it – that’s because we would have him
NOT do it, on purpose, ‘cos you just couldn’t understand it!
(Goes on to talk about not doing much research on ghosts or poltergeists, because they are things
that you can say pretty much anything about, but that if anything ‘real’ is talked about she does a lot
a research, because they try to get stuff right. Also, they try to be consistent about ‘vampire
rules’:
They don’t turn into bats, and they don’t turn into werewolves – other than Dracula, who appeared
in an episode of B – and I kinda like that we have the freedom to make up our own rules, and as long
as we’re consistent within them, that’s how vampires work.
(Also mentions here that, when complimented on a joke in an episode, it very often turns out to be
something that Joss W or David Greenwalt has written.
Phantom Dennis was originally called Bob, but JW didn’t like that, so JE changed it to Phantom
Dennis because the Star Wars film had just been released at this time.
Mentions Charisma’s tattoo, which can be briefly seen in a shot – it was felt that Cordelia would not
have a tattoo, so they try to miss it if they can. I wonder why they just can’t conceal it with make-
up?
Scene: the demons have broken into C’s apartment and are shooting)
This was one of the first times, I think, that we saw demons holding guns, which is something you
generally wouldn’t see. For instance, on B, guns are much more of a real-world item, much more of a
detective show item, and an adult item. Our characters on B are young enough that, particularly
during the High School years, it would be very unpleasant to see them with a gun, whereas criminals
in the real world of Los Angeles, it’s somewhat less… it’s more appropriate. It’s more a part of that
world.
(Scene: backflash to Dennis being bricked up by Mom)
Now, if you create a character on a television show, which means to say YOU write the episode in
which that character appears for the first time, you get paid again, a little additional money – it’s
about $300 every time that character appears in a subsequent episode. The character of Phantom
Dennis has come back, but since it is not played by an actor – we never see that actor who we see
getting boarded up in the wall, we don’t see him again, we just see, sort of wire gags and tricks,
involving, you know, the implication of “the ghost”, so I don’t get any money. Kind of a rip-off.
(JE says this, not in a nasty, annoyed sort of way, but rather, in a resigned, “one of those things”
kind of way.)
(Last scene: C on ‘phone to her old High School friend, Aura)
C refers to the fact that there are celebrities living in her building. She says Steve Paymer lives in
this building. He’s David Paymer’s brother (a character actor seen in a lot of movies) (my spelling
– I’ve never heard of him, so it’s a guess!), and I put that in because it seemed right for this
moment; that it’s something C would be impressed by, and also because Steve Paymer lives in MY
apartment building. He lives just across the hall from me – so that’s just a note from my own
life.
(End)
[>
Much Thanks -- agent156, 17:04:56 04/15/02 Mon
Thank you for going through all the trouble to type all of this up.
Would it be too greedy of me to ask for more?
[> [>
I got Angel Season 2 today! -- Rahael, 18:22:12 04/15/02 Mon
Just finished watching Tim Minear's commentary on "Are you Now or have you ever been". Good
stuff!
I love the bit about Angel's present of a cactus to Cordelia telling us something about Cordelia. See!
See! sometimes a cactus is more than a cactus!
I'm happy to do the transcripty thing for Angel Season 2, if Marie hasn't got it yet.
[> [> [>
Please do, Rahael! -- Marie, 01:24:12 04/16/02 Tue
I'm very happy to do others, as I get them, but it takes a long time to do one (TV downstairs,
computer upstairs, shorthand mostly forgotten, five-year-old needing just a bit of attention!), so they
could take their time appearing:o)
There is actually a Joss/David Fury one on "City of", but as far as I remember, there wasn't a great
deal to take out of it - lots of stuff about camera angles, and teasing each other - I'll re-watch it and
see if it's transferable to page.
Marie
[>
Sometimes, I feel like I'm the only person on Earth w/o a DVD player. -- Apophis,
17:26:47 04/15/02 Mon
[> [>
Me too. But I'm waiting patiently for Xmas to come 'round. -- LadyStarlight, 17:45:48
04/15/02 Mon
[>
Re: Excerpts from Jane Espenson's Commentary on Room W/A Vu -- Rufus, 01:03:24
04/16/02 Tue
I posted your work on my site...thanks Marie...
That was cool. Was that the first time...?
(spoiler)s -- The Last Jack, 19:09:05 04/15/02 Mon
Was that the first time David ever played Angel angry like that? Everytime I can remember seeing
him angry, its always been, dark, moody, and no real emotion, just cold menace. This time it was full
of emotion, screaming, and firey rage (ugh, that sounded corny, but it sounds right). He should do
that more often, it was cool.
The Last Jack
PS: How much you bet Wes doesn't even have a scar from his injury. Ever notice how no one ever
scars on this show ;)
[>
Oh, Yeah--(SPOILERS for tonight's Angel) -- SingedCat, 19:30:15 04/15/02 Mon
I can only think of it as Angel being utterly humanly crazily furious. The frantic father. There was
no trading for his demonic side here-- did anybody else flash back to the Mayor? He was a powerful
sorcerer and a huge bigwig in the town, but when he saw Buffy lying in the hospital his attack on
her was deeply personal, human rage, pure and simple.
That being said my heart just bled for Wesley. And dammit, why was there no talking in all of
this??? If Angel and Wesley had talked about what was going on, nothing could have hurt them.
Instead there was loneliness, isolation, distraction, silence, silence, silence-- betrayal, betrayal,
Wesley lying dying in a park.
Dammit. My favorite character.
And just on the side, is he even *capable* of dying? Jesus! Stabbed in the throat, shot in the gut, slit
throat-- he's the bleeding sacrificial lamb of the series, pun intended. Now *there's* an article.
Excise me...:)
[> [>
Impression right off the bat ("Forgiving" Spoilers) -- Doriander, 19:50:58
04/15/02 Mon
Sahjhan's motive-- eliminate Connor before Connor grows up to defeat him. So, he sends Holtz to kill
Connor. It appears Sahjhan counted on Holtz to kill Darla who's carrying Connor in her womb. Holtz
sabotaged that, so he wants Connor dead while still an infant.
Anyone reminded of another Connor here? One John Connor (The Terminator and T2)?
Coincidence?
[> [> [>
Re: Whew! -- Valhalla, 20:13:37 04/15/02 Mon
The last scene really impressed me. I had even seen one of the spoiler still shots -- Angel lunging at
Wes. And right up until he actually turned into crazy Angel, I was thinking that the spoiler shot
was a false leak. That was very well played.
I don't remember Angel playing that kind of anger before. Even as Angelus, when he was angry, it
was always a little bit evil character comic-book kind of angry, not this deliberate rage.
I'm really glad that they didn't play the misunderstood prophecy card again (even though, the result,
for Wesley was pretty much the same).
[> [> [> [>
If I were in Wesley's place... -- VampRiley, 20:34:30 04/15/02 Mon
and after I was told about what happened, I would have a big hate on for Angel.
VR
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: If I were in Wesley's place... -- sTalking Goat, 22:57:28 04/15/02 Mon
Why? There were all duped but I still think Wes is most in the wrong about not taking what he
thought he knew to anyone else.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
And Angel, of all people, should be BRIMMING with forgiveness -- Earl Allison, 02:17:50 04/16/02 Tue
Wesley may have been in the wrong, but for someone who has been desperately seeking absolution,
someone who has almost always tried to help others reach it (Faith springs to mind), and someone
who KNOWS how far a man can slide, Angel seemed rather one-sidedly vicious.
I'd remind him of those lawyers he fed to Drusilla and Darla, or the fact that he was more than
willing to kill Lilah in "the White Room," or in a slightly more mitigating way, the hundreds he's
maimed, killed, and tortured as Angelus.
For someone who has been seeking, if not absolution (which he finally determined he could never
truly have), to make things right in the world, he showed a remarkable lack of understanding to
someone who was, until recently, a friend -- well, how does it feel when it's you? Sure, it's petty, but
maybe now Angel can see what betrayal is like from the other side -- like when he fired the group to
go off on his own little revenge-fest, and his tryst with Darla.
At least Wesley's gesture was meant to protect an innocent, and made with the best knowledge he
had -- not at all like Angel's suicide run. Were I Angel, I'd be rethinking my entire raison de etre
right about now, because I'm not so sure I'd be worthy of working for the Light anymore -- torture,
kidnapping, attempted murder -- not good things.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: And Angel, of all people, should be BRIMMING with forgiveness -- VampRiley,
13:39:32 04/16/02 Tue
It was important to show the sunrise. It showed that before they found Wesley, several hours at least
had passed. Lorne and Angel's conversation showed him being calm and collected. Angel took the
time to talk to Wesley calmly to explain where he was coming from. Angel wanted Wes to realize
that it was him, not Angelus, that killed him. Wes is not the one who put Connor in Holtz's hands.
Gunn and Fred both heard that Wes was innocent and they must have told Angel. Justine is the one
who slit his throat and took Connor. But Angel went after him anyway. If he wants to go after
someone, go after Justine, Lilah or Linwood.
Wesley was a victim of circumstances. He was played. And if Angel wants to blame the one whose
responsible for all of it, he should be looking in the urn.
After Wesley gets a bit better, Gunn and Fred will tell him what was going on.
And if I was in Wesley place and I heard all this, then I would definiely hate Angel for trying to kill
me while I was in my hospital bed. I may have had a hand in it, but it was an unknowing one. I
didn't want this to happen.
Angel is just having a hard time getting through his pain. He's lashing out. But there is a point of
lashing out where a simple apology isn't enough. And Angel definitely crossed it.
I just don't see this as being Wesley's fault.
But since I'm not him, and just a viewer, I'm really enjoying it.
VR
[> [> [> [>
I just HAVE to say this.. -- Liz, 16:02:13 04/16/02 Tue
I had heard that leak about the picture of Angel smothering Wes. Or, I had heard "Angel attacks
Wes in a hospital bed." I heard it by accident and I wasn't trying to confirm it. But I watched the
episode, and I kept thinking, "No, he's still in the park. No, it hasn't happened yet. Ok, now they
know the truth and they still haven't found him. Now he's in the hospital but they already know,
and Fred & Gunn are right there to tell Angel when he shows up." So I thought it was just a false
rumor.
Then Angel shows up, listens to them, appears to understand, and goes in alone. And the entire
time in that room I was thinking, "Oh, HELL." Especially when he started talking very gently about
how he did not hurt Connor and that he wants Wes to realize that he is Angel, not Angelus.
It was just one of those moments where knowing the spoiler ahead of time made the whole thing
even richer and more gripping. That doesn't happen often.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Whew! (possibly spoilerish) -- J, 13:18:31 04/17/02 Wed
I'm really glad that they didn't play the misunderstood prophecy card again (even though, the
result, for Wesley was pretty much the same).
Yeah, but aren't you concerned that they're setting us up for a misunderstood prophecy plotline? I
can see it coming from a mile away now, and I haven't even looked at the spoiler boards!
[> [> [>
Re: Impression right off the bat ("Forgiving" Spoilers) -- RichardX1, 08:11:30 04/16/02 Tue
So Sahjhan is playing Apocalypse in this whole Cyclops-Cable ripoff? Interesting...
[> [>
Frantic Fathers (Spoilers for Forgiving, Graduation 2) -- Scroll, 19:54:32 04/16/02
Tue
I think you're right on the money with comparing Angel's attempt to smother Wesley with the
Mayor's attempt to smother Buffy in Graduation 2. It's a direct parallel that shows how very human
both Angel and the Mayor really are despite being a vampire/invincible immortal. When Faith and
Buffy have that shared psychic dream, Faith tells Buffy that the key to destroying the Mayor is to
play on his human weakness: his love for his daughter, Faith.
And here we have Angel in a similar situation; his son has been 'killed' by one of his best friends.
Angel is in a murderous rage, too blinded by grief and hate to think straight. He's in total chaos. (I
think that point's been drummed in by the scary little girl in the White Room). And I loved the fact
that he made damn sure Wes knew he was Angel, not Angelus, right before he tries to kill him. I
totally did not see that coming! It was gripping, to say the least, but I don't know if I can watch this
episode again any time soon. It was so *raw*. Too painful to watch twice. But I loved it
anyway!
[>
Re: No scars -- hoping, 23:26:53 04/15/02 Mon
Anyone else notice that Buffy never has the scars from being bitten when we see her neck (except of
course when Dracula notices them). For a girl who doesn't know how to use foundation, she can hide
those scars well
[> [>
Must be those fabulous Maybelline products! -- Night Repair, 00:07:27 04/16/02
Tue
tonite's angel (spoilers) -- the warden,
21:39:50 04/15/02 Mon
anyone else pissed about this episode? wes is like invincible. how many lives does this cat have?
also, angel raging at the end was ridiculus. come on, kill wes with a pillow? couldve just snapped
his neck if he really wanted to. hes just acting foolish. theres just something about a vampire
yelling death threats at a fatally injured man in the icu at the hospital that makes me laugh.
and i dont understand what the deal is with this prophesy sh*t. if something is prophesized, theres
really no way to avoid it. sahjan must know that. hes is, afterall, a time traveller. the ability to
travel through time factors in with the prophesies. two conclusions:
1. prophesy is true: connor is going to come back and kill sahjan no matter what is done. it cant be
stopped.
2. prophesy is false: connor doesnt kill him. no need to kill connor.
man, i just dont get it, can someone enlighten me?
[>
Re: tonite's angel (spoilers) -- sTalking Goat, 22:02:47 04/15/02 Mon
The prophecy thing is really stupid. I have yet to see a prophecy in the entire Buffyverse that comes
out exactly as stated, yet everyone puts such stock in them.
Angel's spit addled rant was a little silly. A pillow? Come on, he could have probably widened 'Whats
her name's' pathetic attempt at murder (how incompetent must you be to screw up slitting someone's
throat? The vein is practically bulging, what do you need landing lights) with a flick of his
pinky.
[>
usually when people don't succeed it's because they won't/can't let themselves. -- yuri,
00:02:34 04/16/02 Tue
sounds like a line from a self help book, but I completely think that's why neither Angel nor what's-
her-[bruised]-face killed Wesley. (Her - still too apprehensive and unsure about the purity of her
motives to kill a human. Him - doesn't really want to kill Wes dead, really, come on.)
As for the prophecy, I think it'll still come true. I kept expecting Gru to bust in and kill Sahjan (sp?)
and then we'd all be like "ohhhh." (just speculation, guys! I'm a spoiler prude!) I think it'll be funny
that we were all expecting the "Father will Kill the Son" prophecy to come true despite Wesley, if
really the "Connor will kill Sahjan" prophecy comes true despite Sahjhan.
[> [>
spoilers above, natch. -- yuri, 00:04:31 04/16/02 Tue
[> [>
Re: usually when people don't succeed it's because they won't/can't let themselves. -- RichardX1, 08:21:11 04/16/02 Tue
Finally, someone else has seen the light!
>>As for the prophecy, I think it'll still come true. I kept expecting Gru to bust in and kill Sahjan
(sp?) and then we'd all be like "ohhhh."<<
Finally, someone else has seen the truth! Come, we must bring the news of Groosalug's identity to
all unbelievers!
but seriously...
>>I think it'll be funny that we were all expecting the "Father will Kill the Son" prophecy to come
true despite Wesley, if really the "Connor will kill Sahjan" prophecy comes true despite
Sahjhan.<<
And that's really the point of this story arc, isn't it? Sahjhan was trying to do the same thing that
Wesley was: undo prophecy. And as anyone familiar with Greek tragedy knows, those who attempt
to undo prophecy usually end up fulfilling it in the process. And I get the feeling that Sahjhan will
end up suffering for his hubris even more than Wesley did.
'Reasonable' rage for a parent? (spoilers for
Angel 4/15/02) -- Grace, 22:34:40 04/15/02 Mon
As a "rational" person I was a bit perplexed by Angel's rage at the end of this episode. Why kill Wes?
What will it accomplish?
I am not a parent and think that my confusion may have its origin in this fact. I don't "really"
understand the anger and grief he is experiencing. I own cats and love them more than words and
know that if anyone hurt them I would be devastated and very, very angry, but I like to hope that I
would maintain some aspect of rational behavior and listen to the explanation of the person that
caused the harm. Here, Wes thought he was SAVING Conner, not harming him. His intentions
must count for something. Yet, Angel was incapable of listening to this reason and wanted only to
lash out at the “cause” of his pain.
The episode reminded me of an experience I had as a teenager. When I was 16, one of my friends ran
away from home because she found out she was pregnant. She too was only 16. Unfortunately, the
run-away turned rather dramatic very quickly because my friend’s grandfather was a big-shot
lawyer who had been getting threats from the mob. The FBI got involved because they were not sure
whether the girl had been kidnaped or killed, etc. I didn't know for sure that my friend had run
away, but I suspected strongly that she had since she had told her mom she was spending the night
at my house and then just disappeared. Plus, I possessed some information which would support
my belief that she had run away from home (e.g., that she was pregnant and scared) and that she
had not been kidnaped or killed. I thought I should try to put the parent’s at ease so I went to my
friend's home and told her parents what I knew. The mom went into a frenzy, threatened me and
tried to attack me. The father escorted me out of the house and told me to come back when the mom
calmed down. That was 15 years ago and even though the girl and I are still friends, the mom has
never spoken to me again.
I tell you this because Angel's rage reminded me of the way the mom acted when I told her that her
daughter was pregnant. It made me conclude that when a parent feels/believes their child is
threatened or harm they loose all reason and just lash out.
Does something about this relationship supersede rationality??? Am I wrong to reach this
conclusion? Any insight?
[>
Re: 'Reasonable' rage for a parent? (spoilers for Angel 4/15/02) -- lulabel, 23:11:40
04/15/02 Mon
I'm a parent, and I can say unequivocally that there is nothing in the world resembling the bond
between a parent and child. It's hard to articulate, and I know it can sound patronizing to those
who don't have kids. I suspect that the relationship with a beloved pet is similar, since pets have the
same dependency on you that kids do. I think in human relationships, the closest thing to it is
probably the relationship that one has with one's parents as a small child - a very tight and very
dependent physical and emotional bond.
Perhaps the best way I can explain it is this - sometimes my kids drive me crazy, sometimes I don't
even LIKE them, but I would give up my life for either of them in a heartbeat. I love my parents and
I love my husband, but they are responsible for their own lives. As I parent, I feel not only
responsible for the health and happiness of my kids, their health and happiness is more important
than ANYTHING.
Yes, Angel was totally, completely irrational. But I have to say that as a parent, I totally got it.
Angel wasn't just attacking Wes out of rage - it was a total outpouring of all the rage, fear and guilt
that he was feeling. I can imagine that the mother who attacked you was in a similar mindset - she
was angry and scared out of her mind, feeling guilty that she didn't somehow prevent her daughter's
disappearance. She vented it on you, the most convenient target at the time.
[> [>
well said! I was about to post but now I don't have to. -- yuri, 00:09:31 04/16/02 Tue
[> [>
Re: 'Reasonable' rage for a parent? No...(spoilers for Angel 4/15/02) -- nightfox7,
02:01:30 04/16/02 Tue
but his rage was reasonably when you combine it with the rage he felt at being betrayed by a good
friend. Wesley and Angel have a deep relationship filled with trust. Wesley betrays that trust by
not telling Angel about the prophecy. As a Watcher and a scholar he should have known better than
to trust a prophecy 100%. By telling everbody, includeing Angel, a better plan might have been
made on how to best protect the child.
