April 2003
posts
Dilemma: Horns of the Bull (Spoilers for ATS
"Inside Out") -- Tyreseus, 00:16:11
04/03/03 Thu
"When making a decision of minor importance, I have always
found it advantageous to consider all the pros and cons. In
vital matters, however, such as the choice of a mate or a
profession, the decision should come from the unconscious,
from somewhere within ourselves. In the important decisions
of personal life, we should be governed, I think, by the
deep inner needs of our nature."
-Sigmund Freud
Hey, I'm back with two functioning typing hands, and just in
time! Thanks to everyone who sent words of sympathy. I'm
still in a wrist brace, but it only slightly slows my typing
speed.
So, I'm interpretting tonight's epidode of ATS as a serious
meditation on choices. The choices we make, the situations
that lead to no choice, and the god-awful "dilemma" or the
situations where no good choice can be made.
Connor: Has the only real choice to make in the episode. To
kill an innocent to protect his baby or to risk his baby by
keeping his hands clean. So much character depth (finally)
verbalized in Connor tonight. Two weeks ago I spoke about
how Connor doesn't fit in with the rest of the AI team
because he's never done something so horrible that he feels
the need to atone for it. Tonight he clearly chose, with all
the ramifications clear, to take an innocent life.
Darla's visit from beyond (sent by the PTB???) served to
illustrate exactly what choice Connor was making, and in the
end, he gave in to the fear, hatred and rage. Strong
emotions, not rational thought, often lead us to make the
really bad choices in life. It's easier to mistrust than to
trust, easier to hate than to love, easier to fear than to
understand. Connor fell for this trap.
Skip: Serves as a strong counterpoint to Connor. His choices
are simple - he ways the pros and cons. "I'm a merc." No
moralizing, no agonizing over the ramifications. It's
simple, much like Darla's time as a vampire, he makes his
choices purely out of self-interest. He may have a stake in
seeing the "No-name" horror succeed, but he will do
whatever's best for his own hide. Ultimately, however, his
life is ended because of the choices he made. He could have
escaped, but chose to attempt killing his captors instead.
In this case, his need for revenge (strong emotion) was his
downfall.
Skip's speech to the AI gang, however, coupled with Gunn's
rehearsed monolog to Fred, illustrate the concept of choices
in the light of free will versus predestiny. There are no
easy answers here. If some higher (and not necessarily
benevolent) power is maneuvering us like chess pawns, is
there any such thing as free will? But Skip admits that we
make some of those choices (sandwiches, flossing) so there
must be some control over our own destiny, however minor.
Gunn provides an excellent speech about the final shot still
being a question mark, but where's his proof? Can you ever
tip the scale if going up against a omniscient being?
Angel: Has the unspeakable dilemma. His choice is to kill
the woman he loves or to unleash evil horror upon the world.
It reminds me of Buffy's choice at the end of Becoming, Part
2. There's no happy ending to this scenario. Unlike Buffy,
however, Angel hesitates at the crucial moment. He pauses as
Fred calls out for him to "wait." Did he drag his feet
getting to the meat packing district? He stands above
evil!contraction!Cordelia and pauses, whispers "I'm so
sorry," and waited a breath too long. In the end, this is
why Buffy was always the stronger member of the team. She
didn't hesitate until it was too late.
Angel kept saying, "I don't have a choice." Wesley said that
Angel didn't have a choice. Skip said that Angel didn't have
a choice (and wouldn't make a difference anyway). But did
Angel have a choice? Connor also cried out that he didn't
have a choice, but Darla made it clear to him that he did.
Were there other avenues open to Angel that he didn't
explore? He refused to go directly to the Powers That Be -
could that have been the wrong choice? If the PTBs sent
Darla to Connor, surely they must have an interest in this
plane's little drama after all.
Good and Evil: Are just words, according to
Evil!LaborPains!Cordelia. Moral concepts that are flexible,
bound to the individual, meant to control. We've argued this
very concept on the board. What is evil from the human point
of view is good from the vampire's perspective. But
ultimately, Darla knows (and so does Connor) that good and
evil are not just words or concepts. They're feelings deep
down in our souls that we just know, in the final count.
Shades of gray, yeah right. All the characters (with souls
anyway) know when they've done wrong - Fred, Gunn, Wesley,
Lilah, Faith, Angel... They know the difference between good
and evil, but they make choices out of self-interest or
strong emotion that turn them into gray characters.
More on Connor (my latest favorite subject): We finally get
to see further beneath the surface. His line to ghost!Darla
"Did you hate me that much?" was heartbreaking. Everything
he has grown up without knowing, a mother's unconditional
love, was suddenly offered to him and he distrusted it. This
kid would have to charter a private plane for all his
baggage. He truly believes that his parents hate him. Both
his parents. When Darla cries out "I love you" and Cordelia
says, "This is how much Angel hates you" it was easier to
believe that he was hated.