[> [> [>
Re: 'Reasonable' rage for a parent? No...(spoilers for Angel 4/15/02) -- Kitt, 07:16:25
04/16/02 Tue
I have to agree with both of the above posts. I know, sounds contradictory, but follow me:
what has happened has all occured withing less than 24 hours since Connor's kidnapping. Angel is
operating with the most intense grief/rage/uncertianty possible. He's going to do things that he
regrets later, because he has only one clear thought in his head, the thought that ended Sleep Tight:
"Connor". I'm a mom, and I agree with what was said above - it is the most intense and important
relationship in my life; how much more important must it be for Angel, who never expected to have a
son, who watched Darla die for to give their son life?
None of that means that, given time (and god willing, his son back), that Angel won't become more
clear-headed about this and see reason. As someone else said, there are a lot more effective ways of
killing an icu patient than scraming and holding a pillow over his head - Angel just snapped and let
go, I don't think he really wanted to kill Wes on a fundamental level. Personally, I think Wes has an
ass-kicking coming for not realizing that he needed to tell the others what he had found BEFORE
acting on it. Look at it this way: Connor's a lucky kid to have so many good people (Angel, Wes, and
the rest) care so much about him... and an unlucky kid that Angel and Wes are so irrational when
they think about him.
"Needles, should have thought of
that." spoilers for Angel: Forgiving -- Rufus, 22:35:52 04/15/02 Mon
First off...loved tonights ep which started off the evening that Connor was taken. The episode is
called Forgiving, an easy word to give lip service to, hard to actually do. All the characters were in a
bad situation. All did the best they could with what they knew. And the facts weren't always clear or
the truth. Fred was the one who wanted to know why Wesley would do what he did with Connor, she
just couldn't see the man she knew would betray everyone. Angel didn't much care and was out for a
way to find his kid....if not find then get revenge, he was put in the same spot he put Holtz in so long
ago, and we know what that pain caused Holtz to do.
The first thing we notice is that without Cordy there is no key to the file system she has concocted.
Without Wesley, there is no research guy, no archaic lingo guy, no diaries with pertinent
information....no Angel Investigations. The whole thing is kaplooey. But Angel was no longer
thinking about business, or anything but making those who took his son pay.
I have to admit a guilty pleasure of seeing a Wolfram and Hart Project head of blah blah blah, all
hogtied and lost for legal terms for his situation. What is it Wesley said in another episode...."What
happens when you cut off the head of a snake....you piss off all the other snakes"...Angel wasn't there
for that one I guess. Cause Angel has pissed off at least one or a sore necked two, Wolfram and Hart
people. But the worst thing for any employee of the W and H is what Angel said when Linwood
threatened him....
Angel: They'd kill you before they kill me.
Is that comment a checkmate or something. Well to get on with it...Angel wanted to get his fists onto
a Sahjan he could reach out and touch, and Linwood was the way to do it. So what is a little needle
work between friends? This sent Angel off to the "White Room". I've seen a white type room before
and it housed the Oracles....so I guess the bad and good guys share the same colour scheme. Inside of
this room that Lilah wasn't trusted to know about for three years, was an innocent looking little
girl...who has a thing for red. We did find out about Sahjan....he started out solid, and a pain in the
ass of the powers who may have liked a spot of trouble, but hated total chaos. So Sahjan was made
into an insubstantial man. Before then he did the torture, death and destruction thing just a bit too
well. Angel wanted him solid without a thought of what would be powerful enough to make even the
dark evil side want to take him out of game. Angel wanted revenge.
One thing I have to mention is Fred, she is the one that figured it out...figured out what Justine was
all about, and it isn't happiness, and found the information she needed by looking at the randomly
placed garbage heap at the Holtz training center. She was the one that told Justine that losing Holtz
must be like losing a father (sure)or worse.......that random garbage heap told Fred to look in the
trash for Wesleys diaries. She then uttered some words I hope to not hear again..."Throw me
out"
Those diaries showed Wesley's state of mind, and he was afraid...The Father shall kill the
son...Wesley tried everything he could then do the only thing he thought was left to protect Angel by
taking his son. Fred understands that Gunn and the Host can figure it out, Angel seemed to get it,
say the words, appear to mean them...until he came face to face with a gravely injured Wesley in the
hospital. Angel decided to then engage in a very loud one sided pillow fight. The look in Wesley's face
when Angel told him that he didn't turn evil, wanted to let Wes know that it wasn't Angelus, but
Angel. That was the worst thing that could happen. The Angel that went through an epiphany,
seemed to forget that like he, Wesley had done the best with the information he had. There was no
malicious intent, only the need to save Connor and Angel.....from a Prophesy that had been changed
by the time shifting Sahjan. Sahjan was attempting to save himself form the one sired by a vampire
who would grow into manhood and kill Sahjann.
Back to forgiveness. Justine, she believed the wrong man, did things that she would never have done
had she not met him, trusted him, loved him. Holtz only wanted to raise Connor as his own to spite
Angel. Can Justine forgive herself for slitting a man's throat? Can she redeem herself over and above
trapping Sahjann in a jar (left by the demon hating Holz)? Can Wesley come to terms with being
fooled by forged prophecies (you know Sahjann could have made it easier for all of us by initialing
any changes)? Can Angel first forgive himself for having such a taste for revenge that he forgets his
friends, forgets his quest for redemption. Can Angel forgive Wesley for doing the best he could,
sacrificing everything he stood for to protect Connor? Forgiveness, it's easy to say the word but
harder to mean what you say. Angel proved that tonight.
[>
very well said. -- neaux, 04:41:51 04/16/02 Tue
[>
Good thoughts and here's another.. -- AurraSing, 06:15:12 04/16/02 Tue
Is Justine warming a bunk in a jail cell right now? I think she's a loaded cannon if she is willing to
slit human throats for the cause.
[> [>
Apparantly Murder and Attempted Murder of Humans.. -- Docahwk, 11:29:15 04/16/02
Tue
is only a crime in the Buffyverse if they are committed by Faith. Angel attempted the murder of
Wesley infront of two orderlies at least. Thats an attempted murder arrest even if not conviction. I
understand about the need for suspension of disbelief, but for a show that built the destruction of a
character (Faith) on her accidental murder of a human and hearing continuously that humans are
different, there is a definite double standard.
[> [> [>
Re: Apparantly Murder and Attempted Murder of Humans.. -- Rufus, 13:02:09 04/16/02
Tue
Wait a minute here, Faith accidentally killed the Mayors aide, but then went on to ,without
hesitation, and a song in her heart, kill that Professor. That man had only written some books and
was no threat to anyone or thing. Which is a whole different box of cookies compared to another
situation surrounding a BTVS character.
Two kinds of monsters -- Grace,
22:55:20 04/15/02 Mon
Watching re-runs again:
Today, Giles said that as far as he could see it there were two kinds of monsters: (1) those who were
capable of redemption (or more importantly looking for it) and (2) those who are devoid of humanity
and could not respond to reason or love.
Very interesting distinction. Where does Spike fall?
I believe he is very much in search of redemption (even if it is not clear if he can find it) and he most
definitely responds to reason and love.
Is this the only explanation of "monsters" we have gotten in the show? All you guys who have the
entire show memorized--would you please quote me some other examples?
[>
Re: Two kinds of monsters -- skeeve, 12:03:27 04/16/02 Tue
Spike is clearly not in category 2: he responds to reason and love. Either he is in category 1, he is not
a monster, or Giles needs more categories.
[> [>
Giles needs more categories -- AngelVSAngelus, 12:09:56 04/16/02 Tue
Because our Spike would seem to fit into neither of those. He is neither seeking to make up for any
thing he's done in the past, nor does he not respond to love and reason. I think Gile's use of love as a
moral identifier is not a wise one. We've seen several indications in the past of love's ability to be the
motivator of both good (Buffy's constant sacrifice) and evil (Spike's apocalypse for Dru, Angel's
current vengeance-for-Connor rampage).
[> [> [>
Re: Giles needs more categories -- verdantheart, 12:35:40 04/16/02 Tue
The key phrase is "capable of." Following Giles' explanation, Spike would be capable of redemption
because he responds to love/reason. That does not mean that he is following up or actually redeeming
himself, just that the potential is present.
In other words, some monsters have the capacity for redemption, others do not. Whether or not that
capacity is fulfilled depends on the monster and his/her circumstances.
Forgiveness Just isn't Possible -- The
Watcher, 00:11:23 04/16/02 Tue
We like to think that we can be forgiving people. And when we look at other people and their
conflicts we ask ourselves why can't they forgive each other and live in peace.
Well, it isn't within us to forgive. When someone has inflicted so much pain on you, you can't just
move on, forgive and forget. When it happens to you personally you realize you can never forgive.
That's something I realized last year. That it is naive to expect people to forgive those who have
harmed them so deeply.
Angel's reaction was not one of a demon, but of a human. For all the talk otherwise, this is what's
within us. And there is no getting around that. It's our nature. And as such we can't deny this basic
need. Justine, Holtz, Angel. For them all that's left is the need for revenge. We might think that if
we were them we wouldn't have behaved that way. But we are wrong.
[>
Re: Forgiveness Just isn't Possible (Spoilers) -- Keyster, 00:17:16 04/16/02 Tue
Even Gunn talked of revenge tonight.
Had Angel harmed Winfred Gunn said that he would have slayed him.
No, it is naive to think that forgiveness is possible. There are some acts that are simply unforgivable,
regardless of any other consideration.
[> [>
Re: Forgiveness Just isn't Possible (Spoilers) -- Keyster, 00:21:21 04/16/02 Tue
And let us not forget Fred's little act of revenge. Even though it was far far far more mild than the
rest. She had to slap Justine when Justine told her that she killed Wesley.
No, the need for revenge is within all of us and has to come out in one form or another.
[> [>
it's naive to think that forgiveness is easy, debilitating to think it's impossible. -- yuri,
01:20:22 04/16/02 Tue
And even if there are "some acts that are simply unforgivable," (I'm not sure what I believe) they are
different for everybody. It is as false to say everyone would have acted the way Angel et al did as it is
to say that their feelings are totally out of line and unreal. Not everyone would have wanted to
smother Wesley, we all have different buttons and different reactions to their being pushed, but
they're all equally valid/invalid and true.
[>
Wrong. People have and continue to forgive worse. -- bookworm, 06:58:44 04/16/02
Tue
Human beings are capable of far more than revenge and hatred, even in the face of overwhelming
pain and betrayal. There are parents whose children have been murdered who visit the murderers in
prison and pray with them. There was a grand duchess in Russia whose husband was blown to
pieces by a bomb in front of her. She picked up pieces of his flesh. Later she went to the prison to
visit his assassin and beg him to repent so his soul would be saved. Those murderers didn't have the
best of intentions, either. They weren't trying to save Angel's child's life. Forgiveness may be
difficult, but it's not impossible. The natural reaction to the loss of a child does not have to be an
attempt to strangle the person who took the child.
[> [>
Re: Wrong. People have and continue to forgive worse. -- Arethusa, 09:55:29 04/16/02
Tue
Be patient please: I'm kinda thinking aloud here.
How forgiving is handled depends on the needs and character of the betrayed one and the betrayer.
Giles said one forgives because the betrayer needs it, but the victim sometimes needs it even more, to
be able to move on, not forgetting the betrayal necessarily, but not dwelling on it either. (I Only
Have Eyes For You)
When someone betrays you out of evil motives, forgiveness is easy; you don't have to take that
person's guilt or fear into account. You can feel pure, clean anger, then let it burn out, almost
cleansing you inside, like a cauterizing burn. Angel knew what he'd done to Holtz was beyond
forgiving, and neither seemed interested in the matter. Holtz wasn't, I think, interested in forgiving
or even revenge. If he were, he would have forgiven Angel or would have tried to kill Angel or
Connor. It seemed he just wanted to even the score, and, in his half-mad grief, replace some of what
he lost. He wanted his wife and children back.
When someone who loves you and whom you love betrays you, the situation becomes much more
messy. You feel guilty for hating them when they love you so much. You know the person well, so
often you know they did it out of fear, insecurity, misplaced pride, or some other all-too-human
failing, one that you might have yourself. Wes is insecure, we know, and Cordelia's not-infrequent
digs at his past mistakes, especially concerning prophesies, probably made him reluctant to say
anything. What if he were wrong again? Cordy would make fun of him, Angel would be worried
(and angered) unnecessarily, and he'd look like a fool in front of Fred and Gunn. Every time Wes's
confidence builds, it gets knocked down again, and an insecure person doesn't always have the
resiliancy and self-confidence to deal with set-backs, small or large.
Throughout the episode it looked as if Fred would find the reason for Wes's actions, Wes would
finally be found, and Angel would probably forgive him. When Angel was so careful to tell Wes that
he was not Angelus, I was sure of it. Then the attack, which couldn't have been meant to be fatal.
Come on, a pillow? A couple of orderlies and Gunn holding him off? Even if you take into account
Angel would't want to kill a human in plain sight, he surely would have wanted to see Wes's face
when he killed him. But he was screaming in rage, unlike any we've seen. Angel told Cordelia that
his murders were never about rage, they were about "pain and the pleasure." (Billy) Angelus told
Spike it was the artistry of the kill he was interested in. (Fool For Love) He was cool and deliberate
with Linwood. I think he wanted to scare Wes very deeply. I think he wants to punish him.
Angel's sins were those of a weak man-drunkeness, lechery, laziness. Despite his father's bullying,
Angel's anger was passive until he died. Angelus's sins were cooly and gleefully carried out. For the
first time, we have a combination of Angelus' deliberateness and Angel's rage. Forgiveness is the
last thing on his mind.
Quotes by Psyche.
[> [> [>
It's not the monster, it's the man. -- Angelus's victim, 23:09:17 04/16/02 Tue
Wes would finally be found, and Angel would probably forgive him. When Angel was so careful to tell
Wes that he was not Angelus, I was sure of it...
Actually, it was when Angel was so careful to tell Wes that he wasn't Angelus that I knew for sure
that Wesley was in for it.
It kind of reminded me of the statement Giles gave to Ben ... "she isn't like US." That signaled to me
that Ben was doomed.
Angel wanted Wesley to know that this time it wasn't the demon speaking and doing this act. No,
this wasn't the vampire inside. It was the human soul inside Angel compelling him to do it.
For some reason, it also reminded me of something Angel once said to Buffy. It isn't the demon but
the man that needs to be killed.
No, It wasn't Angelus, it was Angel.
I have a related question though. When Angel puts on his "Vampire face" does that give him greater
physical strength? Unless I am mistaken he didn't go all vampiry when he attacked Wesley, perhaps
further symbolizing that this was all Angel, and no Angelus.
[> [> [>
It was all Angel -- Keyster, 23:32:33 04/16/02 Tue
"For the first time, we have a combination of Angelus' deliberateness and Angel's rage. Forgiveness
is the last thing on his mind."
Angelus wasn't involved it this at all. That was the whole point of Angel explaining who it was doing
the killing.
Before we always had the ambiguiety. Yes Angel killed Ms Calendar, tortured Giles, etc, etc. BUT it
wasn't really Angel. It was the Vampire inside. It was Angelus. It was almost(but not quite) like
there were two different people.
But the point of the explanation is to make it really clear to Wesley that this isn't Angelus speaking.
THIS IS ANGEL. It was hard enough trusting Angel when they knew what Angelus was capable of.
But now they know the man apart from the monster.
I like the actor who plays Wesley. And for reasons of casting I know this wouldn't happen. But I see
the only thing for Wesley to do is to get as far away from Los Angeles as possible (perhaps Fiji). Be
sure not to go out at night, but instead stay in his own residence. And never invite anyone in.
[> [> [> [>
Re: It was all Angel -- Arethusa, 07:42:28 04/17/02 Wed
I didn't mean Angelus was there in any way, shape or form. I understood that that's why Angel said
what he did to Wes. I meant to point out that for the first time (I think) we see Angel behaving as
Angelus would-cool and deliberate-despite his enormous rage.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: It was all Angel -- J,
12:35:48 04/17/02 Wed
There have been hints on both BtVS and A that becoming a vampire doesn't change effect as
dramatic a personality change as one might expect. Recall the BtVS ep "Amends," where the first
evil torments Angel about his cruel nature (it's not so much about Angelus, although being Angelus
did allow Angel to shed all his guilt) and the aside in "Doppleganland" where Angel implies that
vampires are a lot more like their human counterparts than commonly believed.
I guess my point is that Angel is and always has been capable of enormous cruelty (wouldn't it have
been less cruel to snap Wes' neck than to smother him?), whether or not he's got a soul to keep him
in check. Even if this is new, it's not unexpected.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: It was all Angel -- Keyster, 18:34:13 04/17/02 Wed
Angelus would have been more creative. Perhaps he would have had Wesley placed in his office
"reading his books". Fred and Gunn comes in glad that they found him. Then they see that he is
dead. Pages of his books shoved down his throat.
Compare what Angel attempted to do with Wesley to what Angelus did to Ms Calendar. Or even
with Angelus did to Holtz's family.
[>
Re: Forgiveness Just isn't Possible -- RichardX1, 09:04:07 04/16/02 Tue
In Angel's universe, it isn't possible to defeat Evil either. So should he stop doing that, like he
planned when he decided to (expletive) his brains (and his soul) out?
Sure forgiveness is impossible. As a priest said on an ep of Babylon 5, "I don't think there can
ever be anything more difficult." But then again, if you think you're only on this earth to do the easy
stuff, you're in for a universe of disappointment (believe me).
If you keep that rage in your heart and give in to the desire for vengeance, you're even worse than an
animal. Animals kill for food and defense (with the exceptions of elephants, chimpanzees, and
maybe cetaceans, which I find as evidence of their possible sentience, but I digress). A beast isn't
going to hunt down someone who killed its parent, child, or sibling and subject it to pain and death
just to get back at it.
Furthermore, if you become obsessed with vengeance, it overwhelms you and takes control of you,
instead of the other way around. The Gypsy in "Surprise/Innocence" put it best: "It commands... we
merely play a part." It's that whole "Once you start down the Dark path forever will it control your
destiny, consume you it will!" thing all over again.
Sorry, I tend to ramble. Remember, the 1:00 show is different from the 12:00 show!
[>
Re: Forgiveness Just isn't Possible -- celticross, 11:06:57 04/16/02 Tue
Um...hi, "The Watcher". That's a very broad statement you made, and if you truly believe it, I'm
sorry. Forgiveness is, in my opinion, the only thing that stands between us and the darkest sides of
our nature. If not for it, we have nothing to shield us from true bitterness of spirit. My apologies if I
sound preachy, but I felt the need to state my complete disagreement.
[> [>
Re: Forgiveness Just isn't Possible -- Arethusa, 11:36:47 04/16/02 Tue
When someone betrays us, they steal some of our self-respect. We trusted them, maybe even loved
them, and they made a fool of us. We can't trust our judgement anymore. If we forgive, we have to
give up all of our rightous anger and trust completely again. Very, very difficult.
Forgiveness has been co-opted by religion as an obligation, a requirement by God and preachers.
Not forgiving is maybe even seen as a sign of false pride. Society sees it as a good thing, because it
might prevent an endless, destructive loop of retaliation. But I think that there can be something
destructive in forgiveness. It's like "your pain matters more than mine, so I have to ease your pain
at the cost of my own." I want my pain, I need it, because it gives me back my self-respect. It lets
me know that what happened is your fault, not mine. It holds at bay the shame of being deceived, of
being a victim. It lessens the overwhelming feelings of guilt for not preventing or stopping the
harmful act, which is always there even if the victim is totally blameless. And although these
emotions may be wrong, they help us deal with the crushing burden of being betrayed.
Hey, I'm not overidentifying much, are I?
[> [> [>
Re: Forgiveness Just isn't Possible -- Arethusa, 11:39:37 04/16/02 Tue
Woops. "am I"
[> [> [> [>
Couldn't agree more Arethusa -- Rahael, 15:38:21 04/16/02 Tue
Forgiveness can't just be given - it's something you achieve at great cost to yourself. And you can't
just will it to be there. But not giving forgiveness does not mean that you allow vengeance to rule
your life; nor demand that the transgressor himself suffer pain; or that you demand an eye for an
eye.
Not forgiving can be as redemptive as forgiving. It can be as reasoned and as wise and as self aware.
It can be a decision that some outrages cannot be excused, or erased away. Of course, my definition
of 'forgiving' and 'not forgiving' is probably different from a lot of other people. But I can walk on in
peace in my life, having not forgiven. Or am I just deluding myself about my equanimity?
Perhaps I'll just have to admit that I'm nowhere near the divine forgiveness thing, and closer to the
human erring.
[> [> [> [> [>
Screw forgiveness!!!!!! -- VampRiley, 20:13:30 04/16/02 Tue
But I can walk on in peace in my life, having not forgiven.
I can totally relate. Who says you have to forgive? NOT ME.
I don't know about you, but my "walking on in peace" has one very basic fact that underlies it: Not
caring one damn bit about the other person and what they do from that point on coupled with a very
"bored now" attitude.
Or is this all just a bigger problem of me shutting down emotionally that occures virtually
instantaneously?
Hmm...
VR
[> [>
Re: Forgiveness Just isn't Possible -- Keyster, 00:35:20 04/17/02 Wed
"That's a very broad statement you made, and if you truly believe it, I'm sorry. Forgiveness is, in my
opinion, the only thing that stands between us and the darkest sides of our nature. "
I know this is Buffy chat but for a moment let me digress into another program.
On Xena, Xena's troops killed Callistos family. Callisto devoted the rest of her life to being the source
of pain for Xena, even though Xena became good.
Gabrielle, who never knew the bad Xena of course disapproved of Callistos thirst for revenge. Of
course she had never suffered the type of pain Callisto did. But when Callisto killed her husband, the
first thing Gabrielle did was demand that Xena teach her how to fight so she could seek out revenge
against Callisto. So much for that peace and love thing, huh Gabby?
I have always wondered, had it been Gabrielle's village and Gabrielle's family that Xena's troops
burned, would she have turned out to be like Callisto seeking out revenge against Xena? And would
Callisto have turned out just like Gabrielle?
Getting back to Angel. There are some acts that are unforgivable. Perhaps there are a few saints out
there who could, but for all but a few of us, it leaves us with a burning hatred. We can't forgive
something that has caused so much pain and lost. Even if we want to try to forgive, we can't. It's not
within us to.
[>
Re: Forgiveness Just isn't Possible -- verdantheart, 13:12:08 04/16/02 Tue
Frankly, I believe in forgiveness. Certainly people have succeeded in forgiving the most heinous of
acts.
Whether or not you can forgive depends on your outlook. If you believe, as Arethusa, "your pain
matters more than mine, so I have to ease your pain at the cost of my own," of course you cannot
forgive. I don't say that this is not a valid viewpoint! I just happen to disagree. And perhaps it's easy
for me to talk because the betrayals in my life have been relatively minor.
However, if you take a different view, it becomes easier to forgive. I believe that evil acts, hatred,
and even vengeance exert a terrible burden upon the one who acts/feels (think of it as karma, if you
like). That's why revenge is almost never satisfying. Often there is no possible redress for a wrong
(on Earth, anyway); no way to "even the books."
Forgiveness frees the forgiver, who is no longer consumed by feelings of being wrong but can carry
on. The forgiven person must face the (possibly karmic) consequences of his/her acts. It is up to that
person to repent or not. However, for this to work, the forgiver must truly forgive in his/her heart
and give away the pain. This is a most difficult thing to do. Anyone who has eyes to look at this
world can see that.
But, hey, I'm Christian.
[> [>
Re: Forgiveness Just isn't Possible -- Arethusa, 14:00:55 04/16/02 Tue
I'm talking about circumstances where the wrong is so severe that it changes everything about one's
life and view of self. Forgiving and repentance are moot because the injury has permanently and
irrevocably harmed the victim, and, as you say, the score can never be settled. Even if the injured
person totally forgives and tries to forget, the changed circumstances make the pain never-ending.
There was a reason that Angel babbled on about wanting to see all of Conner's little firsts in
"Loyalty," and it wasn't to show DorkyAngel. Because of Wes's mistakes, Angel will never see his son
take a first step, say "Daddy" for the first time, or play hockey. To hold on to pain and anger is
wrong and harmful to one's self, I know that, but sometimes no matter how much pain one gives
away, more rushes in to fill the void. Maybe that's why people cling to their faith; perhaps for them
it fills the hole smashed into one's life by another's actions.
But what do you do when the pain has destroyed faith, too?
[> [>
Re: Forgiveness isn't Human -- Keyster, 00:12:43 04/17/02 Wed
Perhaps Buffy could have forgiven Wesley (but she is a saint), but for 98 percent of the rest of
humanity, in the face of great pain and life changing lost, nope. Not going to happen.
Those who think it's possible haven't really suffered the kind of pain and lost we are talking about. I
thought it was possible before last year. If people could just find it in their hearts to forgive, and end
the cycle of violence. Well I lived a sheltered life didn't I.
It was extremely naive to think that all but a small fraction of us (saints) could ever forgive
something so terrible, so horrific. For the only response to having such pain inflicted is an unending
hatred towards those who have inflicted such pain. Revenge is the only release. Forgiveness just isn't
possible.
Someone who have never suffered such pain, had such pain inflicted upon them might think that
forgiveness is possible, but that is just because they have never had it happen to them. Forgiveness
for all but a few just isn't part of our makeup.
Hate burns within us. It's what keeps us warm to fill our lost.
I found it interesting that not only Angel, but also Gunn, and even to a small degree Fred (hitting
Justine) all succumed to at least entertaining revenge in their heart. There's just no getting away
from it. It becomes part of who we are.
[> [> [>
Re: Forgiveness isn't Human -- LittleBit, 09:18:28 04/17/02 Wed
"For the only response to having such pain inflicted is an unending hatred towards those who have
inflicted such pain. Revenge is the only release. Forgiveness just isn't possible."
May I point out that this is precisely what the Romany gypsy clan believes - vengeance. That Angel
must live in eternal torment for the pain he inflicted on them. And, may I also point out that when
Angelus was freed from the soul, he made certain that Janna (Jenny) and her Uncle were killed.
The two who were there solely to ensure that the torment didn't lessen. The cycle continues.
We don't have to forgive but sometimes we have to let the anger go, and try to figure out how to
prevent it from happening again.
[>
Re: Forgiveness Just isn't Possible -- Gwyn, 18:44:26 04/16/02 Tue
I haven't read all the posts in this thread but those that I have seem to be operating on the
Western/Christian definition of forgiveness. Not coming from that perspective changes the whole
view of it I think. If you set that aside, then there is no obligation on Angel to forgive Wesley. Only
Angel, being the wronged one can do it, of course. In addition, Angel might not be obliged to do it if
Wesley did not ask for it. And Wesley may not be entitled to it without significant changes in his
conduct that would allow Angel to forgive him, and ensure that Wesley did not repeat similar acts
and cause other disasters to happen. These are not conditions of the Christian view of forgiveness,
of course, but they are of other world/religious views.
I'm not endorsing Angel's revenge. But, Wesley decided to play with the destiny of others, he will
have to bear the consequences of that. He will, of course, when he knows that he was simply tricked.
He, the expert reader of prophecies, succumbed to a forgery. Not very clever that when you come
down to it. Shouldn't that have been the first thing to consider. And he took preventing the prophecy
upon himself...a lot of hubris there don't you think?
[>
Forgiveness IS possible - it is a CHOICE... -- RabidHarpy, 10:37:16 04/17/02 Wed
...as creatures of free will I refuse to believe that our entire lives can be completely controlled by the
events and circumstances around us. I choose to believe that how I react to things - whether they
are good or bad - is MY choice. Forgetting the actual events is much more difficult, unless by
"forgetting" we mean that we refuse to let that particular incident control how we will react to the
people involved, similar circumstances in the future, etc.
A wise person once told me:
"Life is 1% what happens TO us, and 99% how we choose to react to the things that happen to
us."
Just my 2 pesos worth...
[P.S. I think Angel's treatment of Wesley is appalling - and completely unproductive in getting
Connor back. The last thing we need is for Angel's rejection to lead to Wesley's teaming up with
W&H, (although we all know Wesley's too smart for that!) Wes is the kind of guy you want FOR
your team, not against it - besides being the "brains", he's also the "heart" - fiercely protective and
loyal with a strong sense of justice.]
[> [>
Re: Forgiveness IS possible - it is a CHOICE... -- Keyster, 18:37:58 04/17/02 Wed
You probably haven't had great pain inflicted upon you. You would like to think forgiveness is
possible, but it isn't. Forgiveness to such infliction of pain just isn't part of the human makeup.
[> [>
Re: Forgiveness IS Not possible - it is Human Nature -- Keyster, 22:13:40 04/17/02
Wed
When deep pain has been inflicted on one person by another, the victim can never forgive. Even if
they want to forgive, they can't.
It's not in your nature.
Now if you are talking about small things, yes, you can forgive. But we are talking life changing
significant lost and/or pain here. There is no forgiveness for something like that. Some things are
unforgiveable.
If someone ever killed Dawn, Buffy would have to kill that person. If she can't forgive, no one
can.
Angel acted in the most human way possible. Perhaps that was what made it so scary. No it wasn't
Angelus (a vampire). It was Angel (a human being).
Placed in a similar situation we would act in a similar way that Angel acted. It's human nature.
There's no getting away from it.
We might wish or hope that it isn't that way. But such a wish is a fairytale. In reality forgiveness
after inflicting such pain is a myth. Anyone who doesn't believe that just hasn't been a victim of such
pain.
X-Rays: quick Q's -- yuri, 01:31:07
04/16/02 Tue
Was it just me or were the X-Rays in Wesley's hospital room really funky looking? Could someone
who has a better idea (and who taped the show) tell me if I'm imagining things? And while I'm
thinking about it, why did the writers choose to have the bum hide him, and leave his journey to the
hospital completely up to speculation? Significance?
(I'm indulging myself here, asking my questions freely w/o making the effort to answer them yet,
hope y'all don't mind too much!)
P.S. some really amazing stuff went down here this weekend (not that that's unusual!). I'm sorry I
didn't check up and participate, but it was lovely to go read everything. It's nice to see such a long,
non-archived board (thanks, Masq, if you're pulling strings).
[>
and another x-ray q. -- anom, 21:47:53 04/16/02 Tue
Why take x-rays at all for a patient with a slashed throat? The circumstances were known, & they
weren't the kind that might cause injuries you'd need an x-ray to check for; the wound was quite
visible & open (so to speak) to inspection without any imaging techniques. (Dochawk or anyone else
w/medical creds--is there any reason the hospital would have had x-rays taken?)
See, this is the kind of wasteful unnecessary testing that drives health care costs up!
[> [>
Quick answers to x-ray questions -- Kitt, 07:35:39 04/17/02 Wed
An unidentified 30-something white male with a slashed throat hits my ER, I'm gonna get x-rays
that I think I might need, even if the odds are fairly low. From what I saw, they had the following
pictures:
skull xray - this is standard; someone comes in with neck injuries, you assume they have head
injuries 'cause often they do.
Chest xray - probably done as standard, tho they could have been checking to see if the damage to
his trachea caused him to aspirate (inhale into his lungs) anything... although most docs wouldn't
hang the sill thing upside down!! (somebody needs a medical consultant, Joss!)
I THINK I also saw a lateral neck Xray, which again would be fairly standard in the situation - neck
injury, check and make sure that part of whatever cut him didn't stay behind.
As for Wes's injuries, they mention damage to the trachea and blood loss. Now, given that he could
have been rescued at any point after the bum stole his wallet and left him in the bushes, it's possible
he did survive (I know, more lives than a cat, follow me on this one guys)
The trachea is the most anterior (forward) structure in the neck, and particularly sticks out in males
(adam's apple), and is therefore most likely to be damaged. Typical slashing injuries will be
shallowest at the ends and deepest in the middle (forensics is a hobby of mine, I was the local coroner
for a while out here in the boonies), and for all the 'pulsing right there', the jugular vein is closer to
the surface and more easily cut than the carotid artery. Cut the carotid, Wes would have died before
Fred and Gunn got there the first time... but also a hand to the throat wouldn't have stopped it from
spurting, which it NEVER did (spurt, that is), so we can safely assume Justine never nicked either
carotid aretery. The jugular carries a lot of blood, but it's a low pressure vessel - you can block it
with compression, and if he holds down tight enough for long enough, it may clot off... or, if it is
sliced through, the vessel will tend to contract down (reflex to prevent blood loss, happens with all
major vessels), both of which might keep the blood loss low enough for Wes to be rescued. He'll need
surgery to repair the damage, and probably be hoarse for the rest of his life, but I've both read about
and seen cases where people with these kinds of injuries lived for hours without medical care. Wes
is just one lucky SOB... until Angel gets his hands on him, that is.
[> [> [>
Thanks. That makes it a lot clearer. -- Cactus Watcher, 09:02:41 04/17/02 Wed
SOMETHING looked strange about that chest x-ray. I probably wouldn't have had the sense to turn
it over, either. ;o)
Wolfram and Hart -- incompetant? (and a
few other comments on last night's "Angel") -- Earl Allison, 02:10:31 04/16/02 Tue
I am getting royally sick and tired of the new, incompetant Wolfram and Hart.
Does anyone ELSE remember how difficult it was originally for Angel to even get inside undetected?
Now he's doing it every other week, with so much ease that it isn't even worth showing on-
screen.
What's the deal? The firm used to be a credible evil, like the Borg used to be on Star Trek, but
overuse and poor writing defanged them, and seems to be doing the same for W&H.
Okay, minor nit, but how in heck did Wesley survive, what with bleeding for a good long time in the
park? I mean, Kendra died soon after her throat was cut, and there wasn't even any blood at the
scene :) I know it was meant to be that Wesley survive, but this just seems, as I've said before, a slap
in the face to Kendra ...
Angel's rage. Understandable, but not in the least sympathetic, especially not for someone who has
visited far worse torments on others, and with the sole intent of causing pain -- like locking those
lawyers in with Darla and Drusilla, or being totally willing to kill Lilah in "the White Room." Maybe
he'll calm down, maybe he won't -- I just know that, until and unless he does, he's unstable, and I
wouldn't turn my back on him.
Take it and run.
[>
They let him in -- Pete, 03:17:07 04/16/02 Tue
Angel threatened Linwood, who then ordered Lilah to give Angel whatever he wanted. He didn't
need to break in.
I do however find it hard to believe that Angel would allow Lilah to live after all she's done to him.
Whatever happened to "I'm gonna burn that lawfirm to the ground" and "no begging; that comes
later" and "with transfusions I could keep you alive indefinitely?" Angel and Buffy have never had
any real compunctions about killing evil humans (see ATPOBTVS's page on Buffy's human body
count.) Now no matter what Lilah does, Angel just kind of wags his finger and says, "Oh, you kidder.
Let's have a drink together like we're old chums."
Realistically, Angel would have killed Lilah, Lindsey, Linwood, and the rest long ago without even
breaking a sweat. Not that that would affect the Senior Partners' plans, but still. Given his feelings
for Cordy, That Vision Thing would have been the last straw. When we heard Angel's voice break
when he talked about Cordy bringing gifts for Connor, I thought that was a much more powerful
moment than his yelling at Wesley.
[> [>
They let him in -- THIS time, but how ... -- Earl
Allison, 03:34:32 04/16/02 Tue
But how did he get Linwood? And how was he able to stroll into Wolfram and Hart to threaten
Linwood a few weeks ago to cut him, and tell him that anything Connor suffered, he would suffer
even worse?
These are the issues I am talking about -- for a supposedly powerful law firm, they are becoming a
joke. Whether it smacks of bad writing or not, that is the question -- and I'm leaning towards
"yes."
And realistically, given the way W&S was ORIGINALLY presented, Angel the upstart vampire
would have been, should have been, killed long ago.
Take it and run.
[> [> [>
Linwood -- neaux, 04:47:30 04/16/02 Tue
Linwood was in a tuxedo.
So he was more likely out on the town at a function of some sort when Angel grabbed him and
roughed him up.
Therefore Linwood was not in W&H at the time of his abduction.
[> [> [>
They don't want to kill Angel -- aurelia, 05:22:56 04/16/02 Tue
W&H have a policy about not killing Angel, they need him alive because he has 'a role to play' (vague
enough) in the big apocalypse they have planed.
I don't remember if they gave an explanation for how he got into the building in Dad, but every other
time they mention how Gavin let him or Lilah did or something like that.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Another 2 cents -- Valhalla, 19:20:58 04/16/02 Tue
My beef about W&H is that they are becoming too comic book. They keep screwing up time after
time. Lilah's always having to explain why her operations failed, or why she doesn't know who's who
or what's going on. Sure, I'd hate to see them succeed, but since it's emphasized again and again
that the penalty for messing up at such an black arts kind of place is death - why is Lilah still alive?
Or at least, so not-injured?
The other problem is overexposure. When Angel started, I thought the whole lawyers-literally-
defending-evil thing was funny, if a little obvious. ME's metaphors are sometimes obvious, but they
don't usually hang on so tenaciously to the obvious ones.
I really cheered the introduction of Holtz and Sajhan (sp?) -- finally, different enemies! But then
they got all wrapped up in the W&H storylines anyway.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Another 2 cents -- JustAsking, 09:38:12 04/17/02 Wed
My beef about W&H is that they are becoming too comic book. They keep screwing up time after
time.
And yet, they have some sort of TechSpeak Monitor that registered Sahjhan's appearance. They can
pull off fancy stuff like the White Room (and evidently "control" the girl and her power/wisdom) and
summon commando squadrons. They had their hand in the subjugation of Pylea (remember the
books?) and who knows how many other dimensions. Yet "those meddling kids" - Scoobs indeed - foil
them constantly. You'd think they'd just nuke AI from space... Whatever plans they have for Angel
in the apocalypse must be pretty darn special.
[> [>
Boreanaz is growing up, as an actor (spoilers for AtS) -- Solitude1056, 07:37:19
04/16/02 Tue
There have been times when DB cried in BtVS, and it just never seemed to affect me. But last night's
little bit, when he stopped Fred from calling Cordy, really did affect me. On a lower key, it was
similar to when Anya responded in The Body - a character who'd shown emotion before but this time
allowed a certain true vulnerability through. I'm wondering if this is, in part, due to the real-life
soon-to-be-born baby that DB & his wife are expecting, and if DB groks the potential losses of
fatherhood much more deeply than he ever did before. Regardless, it finally showed that DB's got
some acting chops more than just brooding or being goofy. It'll be one of my favorite little snippets of
DB for some time to come, I think.
[> [> [>
I agree that was his best moment of the show....:):):) -- Rufus, 00:44:31 04/17/02
Wed
[>
Re: Wolfram and Hart -- incompetent? -- Malandanza, 11:31:18 04/16/02 Tue
"I am getting royally sick and tired of the new, incompetent Wolfram and Hart."