Connor needs a place in the world. He needs to know
how he fits in. He needs to know what love is, something
he's never experienced (not even from Holtz) and been able
to comprehend.
For me, the most gut-wrenching moment came after Darla's
plea "Don't do this. Don't make my death [redemption and
sacrifice] mean nothing" when he drags the innocent girl to
the next room and Darla fades out of view, only to reappear
in place of the girl to Connor's mind. It's not a nameless
innocent he helps to kill, it's his own mother. We already
know there are Oedipal complexes for Connor, now we've got
an Electra Complex to boot. More matricide and patricide
than an all-day Greek drama festival.
And the saddest part is that he still tells himself (on some
surface level) that he's doing the right thing.
Unfortunately he proved Angel's MC Escher/Champion speech
correct. Connor doesn't understand what it mean to make a
difference, to fight for what's really right. He's still so
wrapped up in his own need for validation (the baby will
make them understand me, love me) that he can't see the
bigger picture - although he's starting to. If it hadn't
been for the manipulations of Evil!MySweet!Cordelia, he
might have figured it out by now.
And whoa! MC Escher speech!
"What you did to me - was unbelievable, Connor. - But then I
got stuck in a hell dimension by my girlfriend one time for
a hundred years, so three months under the ocean actually
gave me perspective. Kind of a M. C. Esher perspective - but
I did get time to think. About us, about the world. -
Nothing in the world is the way it ought to be. - It's
harsh, and cruel. - But that's why there's us. Champions.
It doesn't matter where we come from, what we've done or
suffered, or even if we make a difference. We live as
though the world was what it should be, to show it what it
can be. - You're not a part of that yet. - I hope you
will be. (Angel moves to stand in front of Connor) I love
you, Connor. (Quietly, after a beat) Now get out of my
house."
Clearly, Connor's been thinking on that speech. He even
references it in his discussion with
Evil!BloodyBelly!Cordelia. But the speech applies to all the
characters as much now as ever. Gunn's monolog to Fred was
another version of the same speech. If we constantly live as
though the balance hangs in our every action, that's the
makings of a champion.
Burning questions left behind:
What becomes of Evil!FashionFauxPas!Cordelia? Dead,
vegetable, or still savable? How long has "all this
sweetness" been saturating every fiber of Cordy's being? And
is it just me, or was the teaser for next week's episode
like the shortest and least informative ever? It's enough to
make a spoiler virgin break his vows!
Overall, I loved this episode! I gasped when Darla appeared
to Connor. I yelled "no" at Connor when he made his choice.
I was right there! And at least one burning question has
been answered - Darla and Connor do bear a family
resemblance. Who knew that they'd have such amazing acting
chemistry together as well? I only wish we could bring Darla
back from the dead (Again!!!!) for more vamp!mom/waif!spawn
bonding.
And finally, on a completely lewd and unnecessary note, when
Connor dipped his hand in blood, was I the only one who
noticed how... um, long... his finger were? On such a small
frame that only indicates one thing (from my perverted
experiences, anyway), so I think I know what
Evil!MotherDearest!Cordelia saw in junior. Sorry, just
couldn't get that thought out of my mind (feel free to "ick"
me now).
Ty
[>
On a completely heartless note... -- ponygirl,
13:10:59 04/04/03 Fri
Does anyone want to start a Connor death pool? Seriously, I
have a lot of sympathy for Connor, but I can't think of
another character with the cards so stacked against him.
He's been manipulated many times yet in each instance he's
had a counterpoint to the evil influence (Angel in Tomorrow,
now Darla), and still he goes with the evil. He doesn't even
have Andrew's saving grace of being harmless and friendly
when not under a direct influence. I'm not sure I like it
but from a narrative standpoint I've got to bet on a big
Moment of Self-Awareness and Final Redemptive Sacrifice in
his future.
Oh, and great post Ty!
[> [>
Is this fair? -- Masq, 13:45:22 04/04/03 Fri
By which I mean, should the spoiler trollops be allowed to
play?
They may know whether Vincent K is contractually obligated
to return next season (pending there being a next
season).
Of course, in the Buffyverse, that could still mean he
comes back in ghostly visitations just like Mumsie, after
dying in a heroic and redemptive act (again, just like
Mumsie). But trollops might know that, too!
And then there's always folks who claim not to be trollops
but are lying....
[> [> [>
All we have is the honor system -- ponygirl,
14:16:39 04/04/03 Fri
by which I mean Honorificus eats those who place bets with
inside information.
Putting my kittens in the pot!
[> [> [> [>
is that why they call it... -- anom, 15:23:00
04/04/03 Fri
"Putting my kittens in the pot!"
...the "kitty"? I always wondered about that!
[>
Am I really the first to post on "Inside
Out?" Weird. -- Tyreseus, 00:19:46 04/03/03
Thu
[> [>
The board wasn't up at 10 pm ET or PT, Ty! -- Masq,
05:24:36 04/03/03 Thu
Or even I would have posted (which I never do the night of,
I usually watch the ep again and go to bed).
It must have come back on line around eleven or so, by which
time I was deep into taking notes on this episode, which I
also usually don't do the night of an episode.
But GAH! I am so hoping we actually got some real answers in
this episode!
Plus, all the Connor stuff was stunning!
[> [> [>
Oh, I must have just caught it. -- Tyreseus,
06:54:48 04/03/03 Thu
And yeah, amazing Connor stuff! You've been a bad influence
on me Masq. I used to care so much more about BtVS... but
lately, I almost don't mind missing it as long as I
get my AtS fix.
[> [> [> [>
Well, absence makes the mind forget... -- Masq,
09:09:49 04/03/03 Thu
I've been procrastinating my "Lies My Parents Told Me"
analysis because I've gotten so obsessed with figuring out
what's going on on AtS.
But the end of the Buffy season promises to be eventful,
full of lasting consequences, and a Faith-fest to boot.
We'll all remember soon enough!
[>
Great post.. murderous comments inside (spoils
cont) -- neaux, 04:37:18 04/03/03 Thu
Like I said this was a great post. And I totally understand
that Connor ultimately made the wrong decision.
Yet I still had a sigh of relief when Cordelia was the one
who swung the Butcher's knife. So technically Cordelia is
still the big bad murderer. I know I know. Connor should be
in it as deep as Cordy for his decision to let the girl die,
but I can't stop thinking of what U.S. judgement would be.
What is it when you assist someone to murder but not
actually do the act?
I am no way a lawyer but I know there are some on this
board. I would love to hear someone come to Connor's
defense, because I would love to rationalize Connor back to
the side of good. (like Cordelia's Manipulation was the
reason for Connor's actions)
eh?
[> [>
In America the law doesn't matter -- lunasea,
06:56:25 04/04/03 Fri
What matters is how the jury feels. With Connor's
"childhood" a lawyer should be able to get him off. That is
one episode that would be hysterical. The jury might think
the lawyer was crazy. Maybe after WR&H are put back
together, Angel could make some deal with them and they
could get Connor off.
could a jail actually hold Connor? Doubtful
[> [> [>
Re: In America the law doesn't matter -- Dannyblue,
10:27:15 04/04/03 Fri
You're right. The feelings of the jury do matter. I think a
judge is more likely to go by the facts, while a jury tends
to go by their feelings. (Although I'm sometimes surprised
by how logical some juries can actually be when presented
with a very sympathetic defendant. There have been cases
where you're positive they've been won over. Then, they come
back with a GUILTY verdict. When interviewed later, a juror
might say something like, "Well, we felt sorry for him, but
the facts...")
Anyway, this is why when defendents are given a choice
between having a judge or a jury trial, they choose the
jury. Unless they're accused of something so terrible, and
they seem so guilty, it looks like a jury might be much
harder on them than a judge.
[> [>
Joint unlawful enterprise -- Helen, 06:47:12
04/03/03 Thu
No idea about Californian law, but the Aiders and Abettors
Act in the UK means that if you assist someone to commit a
crime triable by indictment (such as murder) you can be
tried as if you had yourself committed that crime. The
actus reus of aiding and abetting murder is giving aid,
encouragement or procuring a person to commit the offence.
The mens rea is to intend that they should commit the
offence.
In other words, Connor's in it as much as she is.
[> [>
Depends on his trial lawyer I suppose -- Tyreseus,
07:06:07 04/03/03 Thu
From the California Penal Code on murder (190.05.(h)).
Emphasis mine.
In determining the penalty, the trier of fact shall take
into
account any of the following factors if relevant:
(1) The circumstances of the crime of which the defendant
was convicted in the present proceeding and the existence of
the prior prison term for murder.
(2) The presence or absence of criminal activity by the
defendant which involved the use or attempted use of force
or violence or the express or implied threat to use force or
violence.
(3) The presence or absence of any prior felony
conviction.
(4) Whether or not the offense was committed while the
defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or
emotional disturbance.
(5) Whether or not the victim was a participant in the
defendant's homicidal conduct or consented to the homicidal
act.
(6) Whether or not the offense was committed under
circumstances which the defendant reasonably believed to be
a moral justification or extenuation for his or her
conduct.
(7) Whether or not the defendant acted under extreme
duress or under the substantial domination of another
person.
(8) Whether or not at the time of the offense the ability
of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his or her
conduct or to conform his or her conduct to the requirements
of law was impaired as a result of mental disease or defect,
or the effects of intoxication.
(9) The age of the defendant at the time of the
crime.
(10) Whether or not the defendant was an accomplice to
the offense and his or her participation in the commission
of the offense was relatively minor.
(11) Any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity
of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the
crime.
My feeling is that there are few lawyers who could get him
off on this one.