Is W&H incompetent? I think it depends on what you think their goals are. They've shown that
they don't want to kill Angel. I don't even think the evil the firm does is an end in itself. I think
W&H is all about corruption. The evil that they have their underling do is for the purpose of
corrupting the underlings.
Likewise, they want Angel alive, but corrupt. They have taken significant steps towards his
corruption.
1. Angel kidnapped and threatened Linwood with torture.
2. Angel made a deal with a scary underworld creature (who likes evil, but not chaos) and was
willing to kill Lilah at its command.
3. Angel unleashed a demon through the use of some very dark magic.
4. He tried to kill Wesley.
Everything seems to be progressing nicely. Are Linwood, Lilah and Gavin incompetent? Probably.
They are being kept in the dark about the true goals of the firm. They probably won't like Angel if
the firm succeeds in corrupting him -- Linwood got a taste of what Lilah and Lindsey got during
Angel's noir period (although Lindsey and Lilah behaved better under stress -- Linwood was pathetic
-- reminded me of Wesley's performance on his first trip to Sunnydale).
So I'd say not incompetent, but more subtle than you give them credit for being.
[>
Not at all sympathetic?! -- AngelVSAngelus, 12:19:48 04/16/02 Tue
Wow. Well, to each their own, I guess. I, too, don't morally condone Angel's current behavior, but I
certainly sympathize with the situation that motivates it. I can definitely say I believe his actions
wrong, but I cannot definitely say that put into the same situation my behavior would be different. I
just hope that it would be.
That is something that I enjoyed about the episode, apparently contrary to everyone else here, the
fact that it presented an uncompromising situation. The episode is difficult because of the fact that
there isn't a side or character involved in it that is devoid of sympathy. Many are wrong, and while
being able to say that, you do still feel genuine empathy for the child-less father, the one who
thought he was saving the child from that father, the woman who aided in the son's disappearance
because she trusted the wrong man, and all in between.
Its interesting that the writers have been able to give us an Angel who is not consumed with
brooding guilt, but not because of any true happiness that would rob him of his soul, full of human
rage, AND utilizing Angelus' obssessive deliberation.
[> [>
Given the things Angel has done, willingly? No, not at all sympathetic. -- Earl Allison, 14:39:14 04/16/02 Tue
I'd be more likely to sympathize if this weren't the same man who cut loose his moral anchors, fed at
least a dozen lawyers to Darla and Drusilla, and came very close to snapping Lilah's neck last
night.
As I stated in the "And of all people, Angel should be BRIMMING with forgiveness" reply a few
threads down, Angel of all people knows how low someone can go, and the true depths of evil he
traversed as Angelus, and even flirted with this season and last WITH a soul.
And his actions weren't even mitigated by the ATTEMPT to do something right, as Wesley's were.
No, Angel slept with Darla ... because he did. He fed those lawyers to Drusilla and Darla ... because
he did. He would have killed Lilah, not to make the world a better place, but for a shot at revenge.
There wasn't any honorable or redeeming factors, and yet he sought absolution and forgiveness from
his friends -- of which Wesley was one.
How soon he forgets.
And frankly, this isn't excusable on any level -- he had time to cool off, Wesley was CLEARLY no
threat, a vastly different take, IMHO, than the actions he visited on others.
I sympathize with him as a parent, but even that is a very tenuous thread, frayed near to
breaking.
Take it and run.
Can Angel do the Apocalypse justice?
-- Simpleton, 03:05:00 04/16/02 Tue
I didn't despise Doomed when it aired, but in retrospect I realize what a silly episode it was -- the
apocalypse coming and going in half an hour, with no particular motivation and no lasting
consequences (Spike would have learned he could fight demons eventually)? Yawn-ola!
Now I'm wondering if Angel can deliver an Apocalypse that actually deserves to be capitalized.
Consider: Season 1: The Mohra demon says the end of days are coming. Angel tells Doyle he can
sense the darkness coming and they discuss the apocalypse in "Hero." The Shanshu prophecy (not
that those can be trusted) says Angel will
fulfill his destiny after defeating the coming darkness and apocalyptic battles (plural).
Season 2: Many references to Angel's role in the apocalypse and W&H's plans for what side he'll be
on. Holland tells Angel, "the apocalypse.... Another one of those.... We do have one scheduled.... All
those people you save from that
apocalypse would then have the next one to look forward to."
Season 3: Sahjahn chants the Cod-she prophecy that "One shall awaken in the first year of the final
century." The Nyazian Scrolls describe the Tro-clan as the ruination/purification of mankind.
So with all of this, which the hell is it? Hundreds of little baby apocalypses or one big for-real
Apocalypse?
I for one am tired of the little baby ones. In the grand scheme of things, The Master, The Mayor, and
the whatever-the-hecks from "Doomed," three of the six that Buffy says they've stopped, are pretty
much lightweights (not that I didn't enjoy those arcs immensely). Acathla sucking the world into hell
and Glory destroying the walls between dimensions definitely rank as capital-A apocalypses.
Now with all the clues given in Seasons 1-3, I hope Angel is building toward a giant, great big
grandaddy of all apocalypses and steers completely clear of little baby ones. I want to fear for the AI
gang's safety. I want to see sets of L.A. in ruins. I want a feeling of mayhem and danger and
desperation that I've never gotten from Buffy (with the exception of the final scenes of TWoTW). I
want revelations about the true nature of W&H. Holland says they don't care about winning because
the firm always goes on. Can that be all there is to them -- just evil for evil's sake?
What I'd really love is something along the lines of: all throughout season four we start to get more
hints and clearer picture of what the coming darkness means and how it will happen. Starting slowly
at first then gradually building momentum through the course of the season. Then the actual event
or battle, whatever it turns out to be, takes place over the entire span of seasons five and six. I can't
even guess at the kinds of twists and turns the story could take over such a long time. (Irrelevent
aside: Those who watched DS9 know that the Dominion war took one year of hints and
foreshadowing, two years of shifting alliances, political maneuvering, and mounting tensions, and
finally two years of the actual battles. Yet at the same time not every episode revolved around the
war -- just like now when most Americans go about life as usual while the War on You-Know-What
kind of just happens in the background.)
Anyway, after all this, season seven could have the aftermath and recovery. Or maybe the might do
something along the lines of Primeval and Restless -- have the struggle over in S5, the aftermath
and recovery in S6, and S7 could be something completely unrelated and unpredictable, yet amazing
in it's own right.
Of course, they would still manage to weave in the usual dozen plotlines each season, so you wouldn't
have to worry about it becoming Apocalypse: the Series. ;-)
Anybody with me, or am I out of my mind? Well, there's a reason Joss and Greenie have their own
show and I don't....
All I know for certain is that they always manage to surprise the heck out of me.
I apologize for rambling so much, but hey, it's 4:30 a.m. What else should I be thinking about? :-
)
Another random thought: When Sahjahn raises Holtz, he says that "all men born must die," and
whaddayaknow -- Connor is never born. Maybe he's not such a normal human after all.
[>
Re: Can Angel do the Apocalypse justice? -- Robert, 12:35:27 04/16/02 Tue
>> "Connor is never born."
only in the sense that babies delivered by cesarian section are not born.
The Price of Revenge......spoilers for
Forgiveness -- Rufus, 03:48:22 04/16/02 Tue
Angel roughed Linwood up to find a way to get his son back. Linwood had an answer but is it one
Angel should utilize? Angel made his way to W&H where he and Lilah went to the White Room, a
place that the last person to enter ended up in an asylum.
The White Room is just that, white, bright, containing a little girl who looks innocent pure.
Innocence, purity, in a white room, surely she has the answer.
Girl: Hello....Angel....Lilah....(to Lilah) Your fingernails are pretty, I love red...(to Angel) You have
a taste for red too - and revenge - I know, so much more fun than
forgiveness...........So, what's up?
Angel: Demon named Sahjan has taken my son.
Girl: Awww.....do you want your little baby back? (Angel moves forward not pleased)
Baby's gone - you want Sahjan....now a days you can walk right through em, but in the past.....They
were something else. They were all about death and torture (to Angel) You can
relate. Well, they caused a lot of trouble - don't get me wrong - I like trouble - but I hate
chaos. So we changed em.
Angel: You made them immaterial.
Girl: Smart Boy.......now they watch and they can no longer touch.
Angel: How do I capture them?
Girl: Well, there's a special urn...they're expensive and hard to come by...But you don't want his
essence in a jar - you want someone you can sink your teeth into (Angel looks at Lilah).
You know, these things always come with a price.....Kill her (Angel moves to break Lilah's
neck)
Girl: (giggles) That's good enough for now. I can see why they respect you. Now, as to your demon-
made-flesh.......It's a long ritual.....All here (sends directions through air to Angel) Can't wait to see
how it turns out.
Is that the way to bring Connor back, darkest magic? And the idea that Angel was so ready to finish
off Lilah to get what he wanted. Was it the influence of a room that has turned mortal men insane?
Or is another insanity at work here. The Girl had it right...revenge it is more fun than
forgiveness.....it's easier, less work. Angel is all about the revenge, less about what is right. Is he
insane with grief? Has he made a deal that something will want to collect on? I think Lorne had the
right idea when he said.....
Lorne: Angel, you're messing with Primordial Powers of darkness here.
Angel wasn't listening. He was doing a spell that took painting a pentagram and human blood with
the words........"Corpus Granok Sahjan Demonicus"........
Sahjan became material and said "Now that's more like it". Angel brought back a demon that he had
no idea the power of. I had a few questions. The Girl in the White Room described Sahjan as a "they",
so where are the others like him? Did Angel just bring back the one, or the they? And next question,
when are the powers from the White Room going to come to collect, and what will they want? Angel
may wish he had opted for the more difficult but ultimately rewarding, forgiveness.
[>
Re: The Price of Revenge......spoilers for Forgiveness -- skpe, 07:21:27 04/16/02 Tue
Interesting post with a lot of questions that I would like to add one more to. What is the
Little girl? We have already seen that the PTB’s run the hells, (i.e., Skip) as well as the
heavens.
Is she a demon or avenging angel? . And if the latter what is she doing at W&H? Maybe
W&H is a punishment hell for lawyers and that she is in charge of their torment like Skip was
In his. Because the you will have to admit that the people at W&H always seam to wind up on
The pointy end of the stake. Just a thought.
[> [>
Re: The Price of Revenge......spoilers for Forgiveness -- Rufus, 13:05:13 04/16/02
Tue
I feel the little girl was just a form, the power behind the form ageless. I found is a cute trick to make
her look so innocent and helpless, but full of evil. The white room reminded me of the Oracles. I
guess that if you go into a white room (I think white has symbolized purity)don't expect the PTB's
you may get their darker cousins....;)
[>
Re: The Price of Revenge......spoilers for Forgiveness -- Cactus Watcher, 07:23:42
04/16/02 Tue
It seems to me that feeding Angel's desire for revenge is what the "White Room" wants. In a sense,
his 'debt' was paid, simply by coming to them, and allowing them to steer his actions. Was it Angel's
mistake or something W & H did not tell him that caused Sahjan to apear elsewhere?
I generally disliked the episode. It failed to make sense on many levels, and I found it a bit too
chaotic for my tastes. (I hope that does mean I'm inadvertantly working for W & H!)
Two things did strike me about the episode. "Red's" actions were clearly chaotic in the sense W & H
don't like. Is she going to become a major player? And second, while I felt that if Angel had forgiven
Wesley at the end of the ep, the show would have lost all credibility, like others I was a little
surprised at the form of the attack. After thinking about it a while, I decided that what happened
was not something either Angelus or Angel would do. But, it is exactly how the young and frustrated
Liam might react. Perhaps Angel is already becoming more human without realizing it.
[> [>
Speaking of Chaos: I did mean to say 'NOT working for W & H' in my aside. :oP -- CW,
07:26:58 04/16/02 Tue
[>
Contra Wesley (spoilers for Forgiveness) -- Sophist, 09:48:49 04/16/02 Tue
Forgiveness has caused me to question whether AtS can or should continue. There are 2
major problems with the storyline.
The biggest problem, and to me the most irritating, was the attitude toward Wesley expressed by
Lorne, Charles, and Fred. Each of them, at various times, said that Wesley had acted courageously
within the limits of his knowledge. They all recommended that Angel forgive Wes because Wes had
tried to do the right thing. The problem is, Wesley was wrong. He was wrong every which
way imaginable:
1. His failure to consult with the others about the prophecy showed a complete lack of respect for
them. AI is a group endeavor. Even if Wes is the nominal "boss" (a dubious point), he doesn't get to
make major decisions on his own. The failure to consult Cordelia is particularly inexcusable, but he
should have been talking to the others as well (not necessarily Angel). Keeping it to himself was
arrogant, not courageous. Acting on his own was foolish, not "the best he could do with the
knowledge he had".
2. He acted hastily. Putting aside the trickiness of prophecies (which Wes should realize), and
putting aside the fact that this prophecy was forged, there was no time limit on it. For all Wes
knew, Angel might have euthanized Connor when Connor was 86 and dying of bone cancer. There
was no need to rush.
3. He had no way to know whether Holtz had any intention of keeping his part of the bargain.
4. Raising Connor to adulthood would take 18 years (on Earth anyway). Wes had no way to know
that Holtz would keep his promises over that time period. Nor did he have any assurance of Connor's
safety otherwise during that long time.
By having the other characters praise Wesley's actions, the writers not only send the wrong message.
They also run the risk of creating on AtS the same problem that now exists on Buffy, namely that
Xander consistently says and does the wrong thing while receiving reinforcement for this misconduct
from other characters. They have now reached the point where only a truly enormous penalty can
preserve credibility.
My other big concern has to do with the willingness of the writers to take dramatic/thematic risks.
Wesley should be dead. Several posters have commented on the implausibility of his survival from
having his throat slit and lying there untended for what appeared to be several hours, and the
equally implausible smothering attempt. His survival seems cheap. His death would have made a
true Greek tragedy. That's the difference between soap opera and drama.
[> [>
Re: continuation of Angel & BtVS -- Robert, 10:03:09 04/16/02 Tue
>> "Forgiveness has caused me to question whether AtS can or should continue. There are 2 major
problems with the storyline."
>> "They also run the risk of creating on AtS the same problem that now exists on Buffy, ..."
Have you written off Angel & BtVS before knowing the end of the story? If both shows ended
tomorrow, would you be satisfied? What shows would you rather watch in preference?
[> [> [>
Re: continuation of Angel & BtVS -- CW, 10:24:17 04/16/02 Tue
I have to agree with some of Sophist's points. While I was watching Forgiveness, I was thinking 'this
story isn't as well-thought-out as it is manipulative.' And I was thinking TV-off might be a good
option. But, the ending at least gives me hope that ME will try to make something of what could
easily slip off into brainless-action mediocrity.
As for having to know the whole story, someone once said, you don't have to drink the whole carton
of milk to know it's going bad. One thing I've tried repeatedly to say in my posts is that it is ME's
responsibility to provide us with the shows we want to watch, not ours to rejoice in whatever they
give us. We can be happy with what they've given us generally. But we should never let anyone in
the TV business forget, there are other ways to spend our time.
[> [> [> [>
Re: continuation of Angel & BtVS -- Robert, 11:18:04 04/16/02 Tue
>> "But we should never let anyone in the TV business forget, there are other ways to spend our
time."
There are always other (and better) ways to spend our time. But are there better TV shows?
>> "As for having to know the whole story, someone once said, you don't have to drink the whole
carton of milk to know it's going bad."
This is a very nice aphorism, which is completely inapplicable to the situation under discussion. The
contents of a carton of milk are a homogenous, isotropic medium. Therefore, a random sampling will
provide an accurate representation of the entirety.
The story telling in a novel or serial television show (such as Angel or BtVS) is neither homogenous
nor isotropic. You cannot pick up a new novel, read one chapter somewhere in the middle, and
accurately predict what has come before or the story at its conclusion. You might be able to predict
the author's writing style, but even that is problematic.
Does how you feel about "Forgiving" accurately represent all the other episodes of BtVS and Angel?
Do you believe that "Forgiving" accurately predicts what will happen in the remaining episodes and
how the story will conclude?
>> "But, the ending at least gives me hope that ME will try to make something of what could easily
slip off into brainless-action mediocrity."
I found "Forgiving" to be a very difficult episode and I will likely never watch it a second time. If it
were the only episode I had ever viewed, I might not have watched any others. However, I can see
how it is a necessary piece of the whole story and I would not consider abandoning the show at this
point. I also would not predict that Mutant Enemy has fallen into brainless-action mediocrity on the
basis on one episode three-quarters into an extended story arc.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: continuation of Angel & BtVS -- CW, 12:05:17 04/16/02 Tue
Your point about serial TV would be well taken if it were generally true. In fact, in general, plot
lines and love affairs change on TV not according to an over all plan, but according to the
ratings.
I watch Buffy and Angel for precisely the same reason, I used to watch Babylon Five, because even
the bad episodes are worth watching more than once, because they fit into a structural whole. You
can, indeed, read a mediocre novel from the middle. It makes no difference at what point you start a
common romance novel, an ordinary western movie, or a sitcom episode, because almost nothing
depends on what has happened before. When a novel stops making sense in the middle, loses it
structural integrity in the middle, I stop reading.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: "Forgiving" -- Robert, 12:26:37 04/16/02 Tue
>> "because even the bad episodes are worth watching more than once,"
I do not consider "Forgiving" to be a bad episode. Rather, I find it a harsh unpleasant episode, but a
necessary one. I do not believe that every episode must be watchable more than once in order for the
series to be good. In the case of "Forgiving", I am currently not willing to feel the pain which it
invokes within me again. Maybe later I will feel differently. Regardless, I suspect that this episode
will be pivotal for the season arc.
>> " You can, indeed, read a mediocre novel from the middle."
True! Since I was using the example of a novel as metaphor for BtVS and Angel, I meant a good
novel, not a mediocre novel. I'm afraid that I've never read romance novels, so I don't know how they
are structured. I've heard that they are stamped out on an assembly line.
>> "... or a sitcom episode ..."
Most TV shows (and sitcoms in particular) have no extended arc. Many shows are specifically
designed such that there is no discernable order. This lowers the barrier to attracting new viewers
after the show has been running awhile. Mr. Whedon has previously stated that he caters to the
loyal viewers and not to ephemeral ratings.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
romance structure -- skeeve, 14:10:34 04/16/02 Tue
Try A stitch in Snow by Anne McCaffrey.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: romance structure -- Robert, 14:19:57 04/16/02 Tue
>> "Try A stitch in Snow by Anne McCaffrey."
Oh, silly me. I actually read most of that one. About 20 years ago I attempted to read everything
McCaffrey wrote. Since McCaffrey is usually considered a science fiction/fantasy writer, I assumed
this also was SF or fantasy. I even bought the book from a SF bookstore. I don't remember anything
about it now, except that I detested it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: romance structure -- Arethusa, 14:25:03 04/16/02 Tue
Did you read McCaffrey's "Restoree"? She said in an interview that that book was a romance novel
disguised as a science fiction novel. Also-anything by Elizabeth Peters. Hers would put many
"literary" books to shame.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: romance structure -- Robert, 14:46:29 04/16/02 Tue
>> "Did you read McCaffrey's "Restoree"?"
Yes and I actually liked that one somewhat.
>> "... anything by Elizabeth Peters."
No. For pleasure reading, I've been sticking to science fiction that past few years. My non-pleasure
reading currently includes quantum mechanics and electrodynamics, and its only going to get
worse!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: romance structure -- skeeve, 08:39:26 04/17/02 Wed
I remember AM saying that Restoree was a joke based on reversing the then-current male-female
roles in SF. Having read it considerably after it was current, I didn't get the joke. I'm told not many
people got it even when it was current.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Romance of the Rose like thing -- fresne, 16:07:07 04/16/02 Tue
One description of romance novels coming up.
Rich experienced, but emotionally stunted boy meets spunky inexperienced poor girl. Boy is
attracted to girl. Girl sees a problem with the relationship based on boy's: lack of morals, social
status, wealth, he acts like a jerk, etc. And I want to emphasize, generally, the boy has all the cards.
He's wealthy, powerful, socially well placed, etc. Although, sometimes it may be that he's got money,
she's got social standing.
However, boy is a babe. Well actually, it plays one of two ways. He looks like a fallen angel or is not
actually attractive at all. Only the heroine sees his attractiveness. Everyone else thinks he's ugly/a
beast. This can also work for the girl. She's too tall, plump, thin, plain, wears glasses etc. Only the
boy sees that this girl is one makeover away from being an utter babe.
As the girl and boy overcome the plot's obstacles to fall in love, they both gain something from the
other person (other than being in love itself). The boy learns how to access his softer emotions and
open up to another human being. The girl often gets a resolution to the societal problems which have
bugged her (annoying father, poverty, freedom to study paleontology, etc).
Of course, not all romances are the same. Modern romances vary a great deal from period pieces.
However, since all romances are descended in some way from Jane Austen (Pride and Prejudice, etc)
and Jane Eyre, there are recurring ideas.
The central tenant of most romances is this: the emotion is the thing. Plots may repeat. However, the
emotional connection the reader gets to how these two people connect is what a good romance novel
is all about.
fresne - who reads quite a few romances. And not all of them from the 1200s. And...I really liked last
night's episode too.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Romance of the Rose like thing -- LadyStarlight, 11:07:51 04/17/02 Wed
My own personal explanation for romance novels (both writers and readers):
Where else can you find a man who will voluntarily pick up after himself, cook a meal, change
a baby?
Just my own opinion, based on field observations.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Will two out of three do? -- skeeve, 08:00:29 04/18/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Which two is the ultimate question, I guess. -- LadyStarlight, 12:11:56 04/18/02
Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The more you post -- Vickie, 14:29:04 04/17/02 Wed
The more I appreciate my husband.;-)
Thanks for the giggle.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL.......:):) -- Rufus, 16:15:49 04/17/02 Wed
[> [> [>
Re: continuation of Angel & BtVS (spoiler for Hells Bells) -- Sophist, 10:55:57 04/16/02
Tue
I have different attitudes about the 2 shows. I love Buffy. I watch Angel (usually). I don't watch any
other TV shows, so if neither were on, I'd do what I did for the 15 years before WTTH: watch
nothing.
You're absolutely right about the need for patience. I have argued that many times here in
justification of S6, which I love except for (a) the magic=drugs nonsense, and (b)AYW, which Anne
rightly described in her Psyche/Eros post as loathesome. In both cases, I'm expecting the story to
play out in a way that will satisfy my concerns.
I take this attitude with Buffy because past and current brilliance justify me. Angel has never
reached that level (to me), so it doesn't get as much benefit of the doubt.
Additionally, Xander's misconduct has generally been a sidelight to the main issues on the show.
That makes it easier to ignore than Wesley's, which was the center of the plot over 4 (I think)
episodes so far and several more obviously to come. I will say that if all the characters told Xander he
was perfectly justified in walking away from the wedding, with no serious consequence to him, I
would have real problems with BtVS even with my willingness to forgive.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Disregard of the viewers and their morality (oblique future spoiler) -- Dochawk,
11:15:01 04/16/02 Tue
Soph, if you are spoiled come to the trollup board. There is discussion of this very issue in regards
to BTVS, but it involves future spoilers.
Just want to add that I totally agree with your position. That ME has to respect the viewers as well
and if you change characters, let them be dismissive, the writer fails his audience (this is not the
same as listening to fans because they want their Spuffy).
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Disregard of the viewers and their morality (oblique future spoiler) -- Robert,
11:33:03 04/16/02 Tue
>> "That ME has to respect the viewers as well and if you change characters, let them be dismissive,
the writer fails his audience ..."
Where has this happened?
[> [> [> [>
Re: continuation of Angel & BtVS (spoiler for Hells Bells) -- Robert, 11:31:39 04/16/02
Tue
>> " I love Buffy."
This does not seem to track with what you wrote in your previous message, which seemed to imply
that BtVS should cease to continue. I do agree with you in that I very much prefer BtVS to Angel.
After BtVS and Angel, there is nothing else on TV anywhere close in quality.
>> "... Xander's misconduct has generally been a sidelight to the main issues on the show."
Xander's misconduct is a very important part of the show in that all the main characters are
disfunctional this season. All the characters have done things for which they are ashamed. Buffy
and the others did not excuse Xander for his behavior. They may understand why he did it. They
may decide that they can still be friends with Xander in spite of his defects. They may decide to
forgive him for his actions and help him overcome the problems that lead to these actions.
[> [> [> [> [>
We're not disagreeing here -- Sophist, 12:31:34 04/16/02 Tue
My comments about not continuing were made about AtS, not Buffy.
I agree, they have not excused Xander. That was the point of my contrast to how Wesley was
"justified". I don't know yet how the Xander story will play out; I'm reserving judgment until it does.
The mills of God can grind slowly, but grind they must.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: continuation of Angel & BtVS (spoiler for Hells Bells), Xander and his lack of payment
-- Dochawk, 15:02:12 04/16/02 Tue
Has Xander paid for his behavior? I can mention many things he has done over the years, but this
season in OMWF, he conjures a demon who burns people. Even when he finds this out he doesn't tell
Giles, who might be able to do something about it, he willingly lets Buffy go to fight the demon
without this important information. I can't remember a time when an innocent human died because
of Scooby member (the deaths at graduation day are not ascribed to the SG) bedsides this action.
Yet, he doesn't display the slightest bit of guilt about it, let alone having paid for it. of all the SG,
Xander frequently gets off scott free.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: continuation of Angel & BtVS (spoiler for Hells Bells), Xander and his lack of payment
-- Malandanza, 15:39:30 04/16/02 Tue
"I can't remember a time when an innocent human died because of Scooby member (the deaths at
graduation day are not ascribed to the SG) bedsides this action."
VampWillow was accidentally summoned by Willow -- she killed people.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I think it's fairer to say VampWillow was summoned by Anya. -- Sophist, 16:19:25
04/16/02 Tue
Though Willow certainly did participate willingly in the spell, she did so under false pretences. When
she realized that something wasn't right, she interfered with the spell in a way that caused
VampWillow to come rather than Anyanka's power center.
Your larger point about other SG members causing death remains valid, since Anya is responsible
for Sandy's death.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I think it's fairer to say VampWillow was summoned by Anya. -- Malandanza,
23:40:09 04/17/02 Wed
"Though Willow certainly did participate willingly in the spell, she did so under false pretenses.
When she realized that something wasn't right, she interfered with the spell in a way that caused
VampWillow to come rather than Anyanka's power center.
"Your larger point about other SG members causing death remains valid, since Anya is responsible
for Sandy's death."
Anya wasn't part of the gang back when Dopplegangland happened -- so to say a Scooby was
responsible for a death because Anya was responsible is, I think, a bit of an overstatement.
Willow didn't interfere with the spell intentionally -- she got scared, panicked and ruined the spell.
She had entered into the spell hoping for something dangerous and she got her wish -- by contrast,
Xander used the talisman hoping for good.
But whether or not we blame Willow (at least in part) for Sandy's death (and all those people Sandy
may have killed), we do know that Willow has come dangerously close to killing both her friends and
strangers on more than one occasion -- the difference is that Buffy typically manages to bail Willow
out before anyone dies.
Something Blue, Triangle and Tabula Rasa are all excellent examples of
Willow spells that nearly get her friends killed. Furthermore, in Triangle we don't know
whether Olaf actually killed anyone -- he was on a rampage through town. In the Bronze there were
several badly wounded victims (remember Spike helping them?) -- is hospitalizing innocent
bystanders okay?
How about Willow's stupidity in facing off against Glory? Buffy had been doing a good job at keeping
Dawn hidden -- until Willow led Glory straight to the key. Time had been running out for Glory --
Buffy may have been able to keep Dawn a secret had it not been for Willow. So maybe we can blame
Dawn's abduction and Buffy's death on our favorite redheaded witch.
I don't understand how the Xander haters can give Willow a free pass -- the difference seems to be
that Willow is lucky. If you want to charge Xander with negligent homicide, Willow should be up for
a few counts of reckless endangerment at the very least.
(Also, Oz killed Veruca)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I think it's fairer to say VampWillow was summoned by Anya. -- shadowkat,
06:49:57 04/19/02 Fri
Actually - all of the Scoobies have been directly or
indirectly responsible for deaths.
1. Giles : killed Ben - yes, I know there was justification but the point was made by more than one
character in the episode that they shouldn't kill Ben just because he housed Glory. Also Giles was
indirectly responsible for the deaths caused by Eyghon in the Dark Man episode. (He admitted
as much.)
2. Buffy - she took responsibility for Angel's killing of
Jenny and the death of Kendra - because she didn't kill
Angel (Never personally agreed with her for this, but
oh well. Giles certainly didn't blame her.) She also tried
to kill Faith (which admittedly was justified). Actually
of the gang - I think we can say that she really hasn't killed any humans directly or indirectly as far
as I can
remember. And it's not really fair to count people she couldn't save. Poor girl, get a calling, and no
one is satisfied. Is she responsible for her friends actions? Uh,
no. I have troubles giving her responsibility for Xander
and Willow's or Gile's actions.
3. You do an excellent job of chronicaling Willow's misdeeds
and I completely agree. Willow has not really paid for the consequences of her magic - which is
something I think Giles is partly responsible for. If anything he's encouraged her. This could lead to
his undoing and everyone
else's for that matter. In watching past episodes - I find it amazing he allowed her to do some of the
stuff he did.
Such as that curse spell? The Primeval spell? He had to know the dangers - from his own experience.
Buffy - I don't hold responsible for that. Buffy knows little about magic
and certainly isn't old enough to know the consequences.
4. Xander - actually most of his misdeeds were out of stupidity and insecurity. Also see Giles as being
culpable.
He let these two kids into his duties as Watcher, gave them access to dangerous knowledge and did
very little to supervise it. When Xander conducted that spell with Amy in Bewitched, Bothered &
Bewildered - Giles came down on him.
But he should have made sure everyone concerned understood
the consequences. He even takes Xander under his wing, giving him even more access to his books.
I'm not surprised Xander accidently conjured Sweet anymore than
Willow did Olaf. Giles seems to give them free run of both his store and his library book collection.
Those dangerous books are upstairs not locked up. Dawn was able to get the Forever spell with no
difficulty. Willow got a hold of Darkest magic with no problem.
Yep - Giles has fallen down on the job. As much as I adore
the character - I think his reluctance to be a disciplinarian and truly guide his charges may have
led
a couple of them to misdeeds. It's not Buffy who should have
come down on them, it's Giles. But for some reason he wants
Buffy to. Buffy - who has enough on her shoulders being
the slayer.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
This thread is way too long already, -- Sophist, 08:48:56 04/19/02 Fri
mostly due to my own posts. This is an interesting topic, but we need to start anew.
Just a few quick points.
1. Buffy has killed humans -- the Knights of Byzantium at least. That said, I believe nearly all of
Buffy's actions have been justified. In the cases where she was wrong, there has usually been a
severe price which she recognizes.
2. Willow has certainly done some foolish things. However, my quick impression is that (a) most did
not lead to serious or permanent harm, (b) she has suffered some consequence, and (c) she has done a
lot of very important good deeds.
3. Xander's misdeeds go back all the way to S2. My biggest problem is that he has gotten away with
misconduct while others haven't. Why he is the teflon man, I don't know. In addition, Xander's good
deeds have grown fewer and farther between since S1.
If we ever do get into this topic, let me suggest that we consider the following: 1. The wrongdoing. 2.
Whether there were any consequences suffered. 3. What good deeds might have balanced out the
wrong.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: This thread is way too long already, -- mundusmundi, 18:59:58 04/19/02 Fri
Xander's misdeeds go back all the way to S2. My biggest problem is that he has gotten away with
misconduct while others haven't. Why he is the teflon man, I don't know. In addition, Xander's good
deeds have grown fewer and farther between since S1.
Ouch! We obviously see the character differently. I'd argue that if anything Xander has improved in
recent years, with numerous good deeds
and fewer bad ones. (His summoning
Sweet in OMWF a notable exception, but that was such a bogus plot device I've convinced myself it
didn't happen). Also, I don't see teflon on a character who's been consistently unhappy for much of
the series. Some may not need chastisement if they're already punishing themselves (except for
summoning homicidal dancing demons, right!).
Bye bye thread, I suspect soon; it was fun while it lasted.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
There are threads that are too long? Other than "Right Wing Objections"? --
d'Herblay, 20:22:00 04/19/02 Fri
mundus parenthesizes:(His summoning Sweet in OMWF a notable exception, but
that was such a bogus plot device I've convinced myself it didn't happen).
I did
that with much of the seventh season of Homicide!
Xander is such a salt-of-the-earth stand-up type guy that I can imagine that he was not responsible
at all for summoning Sweet. In fact, surely someone like Xander would be willing to take the fall for
a friend. Obviously, he was covering for someone. I think that it's plainly evident where the blame
lies: Giles. Giles had motive: the Espresso Pump hasn't asked him to play another gig since "Where
the Wild Things Are." Giles had opportunity: he owns the Magic Box! He even confessed; hell, he
sang like a canary!
I've got a theory
That it's a demon
A dancing demon!
No, something isn't right there.
All this time we've been interpreting "No, something isn't right there" as an expression of doubt,
when in reality it's an admission of moral culpability! And what does he do the first chance he gets?
He skips town! Looks pretty guilty to me! Quod erat demonstrandum.
Or maybe it was Tara . . .
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
By Jove, I think you've got it! -- mm, 07:33:07 04/20/02 Sat
Hopefully, like whatshisface in Crime and Punishment (showing my literary bonafides, aren't
I?), Giles will return to the scene of the crime.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Completely agree Doc -- Sophist, 16:22:00 04/16/02 Tue
But I'm in enough trouble here for my comments about Wesley, so I'll have to save Xander for
later.
[> [>
Re: Contra Wesley (spoilers for Forgiveness) -- matching mole, 10:39:11 04/16/02
Tue
'Forgiveness' seemed rushed to me - a lot of things were going on and not enough time was spent on
them to allow the viewer to really assess things like the subtleties of character motivation. I was
also bothered by Gunn, Fred, and Lorne who didn't really seem to have reactions of their own to the
events but rather mostly just reacted to Angel's reactions. Maybe they just shifted into problem
solving mode and left their own feelings about events for later.
I agree with Sophist that Wesley's actions could hardly be considered praiseworthy. But they were
foolish, self-defeating, and perhaps a bit arrogant rather than malevolent or even selfish. I could
interpret Fred's (in particular) reaction to the discovery of Wesley's motivations as one of relief that
Wesley's actions were not motivated by hatred or jealousy. But the writers didn't give Fred and
Gunn (and Lorne) enough dialog to allow us (or me at least) to really judge their reactions. Maybe
when the characters have time to think more about it their feelings about Wesley will be expressed
more fully. I guess we'll have to wait and find out.
It seems clear that no major blood vessels could have been cut when Wesley's throat was slit or he
would have died in the park (and there would have been a lot more blood). I don't have enough
medical knowledge to assess the likelihood of his surviving with tracheal damage.
The hospital scene seemed weird to me and the only explanation I can think of is that Angel was
deeply conflicted, torn between rage and the need for control and empathy. The control/empathy
part was dominant until he actually saw Wesley. Then rage took over but subconsciously was
restrained making Angel's attack ineffectual. Otherwise his reactions at the end of the show make
no sense - why didn't he attack Justine who is far more directly responsible for the loss of Connor
than Wesley? She confessed to attacking Wesley and taking the baby right in front of Angel. And
the pillow attack just seemed silly. As did Angel getting pulled away by only a couple of
orderlies.
Narrative and symbolism aside this episode made me realize how much of my enjoyment of AtS is
based on Wesley and Cordelia. It seems to me that Wesley's guilt and struggle for redemption offers
a more interesting storyline than simply bumping him off.
[> [>
Re: forgiving Wesley -- Robert, 10:43:10 04/16/02 Tue
>> "Each of them, at various times, said that Wesley had acted courageously within the limits of his
knowledge. They all recommended that Angel forgive Wes ..."
I agree with every point you made about the wrongness of Wesley's response to the prophecy.
However, I completely disagree with your conclusion. Besides which, Wesley can be courageous and
wrong at the same time. Even given that Wesley is wrong, it is right for Lorn, Gunn and Fred to ask
Angel to forgive Wesley. The episode even provided the reason that forgiveness is necessary.
Without it, innocent people will suffer pain, ruination and death. The gang is attempting to defuse a
very dangerous situation, and it is continuously getting worse with the;
a. kidnapping and torture of lawyers from Wolfram and Hart,
b. substantiation of Sahjan,
c. injury and death of innocent bystander due to Sahjan's substantiation,
d. battle with Sahjan, and
e. attempted murder of Wesley.
If Angel (not Angelus) cold bloodedly murders Wesley (especially while Wesley is helpless to even
plead his case), then Angel will have taken a giant step over the line. Remember that Wolfram and
Hart have as one of their primary goals to convert Angel to their side, otherwise they would have
dusted him last season. Angel must cool off and find accommodation with the situation. He may
never get his son back, but he will not come out of a murder unscathed.
>> "By having the other characters praise Wesley's actions, the writers not only send the wrong
message."
The writers on Angel are more subtle than that about what messages they want to convey.
The gang may be praising Wesley with their words, but their demeanor conveys a different message.
The praises given by Lorn, Gunn and Fred to Angel may not be wholly appropriate, but they are
understandable given the volatility of the situation. Lorn was not praising Wesley to Gunn and Fred
outside of Angel's hearing, though they understood the strain Wesley was suffering.
>> "Wesley should be dead. Several posters have commented on the implausibility of his survival
from having his throat slit and lying there untended for what appeared to be several hours, ..."
Yours is a precipitate conclusion. People do sometimes live after having their throats cut. A
colleague of my wife's had his throat cut from ear to ear and he survived to return to work. In his
case the cut wasn't deap enough to bleed him to death. Given the dark conditions, we can't see how
deep and effective Wesley's cut was.
[> [> [>
Re: forgiving Wesley -- Sophist, 11:12:28 04/16/02 Tue
I am inclined to agree with you about the need for forgiveness. (That's not to say that I, as a parent,
would be so generous.) But forgiveness comes when we recognize and accept the evil in full. If
conduct is justified, there is no need for forgiveness. As Giles says in IOHEFY (I'm quoting from
memory here), "We forgive people because they need it, not because they deserve it."
By having Lorne, Charles, and Fred attempt to justify Wesley to Angel, the writers called into
question whether forgiveness was even necessary, and cheapened Angel's act if he does choose to
forgive.
I suppose I should accept the throat-slitting and move on, though many others had the same
problem. If Fred had slit Wesley's throat, I would have no problem. But this was Justine!