[> [> [>
interesting -- Helen, 07:17:50 04/03/03 Thu
point ten would certainly have relevance in UK law, point
seven wouldn't (duress is not a defence to murder as decided
in R V Howe) and point six, if you honestly believer your
act was not wrong or was justified, could have you going to
a mental institution for the rest of your life if you fell
foul of the M'Naughton rules on legal insanity.
Note to self: must do law finals essays, not post random
information on web and kid self it is like studying.
[> [> [>
Re: Depends on his trial lawyer I suppose -- CW,
07:27:41 04/03/03 Thu
I've never heard of a court actually giving any
consideration to point 6, unless the court/jury thought the
act was justified, before considering whether the defendant
did. Otherwise anyone who firmly believed they should kill
someone would have to be set free. I don't think you'd
convince a jury he was justified.
Dragging the girl into the apartment clearly against her
will and then into the room where she was slain makes Connor
a big time accessory, so point 10 is moot.
7 is the only real arguing point a lawyer would have, and
that would depend heavily on how far the AI survivors would
be willing to support his case.
It isn't that clear anyone could get him off.
[> [> [> [>
Ooh, clarification on that Calif. penal code --
Tyreseus, 08:37:15 04/03/03 Thu
On closer inspection, it seems the passage I quoted
applies more to how a sentence should be considered for a
convicted person, not how a defense attorney would
try to get someone declared not guilty.
I'm a journalist, not a lawyer, so I can access all sorts of
info, but that doesn't mean I always understand it.
[> [> [> [> [>
Accessory to murder would be prosecutable and his
actions apply..... -- Briar Rose, 02:33:27 04/04/03
Fri
It doesn't fit "In Fear of One's Life" because it was not
done in a moment of passion.
They would also get Connor on abduction and kidnapping with
intent to murder with the transport of the girl from point A
to point B under CA law.
But the DA would definitely argue accessory and kidnapping
with malicious intent.
These are always fun to think about - especially in Angel
since they seem to actually take LE semi-seriously where
BtVS doesn't.
[> [>
Felony Murder rule -- Corwin of Amber, 08:00:53
04/03/03 Thu
In most jurisdictions in the US, there is a concept called
the "felony murder rule". What that basically says is that
if anyone present dies during the course of a felony taking
place, the perpetrators of the felony, all of them, can be
charge with murder.
The classic example is someone dying from a heart attack
during a bank robbery. The robbers could then be charged
with murder.
In this case, Conner kidnapped the girl, and then Cordy
murdered her, so Conner can also be charged with murder.
I don't know California law specifically though.
[> [> [>
Re: Felony Murder rule -- Dannyblue, 08:15:36
04/03/03 Thu
There was a case in which a battered woman was found guilty
of murder. Basically, she told all her friends what her
husband was doing to her. One night, things got really
intense, and her friends proposed killing the husband, who
was working late at the office, so he couldn't hurt her
anymore. Everyone agrees that the woman never proposed this
plan. She never said, "I want you guys to go kill my
husband." She even argued against it, because she really
loved the guy. But, when they left her house, she had some
inkling of what they were going to do. She admitted that,
while a part of her didn't really think anything would
happen, she wasn't really surprised to get the 'phone call
saying her husband had been killed.
Because she didn't try harder to stop it (say by calling the
police, or calling to warn her husband) the courts
considered her just as guilty of the murder as the friends
who actually did the deed.
[> [> [> [>
Which is an argument for picking friends competent
enough not to get caught ;-) -- KdS, 08:26:22
04/03/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Which is an argument for picking friends competent
enough not to get caught ;-) -- Dannyblue, 13:32:20
04/03/03 Thu
We're not talking rocket scientists here. I mean, if she'd
really been into this thing, she would've hired better help
I'm thinkin'.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Felony Murder rule -- Dochawk, 15:22:47
04/03/03 Thu
Can you find a reference for this, it sounds suspiciously
like an urban legend rather than a true case.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Felony Murder rule -- Dannyblue, 15:46:49
04/03/03 Thu
I saw it on one of those crime shows A&E does on American
Justice and City Confidential. (It couldn't have
been on The E! True Holly Stories because there were
no celebrities involved.) Anyway, I can't remember if this
particular story was on A&E or Court TV, or even Unsolved
Mysteries. I used to watch 'em all, and they sort of
bleed together after a while.
[> [> [>
Re: Felony Murder rule -- fidhle, 15:16:30
04/03/03 Thu
In most US jurisdictions, murder is divided into degrees.
First degree murder - which may carry the death penalty in
those states with a death penalty, and would usually carry a
maximum sentence of life in those states without the death
penalty - is usually the premeditated, that is planned and
thought out, unlawful killing of a human being with malice
aforethought. Malice doesn't mean that the person has to
hate or otherwise dislike the victim. Second degree
murder is usually lacking the premeditated part, or has some
other extenuating circumstance which overcomes the
premeditated part, such as a person who kills someone
immediately after being severely provoked. It is not
necessary that the killer intended to kill the victim for a
murder conviction, merely that the person acted with malice.