[> [> [> [>
Re: forgiving Wesley -- Robert, 11:35:41 04/16/02 Tue
>> "If Fred had slit Wesley's throat, I would have no problem. But this was Justine!"
Yes, but it is not clear to me that Justine wants to commit murder. Up until now, she has merely
dusted vampires. Wesley would be her first murder.
[> [> [> [> [>
You don't consider dusting vamps to be murder? How? -- VampRiley, 20:45:39 04/16/02
Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Vampires and Murder -- Robert, 08:47:08 04/17/02 Wed
>> "You don't consider dusting vamps to be murder?"
Absolutely not, and for the simple reason that the BtVS and Angel TV shows do not consider dusting
vampires to be murder. The TV shows present their own moral and ethical framework. The
definition and conditions of murder are provided within this framework. Killing of evil demons is
also allowed within this framework, but killing innocuous demons is not. Killing people is definitely
not allowed. Buffy could not kill Ben in "The Gift". Giles committed murder when he killed
Ben.
If you want to carry the discussion outside of the ethic and moral framework provided by BtVS and
Angel, then I could still find justifications that dusting vampires is not murder. BtVS and Angel
provide as a requirement that the person must die (usually by murder) before turning into a
vampire. Therefore the vampire is a dead person, and therefore he/she cannot be murdered again.
As another justification, we could also decide that Buffy, Angel and their respective crews are
engaged in a war with the vampires and some of the demons. This would be a war in which neither
side takes prisoners. This would be a war that exists and operates outside of the jurisdictions of the
United States and United Nations. Therefore the dustings and killings of vampires and demons
would not be murder.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Is Buffy a mass murderer? -- Robert, 09:12:25 04/17/02 Wed
>> "You don't consider dusting vamps to be murder? "
Okay VampRiley, I answered your question in my previous posting. Now I have some questions for
you. If you consider dusting of vampires to be murder, then do you consider Buffy to be a mass
murderer and, if so, what fate would you wish upon her?
As a series ender, we could have a giant murder trial for Buffy and the scooby gang, sending them all
to prison for life. The trial would be a little strange, given that all the murder victims were all
already dead, previous to their dustings. Better yet, we could have a season of BtVS devoted to
Buffy's life in prison -- her trials and travails -- her social interactions -- her renewed depression.
Then after breaking out of prison, we could have another season devoted to Buffy on the run from
the law. Naturally, since it is her sacred (though illegal) duty, she would continue her fight against
vampires and the forces of darkness, while also avoiding the cops. Even better, while Buffy is stuck
in prison, the forces of darkness are loosed upon the world, wreaking havoc to the point where the
government comes to her for help.
Then, there is Dawn. Dawn dusted a vampire when she was 15 years old. Is she a murderer?
Should she be tried as an adult? Would this be justifiable homicide, given that the vampire was
attempting to kill her?
Xander might be guilty of negligent homicide for invoking Sweet without taking necessary
precautions against undesirable side effects.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Is Buffy a mass murderer? -- vandalia, 15:33:03 04/17/02 Wed
The trial would be a little strange, given that all the
murder victims were all already dead, previous to their dustings
So does this mean if someone kills Buffy, it won't be murder, as she too has already been killed
(twice!) and therefore can't be again?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Legal precedent in cases of resurrection is necessarily somewhat rare. -- Sophist,
15:41:18 04/17/02 Wed
However, I think the fair answer is that Buffy is now alive. Vampires are more accurately described
as dead men walking. As far as we know, Buffy can be killed in ordinary human ways, but vamps
are already dead and cannot. I think the law would support Robert here.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL, specially since the evidence would be a big bag of dust...;) -- Rufus, 16:29:13
04/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Ahh! Good Point! -- Robert, 16:10:58 04/17/02 Wed
>> "So does this mean if someone kills Buffy, it won't be murder, as she too has already been killed
(twice!) and therefore can't be again?"
It appears I can't use the "already dead" clause in my defense of justifiable homocide. Regardless, I
believe the rest of my previous posting still supports the conclusion that dusting a vampire is not
murder.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Is Buffy a mass murderer? (Spoilers up through Season 6: Dead Things) -- VampRiley,
16:55:43 04/17/02 Wed
"You don't consider dusting vamps to be murder?"
Guess I should have reworded that to have been more clear. Should have wrote "You don't think that
dusting vamps could fall under murder."
Going by a definition of murder: committing the premeditated killing of someone with malice.
Example: Angel murdered the fez-wearing psychic that was giving Cordelia the physical
manifestations of the visions she was experiencing.
My definition of killing is the ending of someone's life, either your own or someone else. There doesn't
have to be premeditated malice or killing.
Example: Dawn killing her date in All The Way when he was laying on top of her.
Absolutely not, and for the simple reason that the BtVS and Angel TV shows do not consider
dusting vampires to be murder. The TV shows present their own moral and ethical framework. The
definition and conditions of murder are provided within this framework. Killing of evil demons is
also allowed within this framework, but killing innocuous demons is not. Killing people is definitely
not allowed. Buffy could not kill Ben in "The Gift". Giles committed murder when he killed
Ben.
I've always had a problem when it comes to shows, where the main characters, who do a lot of the
killing, have this whole "you can't kill humans. That's just wrong." But if it's another species, while it
may be wrong, it's not as wrong as killing a human. Makes me want to reach right inside my tv and
grab, shake and slap her until she realizes it.
I never agreed with Buffy's whole "every human life has intrinsic value" thing. Maybe it was
something she wanted to believe when she first became the slayer. And she wanted to believe it so
much that eventually, she did.
But I don't believe that Giles "murdered" Ben. Forceful? Yes. Determined? Yes. But I didn't pick up
on any malicious vibes in the scene. He was calm, cool and collected. He also told Buffy that he had
sworn to protect earth. And that sometimes it meant doing things that others couldn't, or wouldn't,
do. He even got angry and started yelling at Buffy to drive his point home of what they may have
had to do. Giles told Ben that she is a hero. And she. But Giles isn't. That's why he did what he did.
He couldn't let Glory return even though Buffy couldn't have finished them both off while in
Benform. In Gloryform...I don't know. We didn't get shown that.
If you want to carry the discussion outside of the ethic and moral framework provided by BtVS
and Angel, then I could still find justifications that dusting vampires is not murder. BtVS and Angel
provide as a requirement that the person must die (usually by murder) before turning into a
vampire. Therefore the vampire is a dead person, and therefore he/she cannot be murdered again. As
another justification, we could also decide that Buffy, Angel and their respective crews are engaged
in a war with the vampires and some of the demons. This would be a war in which neither side takes
prisoners. This would be a war that exists and operates outside of the jurisdictions of the United
States and United Nations. Therefore the dustings and killings of vampires and demons would not
be murder.
I always look at these shows from a ethical and moral framework that is not supplied by the show,
but on my view of reality.
I also never agreed with the whole "it's okay to kill vamps. They're already dead."
It's true. You can't kill what is already dead. But what is already dead is the human that used to
have the body the vamp is now using. Vampires are dead in that their altered human bodies no
longer have some of their original functions (necessity of respiration, aging, etc.) and there is no
living life-force animating the body. But they are alive in that there is a life-force
animating the body (an undead life-force, but a life-force none the less) and their bodies do
not decompose with age, which a dead human body would normally do.
Vamps are not the same as the humans that used to have the body. The human soul is removed and
replaced with a vampire soul. Now, I am of the party that believes that a vampire (sans human soul)
is more than just the soulless version of the human, which is driven by the the memories of the now
dead human and the predatory, but not evil, tendencies of a creature with no conscious, that acts
only on instinct.
I do believe that the merger of human spirit (sans human soul) and vampire soul does produce more
than a soulless human with predatory instincts. Just like I believe that all people are more than the
sum of their parts, some vamps do seem to be more than what they appear to be. Some do seem more
predatory than evil. But it appears that vamps do enjoy inflicting pain and torture on others. There
are just varying degrees of it.
There is Angelus ('nuff said), Darla (she loved draining the piety out of missionaries), Drusilla
(wanted to tie Buffy up and "play" with her a bit, she cheered when Dalton went en flambe, as did
Spike [cheered, not being all flame-y] ), VampWillow and Xander (enjoyed torturing Angel in the
Wishverse), Spike (liked to beat up on Dalton) and Kakistos (Faith said that there wasn't a word for
what he did to her watcher). But most of the vamps on the shows aren't around long enough to get
any other good examples.
So, unless I hear it from Joss' lips, or the lips of one of the characters, and it is definitely a believable
source, I'm sticking with this theory.
If you consider dusting of vampires to be murder, then do you consider Buffy to be a mass
murderer...?
In general, no. She is the vampire slayer. And they are in a war where prisoners are not taken, like
you said. But I do feel that she did commit murder in Bad Girls. She blew off a test to go with Faith.
The vamps were just sleeping, not bothering anyone. And what do Buffy and Faith do? They crash on
in like they're a living demolition crew. And attack the vamps. All they cared about was killing the
"evil" vamps. Did they stop and think of the consequences? Probably not. They just wanted to kill
them. AND they even went to The Bronze afterwards to dance.
I've always had a problem with that section of the ep. Killing vamps that just get out of the grave?
Okay. That's like a preventative measure. Following a vamp, or vamps, back to a nest after seeing
them kill a human(s)? Fine. But the vamps that were asleep in that warehouse? Who knows what
was up with them. For all anyone knew, they had their human souls. Maybe they were like Angel,
wanting to do good, but had just gotten in. Nobody knows. Did either of them check this out.
Doubtful. And I don't think that just assuming it's alright to dust them simply because they are
demons or vampires is all right.
Sometimes, Buffy doesn't think about the consequences of her actions. At least not all the way
through. When she thought she killed Katrina in Dead Things, what does she decide to do? She
wants to turn herself in. Even if she did kill Katrina, it was an accident, like Faith's kill of Finch.
But what would have happened if she actually did kill Katrina and she turned herself in? Dawn may
have been put into foster care. And there's no guarantee that one of the group could have adopted
her. And what about slaying? With Faith in jail, Buffy is the only slayer out there. And what about
all those people she protects everyday with her patrolling. Many of them may not know it, but they
are counting on Buffy to protect them the best she can. And she sure as hell can't do it behind bars.
Who knows how many would die if she was in jail. From what we saw in Bargaining, Buffy is still
the best equipped for the job at the present.
...what fate would you wish upon her?
I don't know.
Then, there is Dawn. Dawn dusted a vampire when she was 15 years old. Is she a murderer?
Should she be tried as an adult? Would this be justifiable homicide, given that the vampire was
attempting to kill her?
This might fall under self-defense.
Xander might be guilty of negligent homicide for invoking Sweet without taking necessary
precautions against undesirable side effects.
There isn't enough information for me to make any kind of hypothesis. If negligible homicide is
knowing of the dangers but choosing to ignore them, it would all depend on whether or not he
researched about Sweet and the spell. He could have continued to look and everything he found said
that nothing would happen. But there is nothing that says either way. If negligent homicide goes
beyond that, then I still don't know.
VR
[> [> [> [>
Re: forgiving Wesley -- Robert, 11:46:37 04/16/02 Tue
>> "By having Lorne, Charles, and Fred attempt to justify Wesley to Angel, the writers called into
question whether forgiveness was even necessary, and cheapened Angel's act if he does choose to
forgive."
I view this in a different way. Angel is clearly out of control. He is on a rampage. The rest of the
gang are trying to defuse the situation. They are attempting to make it easier for Angel to find
forgiveness for Wesley, whether they believe his actions to be justifiable or not.
Note the effort they went to in order to reconstruct Wesley's thinking and motivation. They
desparately also needed to know why he did what he did. Lorn, Gunn and Fred find it much easier
to know that Wesley was merely misguided, rather than evil.
Regardless, they need to do whatever is necessary to cool Angel down. He is a hair's width away
from losing his soul to Wolfram and Hart.
[> [>
Re: Contra Wesley (spoilers for Forgiveness) -- Rahael, 10:53:26 04/16/02 Tue
Just one point -
Isn't it credible that Wesley would have believed the prophecy, and believed it to an extent that his
rationality failed him? Considering his own relationship with his father, and the precise nature of
the prophecy - "The father will kill the son" - isn't Wesley likely to jump to all the wrong conclusions,
think emotionally to the point where he does all he can to keep Angel away from Connor, and make
all sorts of mistakes he would not normally make.
In "Are you now or ever have been" the whispering paranoia demon points to Wesley as especially
paranoid. He probably over identifies with the helpless Connor, and sees in him the chance to right
an old and personal wrong.
Obviously, I haven't seen the ep yet. Just read the wildfeed.
[> [> [>
Re: Contra Wesley (spoilers for Forgiveness) -- Sophist, 11:03:18 04/16/02 Tue
Absolutely that is credible. My problem is that Lorne, Charles and Fred all attempted to
justify his behavior. That was what I found not credible.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Contra Wesley (spoilers for Forgiveness) -- Robert, 12:06:07 04/16/02 Tue
>> "My problem is that Lorne, Charles and Fred all attempted to justify his behavior. That was what
I found not credible."
People's actions are justified all the time ... rightly and wrongly. It is completely credible that the
gang would attempt to justify Wesley to Angel, if it would prevent Angel from murdering him.
In one of your previous posts, you gave good reasons why Wesley's actions were wrong, and I agree
with you that they were wrong. Wesley's action do not necessarily make him evil. Sahjan designed
the prophecies specifically to play against Wesley's weaknesses. There are things that Wesley
should have done to prevent the situation from becoming so bad, but just like everyone else Wesley is
a flawed individual.
You are objecting to the writing of this episode and you have previously stated that the series should
be discontinued as a result. I believe such conclusions are hasty. Lorn, Gunn and Fred are not
justifying Wesley's actions as right and proper. Rather they are justifying to Angel why he should
not kill Wesley. If Wesley had truly become an agent of demons or Wolfram & Hart, then maybe
Angel should kill him.
Please remember that in last season, Angel went through the same kind of ordeal. Angel fired his
friends so that he would not need to share his concerns and pain with them. They eventually forgave
him. This did not mean that his actions were justifiable. It also did not mean that the writers were
sending a message that the actions were justifiable.
[> [> [> [> [>
Completely agree that Wesley -- Sophist, 12:39:36 04/16/02 Tue
is not evil. I think, though, that the references to him went far beyond "Angel please don't kill
Wesley". That's a legitimate point. If it stopped there, I'd have no problem with it.
I like your example of Angel from S2. As far as I know, no one ever even attempted to justify his
behavior. They forgave him even though they all recognized that he was wrong. If Wesley is to be
forgiven, the first step is to acknowledge his wrongdoing, not try to say that he was not wrong.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Completely agree that Wesley -- Robert, 13:40:06 04/16/02 Tue
>> "If Wesley is to be forgiven, the first step is to acknowledge his wrongdoing, not try to say that he
was not wrong."
Assuming that Wesley has not become evil (and the evidence is that this is the case), then I would
expect that Wesley will confess his transgressions when he is able. In the mean time, the rest of the
gang has a little problem of Angel being in a murderous rage. In previous threads on this board,
people have discussed whether forgiveness is possible. It may not be, but murder will definitely end
Angel's possibility of redemption.
>> "that the references to him went far beyond "Angel please don't kill Wesley"."
I am assiduously arguing my case, not because I believe that Wesley's actions were justifiable, but
because you impugned the writers for presenting an unsupportable message. I do not accept your
argument that the writers are presenting a message that Wesley's actions were justifiable. I do not
believe that the writers intended Lorn, Gunn and Fred to believe that Wesley's actions were
justifiable. Instead, the writers are portraying Lorn, Gunn and Fred as being in a desparate
situation, and that you are reading way too much in their attempts to defuse Angel's rage.
The gang are attempting for provide Angel with a reason not to kill Wesley. They are attempting to
slow Angel down, till they can gain control of the situation. Even beyond that, I do believe that there
is also a sense that Lorn, Gunn and Fred are looking for some justification for Wesley's act of
betrayal. This would be a natual response. He is a very close friend and they would find some
comfort to know that he didn't do these acts because he turned evil. The betrayal is still there and
they will need to deal with it once Wesley can communicate.
>> "As far as I know, no one ever even attempted to justify his behavior."
It is true that no one justified Angel's actions last season, but then no one was in a murderous rage
over his actions either.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Completely agree that Wesley -- Rufus, 14:26:35 04/16/02 Tue
Assuming that Wesley has not become evil (and the evidence is that this is the case), then I would
expect that Wesley will confess his transgressions when he is able.
Wesley isn't evil, only a man who was forced into a corner due to circumstances. I don't know if
Cordy being gone at the time the worst happened would have changed much of what Wesley did, it
may have stopped Angel from going crazy with grief. I think Wesley will admit his wrongs. But I still
think his motives were for the best, to protect father and son. But Wesley can't talk right now.....and
how many stitches did Angel pull out trying to smother him?
I am assiduously arguing my case, not because I believe that Wesley's actions were justifiable,
but because you impugned the writers for presenting an unsupportable message. I do not accept your
argument that the writers are presenting a message that Wesley's actions were justifiable. I do not
believe that the writers intended Lorn, Gunn and Fred to believe that Wesley's actions were
justifiable. Instead, the writers are portraying Lorn, Gunn and Fred as being in a desparate
situation, and that you are reading way too much in their attempts to defuse Angel's rage.
I agree with you, the writers were showing how wrong things can go even when people have the best
intentions. The others were doing what people do when something happens they don't understand,
try to figure out why. Try to put the situation into a context they understand, they wanted to know
why Wesley did what he did. They only knew that he had met with Holtz, they didn't understand he
was taking the baby not to Holtz but away period. Angel as a vampire has too much physical power
to be held down, so they tried to talk him down....of course he wasn't in a mood to listen. The scene at
the show's end proves to me that Angel has a problem with forgiveness because he can't forgive
himself. He understands that the situation with Holtz started with the murder of the Captains
family years before. I have to ask was Angel angry at just Wesley or himself as well?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Angel's anger -- Robert, 14:53:18 04/16/02 Tue
>> " I have to ask was Angel angry at just Wesley or himself as well?"
I don't know! Angel could be repressing a sense of failure. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.
The most chilling part of the episode for me was when Angel was explaining to Wesley that he was
still Angel and not Angelus, and then proceeded to smother him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Angel's anger -- Rufus, 17:26:05 04/16/02 Tue
That one has me wondering....has he lost it....Lorne asked if he knew what he was doing....so is it
grief or grief plus another sucker opening a dark door they should have left closed. When he went
after Wesley you could see that he understood what he was saying but the words just didn't stop the
anger and pillow.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Angel's anger -- mundusmundi, 21:34:32 04/16/02 Tue
The most chilling part of the episode for me was when Angel was explaining to Wesley that he
was still Angel and not Angelus, and then proceeded to smother him.
I agree. Also, it was psychologically convincing, since he could have easily snapped his neck or some
other nasty means, that Angel chose a pillow so that he wouldn't have to see his friend's face as he
killed him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
the chilling pillow -- lulabel, 22:28:05 04/16/02 Tue
Yes, very chilling.
I saw the pillow smothering not as an inept attempt at killing Wesley, as some have noted, but as
entirely consistent with Angels' insistence that Wesley recognize that he is not Angelus. Angel
WANTS WESLEY TO KNOW WHO IS KILLING HIM. A quick snap of the neck would kill Wesley
too quickly - he'd be dead before he even realized what was going on. Angel wanted Wesley to know
that he is going to die, and why.