For example, if a person fires a gun at someone, intending
to hit a portion of the body which would not usually cause
death, and, by mistake, kills the person standing by the
intended victim, the malice towards the intended victim
transfers to the unintended victim and the killer is guilty
of murder, most likely in the second degree. If the killer
had intended to kill the intended victim, and had planned
it, then, even though he didn't intend to kill the second
victim, the killer would probably be guilty of murder
one.
What the felony murder rule does is to raise the level of
the degree of murder to murder one for a death occurring as
the result of certain felonies. For example, if a person
robs a bank, and accidentally knocks a pedestrian in front
of a speeding car so that the pedestrian is killed, then
that death is murder one, and the killer can get the death
penalty or life, depending on the state.
An accomplice to either kind of murder is just as guilty as
the person who does the killing. For example, a get-away
driver sitting around the corner is just as guilty of first
degree murder if the robber he is waiting for kills the
clerk at the store he is robbing. The fact that the get-
away driver has not intent to harm anyone does not matter.
The law is quite harsh on these issues to try to dissuade
people from engaging in life-threatening activities,
especially when committing a crime.
BTW, I understand that in California, the rule is especially
harsh, so that if one robber is killed by the police in a
shootout, the other robber can be convicted of the first
degree murder of his partner on the basis of felony murder.
Always thought that was a bit extreme, and maybe it has
changed since I first read that.
Poor Connor.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Felony Murder rule -- Dannyblue, 15:33:30
04/03/03 Thu
Also, crimes of passion are considered second degree
murder.
For example, I find out my boyfriend is cheating on me.
Enraged, I spend a few weeks planning how I'll kill him so
that I won't get caught. Or I hire someone else to do it.
That's pre-meditated, first degree murder.
On the other hand, I find out my boyfriend is cheating on
me. I stew about it for a few weeks before finally
confronting him. We get into an argument. In the heat of the
moment, I'm filled with so much anger and hatred that I pick
up a statue and hit him with it. I didn't plan to do it but,
when I picked up the statue, the law assumes that I knew the
statue could cause lethal injury. Still, since it wasn't pre-
meditated, that's second-degree murder.
Now, say I took a gun when I went over to confront my
boyfriend, it gets murder. Was I coldly planning to kill him
when I got there? Or did I take the gun because, in the heat
of the moment, I wasn't quite in my right mind? The first
would be first-degree, the latter second-degree.
Now, say I find out my boyfriend is cheating on me. I stew
about it for a few weeks before finally confronting him. We
get into an argument. In the heat of the moment, I push him.
It was just in a fit of anger. It's not unusual to give
someone you're angry at a little shove. But I didn't realize
he would trip over a shoe on the floor, fall, and hit his
head on the edge of the coffee table, or that he would die
as a result. But I did push him. So I could be tried for
manslaughter.
I think the fact that Connor planned to take the girl and
knew she would be killed as a result means he'd be tried for
first-degree murder. But a defense attorney might argue
that, due to Evil Cordy's manipulations, he wasn't in his
right mind at the time, which could change things.
[> [> [> [> [>
Question -- Traveler, 12:01:45 04/04/03 Fri
In the heat of the moment, I push him. It was just in a
fit of anger. It's not unusual to give someone you're angry
at a little shove. But I didn't realize he would trip over a
shoe on the floor, fall, and hit his head on the edge of the
coffee table, or that he would die as a result.
Wouldn't this be voluntary manslaughter?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Question -- Corwin of Amber, 18:40:53
04/04/03 Fri
Actually, I think it would problably be involuntary
manslaughter. You didn't intend to kill him, you were
simply angry, no criminal intent.
If I remember rightly, an example of voluntary manslaughter
is the proverbial bar fight, where you you hit someone, he
falls down and hits his head on the bar or floor and dies
instantly.
[>
Re: Dilemma: Horns of the Bull (Spoilers for ATS
"Inside Out") -- yabyumpan, 07:43:41
04/03/03 Thu
Angel: Has the unspeakable dilemma. His choice is to kill
the woman he loves or to unleash evil horror upon the world.
It reminds me of Buffy's choice at the end of Becoming, Part
2. There's no happy ending to this scenario. Unlike Buffy,
however, Angel hesitates at the crucial moment. He pauses as
Fred calls out for him to "wait." Did he drag his feet
getting to the meat packing district? He stands above
evil!contraction!Cordelia and pauses, whispers "I'm so
sorry," and waited a breath too long. In the end, this is
why Buffy was always the stronger member of the team. She
didn't hesitate until it was too late.