Ouch.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: the chilling pillow -- Rufus, 00:39:16 04/17/02 Wed
Don't agree, Angel could have walked into the room been very quiet and smothered Wesley before
anyone came back, the only thing that saved Wesley is that Angel wasn't a cold blooded murderer
but an enraged parent striking out. Angel was way too vocal, way too loud.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
more pillow talk -- lulabel, 17:16:06 04/17/02 Wed
Yes, I agree that the most important thing going on here is the expression of rage, not the eventual
result of Wesley's death. I do however believe that Angel would have killed Wesley. Throughout this
episode, it was clear that Angel was operating in a place beyond morality and rationality - the primal
need to protect his son subsumed all else. I would say that he was in a mode where the word "intent"
is almost meaningless.
I think the general chaotic nature of this episode that others have noted is a reflection of this. Angel
first starts off spinning his wheels - that's panic mode. Next he refused to call in Cordelia - denial
mode - if she knows about it then it's real. He eventually decides on a course of action - I'll call it
steamroller mode, where everything and everyone be damned if they get in my way.
To counter my own argument, Angel was deliberately deceptive in feigning interest in Wesley's
wellbeing in order to get into that hospital room. This clearly indicates a certain cool-headedness.
However, I would argue that this was more a device to make the eventual eruption more shocking
and dramatic.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Angel conflicted -- Rufus, 19:11:09 04/17/02 Wed
But subconsciously, Angel made sure he couldn't finish what he started. Part of him still knew what
was the right or wrong thing to do. It could also be said that Angel wanted to make sure that Wesley
knew he "didn't" go evil. Angel was set up to turn evil, but his friends noticed in time and stopped
him from potentially hurting his son. Wesley may store that for future use when he gets tempted to
go it on his own again. The show centers around the family that Angel has made in LA, staying
together they are strong, seperately they are weak. All has a strength that makes them important
each valuble enough to be there. Angel may be the "Champion" but a champion is only as good as the
companions he chooses to keep company with.
I don't think Angel was as much cool headed as desperate to find something to do to make it better.
As he has only found failure in the search for his son his breakdown in the hospital finishes off what
started when he stopped Fred from calling Cordy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I need the transcript to be certain of this, but -- Sophist, 15:12:30 04/16/02 Tue
I believe that several of the comments that bothered me came in scenes where Angel was not
present. If so, that would tend to disprove the suggestion that the writers were only showing Lorne,
Charles and Fred try to talk Angel down from his anger.
I agree that they were trying to account for Wesley's behavior among themselves. If they said to
themselves that his motives were good (so he wasn't evil), but that he had made some horrible
mistake, that would have been fine. It wasn't limited to that.
[> [>
I Think You Missed a Few Things -- Grant, 11:13:26 04/16/02 Tue
I both agree and disagree with you on a few things. I do think Wesley tried the best he could to do
the right thing. I feel that where he was wrong is in not talking to anyone. That is why it was so
important that Cordelia was absent, because she is the anchor of the AI community that keeps
people from going off like Wesley did. However, I do think it was important to note that Wesley's
recent arc had a very tragic construct, where everytime it looked like he had decided to tell someone
or to not believe the prophecy something suddenly came up to put him back on the path to horrible
misery and disaster. I do think that in your criticism of Wesley, you missed two important
things:
1. You are right, the prophecy could have happened at any time or been a good thing. In fact, Wesley
came to believe something similar at the end of Loyalty. After seeing Angel as such a loving father,
Wesley though that he had been wrong and silly about this whole prophecy thing, and was even
pretty close to telling Angel about everything. Then the earthquake hit, the oven exploded, and blood
dripped from Angel's head onto the baby, fulfilling the three signs that the McOracle told Wesley
would signify that the prophecy was soon to be fullfilled. Wesley's sense of urgency was then later
increased in Sleep Tight when Angel began getting angry, violent, and seeing Connor as food. So,
Wesley did feel like he had a small time frame in which he need to act.
2. Wesley never intended to hand the baby over to Holtz. His plan was to take the baby away
himself. That is why he waited until Holtz was going to attack AI HQ, so that both Holtz and Angel
would be occupied enough that he could make a clean getaway. Unfortunately, Holtz knew that
Wesley would do this and played him perfeclty by sending Justine to get the baby under the guise of
looking for help. I think it becomes pretty clear that Wes was not trying to take Connor to holtz when
you note that he brought a gun with him. After all, a gun is not such a great deterent on a vampire,
but could easily hold off Holtz and his minions long enough for Wesley to get in the car and drive
away.
[> [> [>
You may be right about #2. We'll see how that plays out. -- Sophist, 12:46:42 04/16/02
Tue
[> [>
Re: Contra Wesley (spoilers for Forgiveness) -- maddog, 13:17:20 04/16/02 Tue
Refuting a few points here...first off, to say Wesley shouldn't be forgiven because he was wrong is
extremely narcisistic...cause you've never done anything hastily before because you thought it was
right at the time right? :) The point is people make mistakes. Yes, he probably should have gone to
Fred and asked her opinion. God forbid someone screw up. It's not like Angel's ever done anything
like that. :) I rest my case.
And how was Wes supposed to know that prophecy was forged? That telepathy he's got...right. :)
And with W&H pushing the current prophecy with Angel feeding on Connor's blood it was a
hightened awareness of what needed to be done.
As for Holtz, yeah, a hard man to keep his word, but even the percentage of him doing so seemed
bigger than the course Angel was one.
In conclusion, sure Wes was wrong...he acted impulsively...but you know what? People make
mistakes. And he did do what any of them that had read that prophecy would have done. He had no
way of knowing what would happen. And in his current condition(and yes, you're right, he should be
dead), retrobution shouldn't be the first thing on everyone's mind anyway. At least wait til he's
recovered to bitch at him.
[> [> [>
I think my post reads a little differently. -- Sophist, 13:39:15 04/16/02 Tue
I did not say Wesley shouldn't be forgiven; I said he shouldn't be justified. Two different things.
I agree Wes could not have known the prophecy was forged. I excepted that from my criticism.
I'm not complaining to Wesley, or even about him. My issue was with the way Lorne,
Charles, and Fred justified him to Angel. That appeared, to me, to validate conduct that was clearly
wrong. The writers shouldn't do that.
[> [> [> [>
Re: I think my post reads a little differently. -- Rufus, 17:34:50 04/16/02 Tue
I don't even think it was justification as much as trying to show Angel that everyone has done the
same thing at one point....acted on the information they had with a limited time frame to make
choices. What would have Angel done if he thought someone was coming after his son? Given the
information he had Wesley did the right thing to protect both Angel and Connor. It was the right
thing done because he was given the wrong information. It's not like he snatched the kid as soon as
he got the first translation.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I think my post reads a little differently. -- Arethusa, 17:38:53 04/16/02 Tue
That reminds me of a quote (that I only half-remember, so I might get it wrong): There's no greater
treason than to do the wrong thing, for the right reason.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
"There is no greater treason than to do the right deed for the wrong reason." --
Sophist, 20:01:32 04/16/02 Tue
That's the quote. Your version fits Wesley better.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I think my post reads a little differently. -- Sophist, 20:05:25 04/16/02 Tue
Without a transcript, it's hard for me to quote the exact words to show what I mean by
"justification". However, my original point was that Wesley did not "do the best he could"
with limited information. There were, in fact, much better things he could have done.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
My quotes are directly from the show -- Rufus, 20:45:50 04/16/02 Tue
Any quotes from the show I made were from Closed Caption and sitting and taking notes, where the
actor said something that differed from the CC, I put the actors words in.
I may not agree with how Wesley did what he did but the chain of events just kept getting worse. We
are now argueing about who is right and wrong when the thing should be how do the characters
make it better. I think that the situation with Wesley is similar to the position that Angel was in
pre-Epiphany. Both men did things that were wrong with reasons that started out good. Angel
wanted to save Darla, and Wesley wanted to save Connor. The subsequent actions of both men
turned bad. Now both can put all of it aside and work together to find Connor. We can get caught up
in condeming either man, Angel or Wesley or we could sit back and wait and see how the situation is
resolved.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I agree that -- Sophist, 08:13:43 04/17/02 Wed
we're now at the point of "where do we go from here". I also agree with your analogy to pre-Epiphany
Angel. My points were simply that:
1. No one ever tried to justify Angel's actions before Epiphany, yet on the show and on the Board
people keep trying to say that Wesley was justified. What I think they mean, and where I think the
discussion is bogging down, is that he had good motives. I agree. But he was not "right" or
"justified" to act as he did.
2. If Wesley had been justified, there would be no need to forgive him. We only forgive those who are
not justified in their actions. Those who are justified don't need to be forgiven; they did the right
thing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I agree that -- LittleBit, 08:59:27 04/17/02 Wed
I hope you will bear with me here -- Forgiveness is the first episode of Angel that I've seen.
I prepped by reading through the transcripts and episode analyses so I had a fair idea how we got to
this point.
First, I'd like to say that I think the episode title is supremely ironic...there is little if anything in the
episode of forgiveness. Far too soon.
Second, and as dispassionately as I can, I'm considering what Wesley did. Not why, not how,
just what. He kidnapped and lost Angel's baby. No matter the motives, that is what
happened. Angel has every reason to furious with him. Let me try a summary from Wesley's point
of view: "I read a prophecy that said the father will kill the son, determined that it must apply to you
and Connor...no, I didn't discuss it with anyone...well, Holtz, but your ages-old arch-enemy was going
to help me, see...I just wanted to keep you from killing Connor so I kidnapped him to keep him
safe...only I lost him along the way and now Holtz has him in a demon world." Not the summary as
Wes would want to give it, but painfully accurate. I would be a long time forgiving this, even longer
forgetting.
As for Angel's attack on Wesley, yes it would have been prudent and considered and much calmer if
he had just waited until Wes could communicate all the reasons he had for losing Angel's son, but I
just don't think Angel was going for calm. Remember, Angel has spent time in more than one demon
dimension and he knows the torture that can be inflicted on individuals with souls.
This episode was not about forgiveness, it was spelling out all the things that need forgiving and the
breech of trust that allowed events to reach this point.
[I hope Cordelia has had a great vacation...she'll need to be rested to deal with this. Although, I
wonder if she's had visions about this and if not, why not?]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I agree that -- Robert, 10:13:51 04/17/02 Wed
>> "... on the Board people keep trying to say that Wesley was justified."
Well, since I have been the most vocal critic to your original message, I will assume by "people" you
meant me. Therefore, I will attempt to re-iterate my position.
I did not and do not consider Wesley to be justified in what he did. My objection is your
interpretation of the reactions given by Lorne, Gunn and Fred to Wesley's actions, and also to your
conclusion about the message being sent by the writers and about the whether the TV show should
even continue to exist.
You wrote in your original posting:
>> "Each of them, at various times, said that Wesley had acted courageously within the limits of his
knowledge."
Wesley was courageous. He was also wrong. Don't you think that it took courage to betray his
friends in order to save Conner? If you don't, then I recommend that you take a look at the definition
of courage in the dictionary.
>> "They all recommended that Angel forgive Wes because Wes had tried to do the right thing. The
problem is, Wesley was wrong."
Do you really believe the Wesley should not, could not, be forgiven? Forgiveness means that Angel
would give up claim of requital or retaliation. Without this, then it is inevitable that Angel will
murder Wesley. Do you consider this a right and proper conclusion? Forgiveness also means that
Angel would give up resentment. That may take longer. It may not happen at all. Without it,
Wesley would never be Angel's friend again, which may be a proper conclusion.
>> "By having the other characters praise Wesley's actions, the writers not only send the wrong
message. "
You original posting did not document the events where the other characters praised Wesley's
actions. Therefore, I will stand by my original criticism. I contend that other characters did not
praise Wesley's actions, but rather justified to themselves and to Angel why he should not be
killed.
>> ""Forgiveness" has caused me to question whether AtS can or should continue."
I still believe the basis for this is excessively thin.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I'm still not disagreeing with you on some of these points. -- Sophist, 12:57:14 04/17/02
Wed
I did not have you in mind in my comments. There have been too many posts for me to keep track of
each person's argument. I was just making a general point.
I am still not arguing about forgiveness. I have never said, and at this point would not say, that
Angel should not forgive Wesley. I am making 2 related points:
1. The characters on the show did speak of Wesley's acts in a way that I think a reasonable person
would consider justifications of those acts. Describing him as "courageous" and "doing the best he
could with the knowledge he had" clearly (to me) fall into the category of "justification". These
statements just as clearly fail as justifications, as explained in my original post and as I discuss
below. I also think LittleBit has a good description of Wesley's behavior in a post above in this
thread.
2. The question of forgiveness only arises if Wesley was not justified. If he did the best
he could, that's all there is to say. He doesn't need forgiveness and Angel is entirely wrong to blame
him. If, OTOH, Wesley did not do the best he could, then Angel's anger would be righteous, but it
might be best to forgive Wesley.
I don't think Wesley was courageous. We may just have to disagree here. I don't think betraying
one's friends, even with good motives, constitutes courage. After all, the road to hell is paved with
good intentions. "Courage" for Wesley would mean telling the others about the prophecy and working
with them in dealing with it. It might mean risking his own life to prevent Angel from attacking the
boy. It doesn't mean sneaking off into the night under false pretences, after playing a dangerous
game of double double cross with the arch enemy of the man whose son you are kidnapping.
My concern about the show is this. In Wesley they had a character who many found to be
sympathetic, and an actor who many believe has shown great talent over the last several episodes.
There is a risk that the writers will be reluctant to lose these assets and will create artificial
solutions to problems in order to do so. I think they did that here. If Wesley had died, they would
have achieved a stunning tragic effect. They chose to go a different way, one that caused two
significant problems: Wesley's survival was implausible; and Wesley would lose audience sympathy
as a continuing character if his actions were (in my view correctly) seen as entirely wrong (we would
sympathize with him in death, in the same sense we do in Greek tragedy), so they tried to justify his
behavior through the other characters. I think these decisions sacrificed the art of the show for less
noble purposes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I'm still not disagreeing with you on some of these points. -- Robert, 15:38:41
04/17/02 Wed
>> "I don't think betraying one's friends, even with good motives, constitutes courage."
Sure it does if you accept the dictionary definition.
From Merriam-Webster;
"COURAGE, METTLE, SPIRIT, RESOLUTION, TENACITY mean mental or moral strength to
resist opposition, danger, or hardship."
Wesley honestly believed that he was saving Conner's life. He risked everything for the just cause.
He was prepared to throw away all that defined himself (including his life) to save him from Angel.
The fact that Wesley was also a dumbshit for getting into the situation in the first place does not
preclude the courage of his act.
I believe that you may be attributing noble characteristics to the word "courage" that it does not
have. Courage is a quality normally used to describe good people, but the dictionary definition does
not limit it to just good people. It may be that in a generation or two, common usage will cause the
dictionary definition to change.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Fair enough. -- Sophist, 15:46:41 04/17/02 Wed
I would still say that courage means facing danger forthrightly, not taking the baby under false
pretenses. In other words, Wesley would have been courageous if he had told Angel about the
prophecy and then taken Connor away, fighting off Angel's attempts to stop him. But I see your point
based on the dictionary.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Fair enough. -- Rufus, 16:27:41 04/17/02 Wed
Then remember what Justine said to Fred and Gunn about Wesley sacrificing everything he believed
in to save Connor. If Wesley didn't feel that he had a good reason to act he wouldn't have, but fate
set him up. I said it before how was he to know that a time travelling demon was rewriting prophesy
with a bloody ink well and liquid parchment?
The point of the episode is forgiveness. Both men took a baby, the story hints that Angelus murdered
the infant son of Holtz, Wesley took the infant son of Angel to prevent the father from killing the son,
like the spiked blood set him(Angel)up to. Ironic we are less worried about the long dead infant
whose blood is on Angel's hands and more worried about a child who was taken for protection.
Wesley and Angel are now in the same position of taking a loved one away from a parent. Their
motives were different the result the same the infants are both gone. I would have considered the
same plan of action that Wesley took if it would have saved the life of a child. I would have told
someone of my fears and that is the big mistake Wesley did, and I think is was to further protect the
others from blame. If Wesley took Connor with the intention to give him to Holtz I would have
wondered about him, but he meant to take him somewhere to make him safe from both Angel and
Holtz. There are a lot of conflicting emotions in Angel. Darla was right in reminding him how ironic
it was at the time Angel had so much to live for that the man he took so much from returned into his
life. Revenge won't work, forgiveness will at least bring the two men back together to seek a solution
to finding Connor.
[> [> [> [>
Re: I think my post reads a little differently. -- mundusmundi, 20:27:03 04/16/02
Tue
My issue was with the way Lorne, Charles, and Fred justified him to Angel. That appeared, to
me, to validate conduct that was clearly wrong. The writers shouldn't do that.
Apologies if someone else already mentioned this (just saw the eppy tonight, and I've only browsed
through some of the posts), but to me it seemed clear that it wasn't validation so much as L, C and F
were overcompensating for Angel's need for vengeance. Maybe it's my Lit-Crit background talking,
but I'm always hesitant to assume that characters are meant to function as the writers' mouthpiece,
or that there should be a pound of flesh exacted every time for the stupid things they do. People in
real life do stupid things sometimes, and sometimes their friends try to justify them or let them off
the hook undeservedly. (Don't even get me started on the Let's Blame Xander for All Society's Ills
issue. ;) Remember too that Fred and Gunn may feel guilty about Wesley being the loser in their
triangle, that they weren't paying much attention to him lately, and are compensating for that also.
Psychologically, at least, I found the motivations persuasive and refreshingly not spelled out and
underlined for us, unlike the other ME show of late.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Though I do agree.... -- mm, 20:29:18 04/16/02 Tue
that I expected Lorne at least to be a little more hostile. Guess that's just not his style.
[> [> [> [> [>
Your point is fair, but -- Sophist, 08:24:09 04/17/02 Wed
if Lorne, Charles, and Fred were only trying to talk Angel down from his rage, I have to think there
was a reason why the writers gave them these particular arguments. In addition, some of the
statements occur when Angel was not even present in the scene, which reinforces the ex cathedra
nature of the "Wes did the best he could" claim.
If I were trying to calm Angel down, I'd emphasize that Wes had good motives in that he was trying
to save Connor's life. I'd urge him to wait to talk to Wes. I wouldn't try to tell him Wes was
"right".
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Lorne vs. Fred and Gunn -- matching mole, 12:00:37 04/17/02 Wed
Rewatched the episode last night and paid a bit more attention to the details than I did during my
initial 6:30 AM viewing.
The dialog at issue appears to happen three times. First when Fred and Gunn are reading Wesley's
diaries, second when Fred is trying to convince Angel not to continue his attempt at vengeance, and
third when Lorne and Angel are talking near the end just before getting word from the
hospital.
The first case seems to primarily reflect relief that Wesley actually had good intentions in abducting
Connor. The second consists of Fred trying to convince Angel to calm down and stop acting rashly. I
don't think that Wesley's actions are really justified (nor are they criticized) in either case. They are
explained which in and of itself must be a big relief to Gunn and Fred who must be feeling somewhat
guilty as Mundus said.
The third conversation is the odd one. Lorne telling Angel that Wesley did the 'best he could with
the information he had' just like Angel. Lorne was probably trying to calm Angel down (although
Angel seemed pretty calm at the time) but it still seems a bit strange, especially after Wesley beat up
Lorne.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thank you. How about the conversation with Justine before Sahjan arrives? -- Sophist,
13:04:22 04/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Fred is the key -- mundusmundi, 13:14:38 04/17/02 Wed
(as opposed to Dawn....heheh [obligatory Key joke --sorry, couldn't resist.])
Fred is who defends Wesley the most passionately and gradually convinces the others (well, except
one) to come around. IME, it makes perfect sense that she does this. Fred does idolize Wesley to a
certain degree -- not as much as she did Angel, nor in the way she loves Charles, but as a capable
boss/fellow intellectual/older brother figure. Naturally, The writers inserted her dialogue with
Charles, Angel, et al, not to justify Wesley's actions, but to trace the arc of reasoning that follows
from Fred's impetus. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense.
Lorne's comments are thornier, I agree, though the dialogue you quoted is interesting. Lorne too does
the best he can with the information he gets, and although he had been right about Wesley's plans
he didn't know his motivations. I don't think his dialogue is meant to justify Wesley either. I'm not
sure what it's meant to do, other than serve as a diabolical means of softening us up before Angel's
freakout.
"Forgiving" isn't a great episode, but I agree with Robert that it was a necessary one. It worked for
me, I realized about halfway through, when Fred tried to call Cordelia, and I was so engrossed in the
story that I felt a tiny shock in realizing that I'd forgotten Charisma Carpenter was still on the
series! Can't wait for her return.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
That brings up a related point: Whose voice is canonical? -- Sophist, 16:11:27 04/17/02
Wed
There has been lots of discussion on the Board about authorial intent. Most of it involved the
legitimacy of other interpretations, with the tacit assumption that there actually is an authorial
intent.
On BtVS, I'm inclined to hear Tara as speaking for the writers (others have made similar
comments). On AtS, my assumption has been that Lorne fills that role. Part of the debate in this
thread may arise from this assumption that I made -- I took Lorne's statement as the "official"
message, but others may not have.
I can think of 3 different possibilities here:
1. Lorne and Tara do fill these roles. Our own interpretations must take their voices into account as
those of the authors.
2. No one speaks for the authors. Any point of view we choose to adopt is valid. Frankly, this is a
little too free form for my taste. I also think it's cheap if the authors say this, since they are then
denying any responsibility for the messages on the shows, even though they have written
them.
3. Characters do speak for the writers, but the writers use different voices in different episodes. This
is fair up to a point, but it also lets the writers off the hook too easily and runs the risk of melding
into possibility #2: if everyone speaks for the writers, then no one does.
I'd be interested in others' views on both points, i.e. whether there is a canonical speaker on either
show, and whether Lorne and Tara seem to fill that role.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Hmmm, I think......Mine!........j/k had to say it though..;) -- Rufus, 16:32:10 04/17/02
Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: That brings up a related point: Whose voice is canonical? -- Ixchel, 18:53:12
04/17/02 Wed
I can understand that Tara and Lorne seem to be the voice of the writers on their respective shows
(and maybe they're meant to be), but I like to think of them as more (a complete character, especially
Tara) than a metron for the writer gods. I do care what the writers intend (somewhat), but I also
like to make up my own mind (does that align me with point 2?). One aspect of BtVS (I don't watch
AtS as intently) that I really like is that I don't feel they tell me what to think (maybe I'm straying
from the topic here though).
For example, many people take Tara's opinion in the Hunchback discussion (Crush) as the writer
speaking ex cathedra regarding Spike (and probably it was). I agree with others who see the
conversation as three possible opinions (Willow - pro, Tara - con and Buffy - undecided). And while I
like and admire Tara's character, she does not know everything. And her opinion can change with
events, so she is an individual and not just statements frozen in time.
In the AtS situation, I think I understand why Wesley did what he did (though it was a mistake), but
I don't think it was the best he could do (though he was probably too freaked out to comprehend
that). A possible solution (IMHO) would have been to tell everyone what was happening and maybe
lock Angel up (heavy duty cage) until they can analyze the situation further and find some solution.
So no matter how many times Lorne may say Wesley did the right thing, I probably won't agree
(unless some further information is revealed that convinces me otherwise).
Hmmmm, maybe it's just that I have an inflated sense of self importance.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Excellent points Ixchel. -- Sophist, 09:04:43 04/18/02 Thu
I guess I should modify my view to say that I don't think Tara's comments are always
canonical -- sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Or something like that. You are quite right, also, in
seeing her as a fully developed character in her own right.
As is obvious, I also agree completely that Wesley did not "do the best he could". When Lorne said
that he did, I was stunned. I also interpreted other comments by Fred, Charles, and Justine through
the lens of Lorne's statement. All of which explains the source of the views I have expressed in this
thread.
As for authorial intent, I'm of the school that says we can certainly interpret a work of art on our
own, but that there are dangers in straying too far from the intent of the creator. I think we should
do the best we can to ascertain the creator's intent and use that to inform, but not control, our own
interpretation.
OT -- thank you very much for the kind comments in the Iphigenia thread. I'm enjoying that thread
very much.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Lorne and Tara -- matching mole, 10:29:15 04/18/02 Thu
I must confess that I had never thought of characters on the shows having canonical voices. But I
can certainly think of many cases where Tara (in particular) says things that could easily be
interpreted as the sentiments of the writers.
However both Tara and Lorne have changed over time. I don't think that Tara in much of season 4
could really be considered a canonical voice at all. In fact her early actions in keeping her supposed
demon nature a secret and inadverdently endangering the Scoobies are reminiscent of Wesley's
current actions, although the outcome was far less dire. Since that time Tara's character does seem
to often represent the viewpoint of the writers of the show.
Lorne seems to have moved in the opposite direction. Throughout most of season 2 his role was
largely to comment on the other characters. He spoke with a fair amount of authority. The Pylean
adventure filled out his character and gave us some perspective on his own motivations. However it
seems to have severely damaged his ability to comment on the other characters. His clairvoyance
with singers has hardly been used at all. Most of his dialog recently dealt with baby-sitting Connor.
Recent comments are along the line of Cordelia's quite the woman - go for it or "this is bad, kids,
really bad". The transformation of Lorne from a character that really helped make AtS season 2 as
great as it was to a nanny has been my one major disappointment with season 3. I am hoping that
this means some major plot development that will present a surprising revelation about Lorne.
So I wouldn't set too much store in his comment to Angel. I do find it strange as the tone of previous
episodes doesn't seem to be indicating that Wesley's actions were justified but rather the result of
social isolation and stress.
P.S. and OT Am I the only one who enjoyed the Pylean adventure? Every now and then little side
comments pop up in messages that seem to indicate a general disdain for the story. I thought it was
very enjoyable and perfectly timed, its generally lighter tone forming a nice balance to the grimness
earlier in the season and the intensity and melodrama of the end of BtVS season 5.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Lorne and Tara -- Sophist, 10:58:00 04/18/02 Thu
I agree that Tara has grown into her role. I'm not sure when I started seeing her in that light, but I
certainly have in S6.
I too am disappointed in how little they've used Lorne this year. I'm still in the habit of expecting
Truth from him though.
Pylea was cute, and any espisode that gave us Fred has to be good, but overall I like the Sturm und
Drang better. Give me Othello any day over Twelfth Night. OTOH, my wife and daughter clearly
prefer the lighter episodes. They complain that this season everything is turning out so dark.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thanks, Sophist. -- Ixchel, 11:15:42 04/18/02 Thu
Regarding Tara (and Lorne), I guess I feel it is too limiting for the character? OTOH, the writers
may very well intend for them to be perceived this way most of the time.
As to Wesley, well, there is the chance that Lorne (through his reading ability?) knows something we
don't. But, for now, I have formed my opinion on Wesley's actions.
You certainly have a strong point about the intent of the creator. Not only is that useful in forming
an interpretation, but some would say knowledge of the creator's life and psyche is helpful as well.
OTOH, there are some works that we may never know anything about the creator's intent (ancient
art for example). Also, random interpretation can sometimes lead to interesting insights that may
surprise, but also please the creator (or not).
You're very welcome! I was greatly influenced by your and Rahael's wonderful thoughts.
Ixchel
[> [> [>
Give me a break -- JustAsking, 08:41:03 04/17/02 Wed
Obviously, it bears repeating. From "That Old Gang of Mine":
===========================
WESLEY
It's never easy. The pull of divided
loyalties. Any choice we do end
up making, we feel as though we've
betrayed someone.
GUNN
Yeah...
WESLEY
(after a beat)
If you ever withhold information
or attempt to subvert me again --
I will fire you. I can't allow any
one member of this team to compromise
the safety of the group. No matter
who it is. If you do it again, you will
be dismissed -- bag and baggage -out
of a job and on to the streets.
==========================
It's not as simple as "Wesley made a mistake, people make mistakes." We've been through this kind
of situation - THIS SEASON. If this doesn't get thrown in his face writ large it will be
extremely disappointing.
The specific actions Wesley took are forgivable, or justifiable, or whatever you want to call it,
depending of course on one's ability to forgive and justify. However, the hypocrisy revealed
by those actions is not, and Wesley hasn't suffered near enough for that hypocrisy.
[> [>
Re: Contra Wesley (spoilers for Forgiveness) -- Liz, 15:48:44 04/16/02 Tue
People have said interesting things about Wes that I never really saw. I don't consider forgiving him
to be a huge issue. I think the larger issue is whether their trust, not their anger.
Ever since "Waiting in the Wings," Wesley has been kind of cracking up. You can watch it happen
over the few episodes. He's been distant and separating from everyone. I think that had something
to do with not sharing his worries. He wasn't going to try to talk to Angel about whether or not he
was going to eat his son, especially since Angel starting acting very weirdly. He wasn't going to talk
to Gunn or Fred because he really didn't know how to act around them and I think he wanted to
avoid them. Cordy was gone during the time he was sorting this out. I can't really see him talking
to Lorne about it, although I guess that was possible.
I don't think he did "the best he could with the information he had," but I also don't think he did
anything unforgivable. I NEVER thought he was going to hand Connor over to Holtz. I think his
escape scene where he got his throat cut was indicative of that. He didn't want to approach Justine,
but he grudgingly did because he thought she needed help. She tried to kill him to steal the baby.
No, Wes intended to steal Connor and disappear.
And that was not really a sane thing to do, but I personally find it understandable. I see his
character clearly. I as a viewer still like him.
However, the rest of the group: I saw some people being pissed off that Gunn and Fred just forgave
him instantly and said he was acting rightly (at least with what he knew). I think that is not the
whole story of their feelings. I think that at the time, they were dealing with the possibility that
Wes had simply betrayed them to Holtz. That Wes had maliciously betrayed them. They were
relieved to find out that it wasn't true. That he had reasons. Understandable reasons. And so I
think they forgave Wesley--forgave him meaning that they did not have to hate him. But I think it
will be a while before they trust him fully again. Right now they are concerned and glad he is still
alive. That doesn't mean all is right in the world, though. It just means that they know he has not
become an enemy. I really thought that their words showed this. I looked at their statements and
saw the relief of knowing that he was not trying to hurt them. That's all that mattered at that time.
He's alive, he's not an enemy. Later we will see some fallout of his bad choices.
Although I have to say, we might not. It might be that Angel will still hate him so much that Fred &
Gunn will spend all their time defending him. I think the interesting part might be seeing Wesley
himself deal with his bad choices, and his lack of communication. His willingness to go behind
everyone's backs to protect Connor shows how willing he was to split away from all of his friends.
Someone here mentioned how he might be projecting his own relationship with his father, and while
usually I hate such psychologically deterministic speculation, I have to say that I can see that one.
Wes might be indentifying strongly with a son destroyed by his father.
[> [> [>
Re: Good post. -- mundusmundi, 20:31:49 04/16/02 Tue
I think the writers are making it so that it's going to be up to Cordelia to set things right.
[> [> [> [>
Absolutely -- Rufus, 21:53:57 04/16/02 Tue
And also the fact that this group of people need each other to fight the good fight. Wesley is vital to
Angel and Angel knows it. I remember when Wes said last name about the title of the company
Angel Investigations....it's just a name. But we knew it wasn't true. Cordy will come back and have
to sort out quite the mess.
[> [> [>
Wesley's intentions isn't the point -- keyster, 23:53:06 04/16/02 Tue
Even Angel admited that he "understood" why Wesley did what he did. And that it took much
courage.
But still, that didn't stop Angel from having uncontrollable murderous rage against him. He might
have "understood" Wesley, but that understanding didn't prevent Angel from his desire for
revenge.
So, I don't think the point if Wesley did something that he should be forgiven for. I don't think
Wesley was wrong in what he did, for he was trying to protect Connor. But still when someone
causes another so much pain (even without evil intent, even with the best intentions) there can
never be any forgiveness.
It didn't matter to Holtz that Angulus now had a soul. It didn't matter to Callisto that Xena had
turned away from evil and now worked for good (oops sorry, wrong show), and it didn't matter to
Angel the good intentions of Wesley. It is part of our human nature. There is no getting away from
that. When someone hurts you so deeply, so very deeply, there can be no forgiveness. Ever. Only
hatred and revenge.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Wesley's intentions isn't the point -- Rufus, 00:42:40 04/17/02 Wed
I wonder if the scene in the hospital was the first time Angel really let it go about his loss. His son,
gone. Will this outburst lead to a state of depression that will be worse than the rage.
As for Wesley, I feel he will be needed...he is the only one who has been able to figure out how to
open portals, I know where Connor is doesn't have portals....but who says Connor stays there?
[> [> [> [> [>
And who says that Wes won't figure out some new mojo for entering Quortoth? -- Masq,
11:08:23 04/17/02 Wed
I have a sneaking suspicion that might be the way ME goes with this. Angel is so blinded by grief
right now he can't see Wesley's humanity or his worth. But as Angel does begin to forgive and move
on, I think it will be Wes who figures out how to get Connor back.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
You're probably right. Oh, and by the way, -- Sophist, 13:12:58 04/17/02 Wed
is this enough AtS discussion for you? :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Oh, I'll only be happy when... -- Masq, 14:23:23 04/17/02 Wed
The threads about Spike trickle down to one or two a week instead of three or four a day. It's like
Chinese water torture, seeing a new one there at the top of the board all the time. I come here 10-20
times a day 'cause it's my board, but since I'm a good, non-interfering moderator I let them be and
suffer in silence.
Either that, or equal numbers of BtVS-AtS threads. That'd be good!
Maybe I should make some official decrees... mwah hah hah
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Oh, I'll only be happy when... -- Rufus, 16:43:18 04/17/02 Wed
We have one week of Angel before BTVS starts up again....I say we make the best of the time we
have...and of course this ep sure gave us plenty to talk about. This situation has the Angel board
buzzing about who is right and forgiveness. I still like that little girl in the White Room...and
revenge, so much more than forgiveness. All I thought was Angel listen to the evil entity
protected with the image of a child.....she is happy about all the "trouble".....taking you again off the
yellow brick road to redemption. I'd also like to know who she meant when she said "I can see
why they respect you". With Angel so caught up with "trouble" he is missing out on
finding true solutions to his problem and continue with the mission he started with. While he is
waylaid by "trouble" he is not being much of a "Champion".
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: And who says that Wes won't figure out some new mojo for entering Quortoth? --
mundusmundi, 13:19:24 04/17/02 Wed
I think it will be Wes who figures out how to get Connor back.
Agreed. Obviously, about the only options left for this character at the moment are suicidal
depression or atonement, and though there may be a brief flirtation with the former in the end they
need to get Wes back in good faith with the gang. I'd be somewhat disappointed, though, if there's
not more too it (and please, not another Pyleaesque adventure). We haven't seen much of Cordy's
demon side yet; maybe something unexpected will play itself out there.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
What you don't miss the Numfar dance of welcome? -- Rufus, 16:44:37 04/17/02
Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I'd prefer the dance of shame, even though I didn't see it. -- VampRiley, 17:17:23
04/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
What's wrong with Pylea? (more in Lorne and Tara post above) -- matching mole,
10:31:54 04/18/02 Thu
[>
Re: The Price of Revenge......spoilers for Forgiveness -- Robert, 09:55:39 04/16/02
Tue
>> "Is that the way to bring Connor back, darkest magic?"
>> "Is he insane with grief?"
I don't think we know yet if Angel is insane. Angel didn't substantiate Sahjan to bring Conner back,
so much as to wreak vengance upon Sahjan. As long as Sahjan was insubstantial, all Angel could do
was use impolite language on him. Now Angel could rend Sahjan at will -- or so he hoped. At every
step, Angel was told that Conner is lost and Angel won't be able to get him back, so all that is left is
grief and revenge.
>> "Has he made a deal that something will want to collect on?"
Oh yes, and won't it be fun to find out what the payment is?
I found this episode to be wholly unpleasant. I did not expect Angel to fully forgive Wesley, but the
hysterical ferocity of Angel's attack upon Wesley completely shocked me. I normally watch episodes
of Angel twice, but last night I was barely able to withstand one viewing. I do not mean to say that I
disliked the episode. Novels often have a chapter or two which are crucial to the story but very
unpleasant by themselves. I am sure that I will appreciate this episode much more in the coming
weeks.
[>
Re: The Price of Revenge......spoilers for Forgiveness -- leslie, 14:10:55 04/18/02 Thu
So much talk about Angel and forgiveness of Wesley, so much discussion of Wesley's betrayal, as
though he were the one who jumped into another dimension with Connor.
Wesley was lying with his throat slit in the park when Holz made his jump. ANGEL was the one
who let him get away--the one who agreed to let Holz take his baby in recompense for what Angel
had done to Holz's family. Angel thought that Holz was going to do what Wesley seems to have been
planning to do--take the baby away and raise him in peace, away from all of the turmoil and danger
that is Angel's life and crusade. Angel is the one who was wrong.
It seems to me that what Angel blames Wesley for (consciously or unconsciously) is for creating the
situation in which Angel himself made the wrong choice.
[> [>
Duress -- Sophist, 15:01:27 04/18/02 Thu
I've posted way too much in this thread already, but.
Angel agreed to Holtz's proposal only because Holtz threatened to kill Connor if Angel didn't agree.
Maybe it's the lawyer in me, or maybe it's the parent, but how can we say that Angel "let" Holtz take
Connor under such circumstances?
That Wesley planned on taking Connor himself seems likely, but is at this point only an inference on
our part. His actual agreement (since we're talking about what Angel agreed to) was to let Holtz take
the child.
Again from a legal perspective, but also from a moral one, I'm hard put to excuse Wesley from
responsibility for Holtz seizing Connor. Wes took the baby under false pretenses. In doing so, he took
him away from his best protection and becomes (legally at least) responsible for Connor thereafter. If
a kidnapper drove away with a child who is then killed in a car accident, the law would certainly
hold the kidnapper responsible. Isn't that our moral sense also?
[> [> [>
Re: Duress -- leslie, 16:02:13 04/18/02
Thu
I think this is one of the problems with this whole plot line--there are so many people with, not only
differing agendas, but rapidly shifting differing agendas, that it's possible to read it just about any
way, whether from conviction or sheer confusion. When Angel "gave up" Connor to Holz, it was
before the portal opened, as I recall. So he did so under the impression that Connor was staying in
this dimension. His reaction may have been different if it were a question of condemning Connor to a
life in a hell dimension--the risk of Connor being killed in the process of trying to recover him may
have seemed more worthwhile a gamble. But the thing is that whatever Wesley may have intended,
Angel was the one present and in a position to make decisions and take action at the time Connor
was taken through the portal, not Wesley. And so I stand by my conviction that Angel's rage at
Wesley is not that Wesley took Connor per se, but that Wesley created the situation in which
*Angel* was forced to fail his son. Which is why Angel was so specific that this was Angel, not
Angelus, reacting.
Current board
| More April 2002