Disagreeing with this. By the time Buffy puts the sword
though Angel in "Becomming part 2" she has already hesitated
for almost half a season. I think the situation is more
comparable with 'Innocence'. In both episodes, Buffy and
Angel start off with the realisation that the person they
love has become 'evil'. At the end of 'Innocence' Buffy made
a conscuious decission not to kill Angel/us at that point in
time, it takes her until the end of the season to be ready.
By the end of 'Inside out' Angel has made the decission that
he's got to kill 'Cordelia'. There may have been some
hesitancy when Fred calls to him and when he's finally
standing over 'Cordelia', but the reason he's to late is
because 'Cordelia' realises that he will be comming after
her and so speeds up the birthing process.
I think to say that Buffy is a stronger member of the team
than Angel because she doesn't hesititate is stretching the
facts. This is not to bash Buffy in anyway, I totally
understand and sympathize with her dilemma in S2 but I don't
think you can compare Angel's actions in 'Inside out' where
he had only a matter of hours to decide that he needed to
kill the woman he loves, with 'Becomming part 2' when Buffy
had had week/months to get herself ready to kill the person
she loves.
[> [>
Re: Dilemma: Horns of the Bull (Spoilers for ATS
"Inside Out") -- Dochawk, 15:55:52 04/03/03
Thu
I agree that Buffy waited to kill Angelus, but although
Angelus committed some wonton violence the world wasn't
threatened by Angelus once the Judge was destroyed until
Acathla forced the issue. Then Buffy responded.
I actually think the biggest issue is that I don't think
Angel loves Cordy, I don't think he ever did, but by the
time of yesterday's episode he doesn't. There remains a
reason why he said Buffy's name in order to achieve perfect
happiness, even if it was Cordy in his fantasy's bed. And if
Angel loved Cordy only as a friend it would make it somewhat
easier for him to kill her, just as it would be easier for
Buffy to kill Anya then it would be to kill Spike.
[> [> [>
Re: Dilemma: Horns of the Bull (Spoilers for ATS
"Inside Out") -- yabyumpan, 22:14:25
04/03/03 Thu
I actually think the biggest issue is that I don't think
Angel loves Cordy, I don't think he ever did, but by the
time of yesterday's episode he doesn't. There remains a
reason why he said Buffy's name in order to achieve perfect
happiness, even if it was Cordy in his fantasy's bed. And if
Angel loved Cordy only as a friend it would make it somewhat
easier for him to kill her, just as it would be easier for
Buffy to kill Anya then it would be to kill Spike.
You can choose to read it that way although I don't really
think that saying Buffy's name after he realised he
was loosing his soul is proof that he doesn't love Cordy. As
far as i'm concerned Angel's love for Cordy is cannon but if
people want to see it differently that's fine. I'm not that
invested in it, I'm interested primarily in Angel's journey,
not who he shares it with.
As for why it would seem to be easier for Angel to kill
Cordy than for Buffy to kill Angelus, I think it's actually
got more to do with time on earth and life experience as
opposed to who loves who more.
At the time of Angelus in Sunnydale, Buffy was a 17 year old
girl with barely 2 years experience of evil. When her
boyfriend became evil it was obviously going to be very hard
for her to kill him.
Angel has has 250 years of experience. Experience which
includes being evil himself and trying to destroy the world.
He knows the way evil thinks, he's been there, it's still in
him. He can also remember the people he killed in SD before
Buffy was able to stop him.
This isn't about who loves who more (is it really easier to
kill a friend? would Buffy have been able to kill Willow
last season and found it easier than killing Angel/us?),it's
about youth and the last vestiges of innocence verses a very
long life and an intimate knowledge of evil.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Dilemma: Horns of the Bull (Spoilers for ATS
"Inside Out") -- Dannyblue, 22:36:23
04/03/03 Thu
According to Skip, Cordy was going to die either way.
Either
a. Angel killed her before she gave birth to this ultimate
evil. Or
b. Cordy dies immediately after giving birth to this
ultimate evil.
Given two sucky choices, the first was the best sucky
choice. And I think that Angel, who would rather be killed
than have Angelus on the loose murdering innocents, would
believe Cordy would rather be killed than give birth to an
evil that would cause who knows how many deaths.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Dilemma: Horns of the Bull (Spoilers for ATS
"Inside Out") -- maddog, 11:16:37 04/04/03
Fri
hmm, Skip did say that didn't he....thing is...I didn't see
Cordy die. Now, agreeing that we didn't see much past
everyone kneeling I suppose it's sill possible. But it
would throw Masq's theory that Skip wasn't being totally
honest with them when he gave them the headsup on their
past.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
That's not exactly what Skip said -- Tyreseus,
15:55:40 04/04/03 Fri
He said the life force would be drained in the birthing
process and she'd either be dead or a vegetable.
As a vegetable, there are still mystical and mundane ways
the gang could bring back the original (non-saturated with
evil) version of Cordelia. Do we even know who that is
anymore?
Ty
[>
Ick -- Sofdog, 07:46:15 04/03/03 Thu
[>
Re: Dilemma: Horns of the Bull (Spoilers for ATS
"Inside Out") -- maddog, 08:46:47 04/03/03
Thu
Great comments there. Gunn's monologue makes me wonder one
thing. When the world does hang in the balance...when it
seems like they're going to finally lose...will it be Connor
that has to come through? He's made wrong decisions left
and right this year....isn't it his turn to make that right
choice?
Your question about how long Cordy's been that way is a very
good one. Skip said they'd been set up since the beginning.
Does this go back to pre college? or does this go back even
further? Could he have been sent back by whoever in season
3 of Buffy for this final purpose. As someone who was
slightly spoiled I was under the impression that they were
going to be told it had all been a setup since Cordy was
returned. Nowhere in that spoiler did they say ALL of the
gang had been a setup(including poor Doyle...may he rest in
peace).
[>
Ick! And...ooooh! KABOOMy post! -- Rob, 14:06:38
04/03/03 Thu
[>
Quote of the week -- Masq, 14:49:04 04/03/03
Thu
... Because Connor isn't my least favorite subject
I only wish we could bring Darla back from the dead
(Again!!!!) for more vamp!mom/waif!spawn bonding
It's funny, but my favorite Buffyverse characters at the
moment (and have been for a while now) are Angel, Connor,
Faith, and Darla. Except for Faith, I guess I have a thing
for the vamp!family. Loved seeing Connor finally interact
with mom.
So what's the vamp!family's last name, anyway, Aurelius?
[> [>
Or perhaps Galway, with a possible "of" in
front of it. -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:11:29 04/03/03
Thu
[> [> [>
Nah, I'm assuming Darla gets to bequeath her name to
Angel and Connor, not Angel to Darla and Connor -- Masq,
17:46:59 04/03/03 Thu
She's the "mother" of Angel, after all.
[> [> [> [>
Which makes it tough, since she can't even remember her
name from her human life -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:59:53
04/03/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
Which is why I went with Aurelius -- Masq,
21:50:54 04/03/03 Thu
"Connor Aurelius" sounds way cooler than "Connor Of
Galway".
Although I'm assuming Liam's last name wasn't
"O'Galway".
I always had this perverse thought that it was
"O'Riley".
*snerk*
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Now that would be poetic. -- CW, 06:13:52
04/04/03 Fri
Liam O'Riley. Good one, Masq. Now what was Spike's full
name? William Rupert Harris, maybe?
Speaking of names how about our new 'goddess' on AtS? How
about Bubbles? a) It's ridiculous, and b) it ties in with
the Aphrodite/Venus connection someone brought up. Or how
about Minnie (from Minerva) to tie in with Athena, another
sexy goddess born fully grown?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I can't resist! -- Rahael, 06:39:22 04/04/03
Fri
"Today I freed myself of all troublesome events Ò for I
learned that trouble is not outside my mind, but inside, in
my interpretations. "
"Just as physicians have their tools, so do you have tools
for healing your mind. Try to remember the bond between
humans and the Divine."
"You have power over your mind Ò not outside events. Realize
this, and you will find strength. It is in your power to
return to life. "
"The corruption of the mind is far worse than any external
corruption. "
Meditations, Marcus Aurelius
(Classicists, forgive me if I haven't chosen the best
translations!)
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Which is why I went with Aurelius -- lunasea,
06:51:06 04/04/03 Fri
I thought it was O'Connor. Thus Connor does become Angel's
innocence (may it rest in peace)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
What, Dad? My real name is Connor O'Connor?!! --
Masq, 09:47:05 04/04/03 Fri
Might as well be a cheesy second-rate lounge act playing the
accordian!
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Of course, if you follow a certain Irish custom of
naming . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:41:26 04/04/03
Fri
Someone's last name is directly tied to his father's first
name. So Jeremy Mac Kline might be the son of Kline Mac
Dolce. Or, the mythological figure who inspired my screen
name, was Finn Mac Cool, the son of Cool Mac Something. So,
theoretically, Connor might be Connor Mac Angel. Of course,
now that he's partially gone off the evil end, he might be
Connor Mac Angelus. Or, if he ever becomes a normal human,
Connor Mac Liam.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Connor O'Liam, I thought of that one, too -- Masq,
09:54:41 04/04/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
What about using 'Fitz'? -- abt, 11:15:52
04/04/03 Fri
IIRC that means 'son of'.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Connnor mac Darla? -- leslie,
15:13:21 04/04/03 Fri
Of course, heroes with exceptional mothers sometimes take
their mother's name--as in fact did Connor's mythological
prototype, Conchobor (pronouced Connor) mac Ness. Ness,
interestingly, was orignally named As, 'gentle,' until her
fosterfathers were all killed; she formed her own fian (an
early Irish gang) and became a warrior and avenged the
murderers, and thus her name became Ness, i.e. Ni-as, 'not
gentle.'
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Any relation to the Loch? -- Finn Mac Cool,
15:16:40 04/04/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
My Theory is That-- -- Angel, 15:28:33 04/04/03
Fri
--Connor was named after his "grandfather"; Liam's
father.
Comic Books and Spike -- Celebaelin, 00:47:10
04/03/03 Thu
The thread was archived whilst I was writing the post but on
reflection I think you may be interested enough to justify
this (perhaps Masq will tag this on to the end of the thread
after Helens mention of Spike's origins).
2000AD Progs 61-85 (start date 22 April 1978) Judge Dredd
"The Cursed Earth"
In Prog 62 we are introduced to the character that JD
chooses as his second bikeman for the journey across the
radioactive wasteland a Punk by the name of Spikes Harvey
Rotten.
JD and Spikes are in a fist fight
JD: You want to do something good with your
life...you got the chance now...'cos you're the best biker
in the business...and you know the Cursed Earth well
from your days of gun running to the muties! Right
Spike? (sic)
Spikes: T-that was never proved...
JD: (Now with Spikes in an armlock) Maybe I'm a bit deaf,
Spikes - but I can't hear you volunteering for this mission
of mercy that's going to save thousands from the
plague! Could you speak a little louder?
Spikes: I volunteer! I volunteer!
JD: I'm proud of you, Spikes! Proud!
Beyond that, well, read it and see!
C (thinking "Gosh, that was a long time ago."
You brought light to my shadow......Don't let my death
mean nothing...spoiler for "Inside Out" --
Rufus, 05:19:47 04/03/03 Thu
Are your insides the same as the outside? Can one thing one
choice make a difference somewhere else? These are questions
that come to mind in Inside Out. We know right off that
Cordy isn't exactly a saint and who knows what's inside of
her. How did Angel figure out at least some of the worst of
it? One thing about Big Bads, they don't take the time to
make sure they don't sound like a big girly man when they
throw around affectionate terms or what Angel said...rather
femme for a big booming macho voice. So, how did Angel
investigations get so screwed up? The bad guys did the best
thing.....worked from the inside out...where they could do
the most damage. Everyone was so preoccupied in their own
sh*t that they were distracted from the reality around
them.....disconnected they were just pawns....or as Skip
said puppets.
The person that has been taken the most advantage of is
Connor. His insecurity about his heritage, feelings that he
could never be a big Champion like his dad, left him open
for sneaky, evil, whisperings. Just when things couldn't get
worse, Connor is sucked into getting a virgin sacrifice.
Then for the first time in awhile we see the Powers step in
and try to influence the game....in the form of
Darla......
Darla: The powers have sent me to give you a
message.
Connor can't accept that the glowing image before him could
be the mother he never knew.
Darla: I have her memories, her feelings. Isn't that what
makes a person what they are?
Connor doesn't know what to do.....his mother was the most
evil vampire next to Angelus and here she is remembering
what the sound of a victim was about. She looks at the
innocent girl that Connor has gotten for Cordy.
Darla: I know that sound, I've nurtured it a thousand
times. In all the people I've murdered.
Interesting, send a former murderer to stop a potential
murder. Darla has a few words that her son should listen
to.
Darla: I'll always be a part of you. You shared your soul
with me once. When you were growing inside of me. When I had
lost my own. You brought light into my shadow. Filled my
heart with joy and love. I'd never felt as close to any
living thing as I did to my beautiful boy.
I did so many terrible things Connor. So much destruction.
So much pain. You were the one good thing I ever did. The
only good thing.
From inside of Cordy (or the thing driving Cordy) came
Connor, someone that gave her the feeling of joy that never
ever came when she killed for so many years. He was the
light that extinguished the shadow, made her see for the
first time what she was destroying so long with so little
care. As a soulless vampire, Darla was a puppet to evil
without a soul to tell her she was being used.
Connor decided to ignore the voice of a mother he had never
known for the familiar, comforting, and consistant, Cordy.
Darla wanted Connor to do something good, and Cordy wants
him to do evil because they are special. If you consider the
combined damage Angelus and Darla did, can Connor ever make
right what he did with Cordy tonight?
Darla: You really think that safety can be plucked from
the arms of an evil deed? Don't let this happen
Connor....Don't let my death mean nothing.
At the Hyperion the Gang is getting their act together
enough to make sense of all the unrelated game
pieces.....
Skip: It doesn't even have a name.
Pay attention to that.....and think Buffy......"not the
Bang, not the word".
Wes: An impossible birth to make one possible.
Skip: That's what the kid was designed for.
Lorne: To sleep with Mother Love?
Angel: To create a vessel.
Skip: Look out....the monkey is thinking again.
Angel: Being inside a human makes it vunerable doesn't it?
That's why it had to stay hidden. Why it needed to create
something stronger to pour itself into.
Gunn: Wait, so the big nasty inside of Cordy is going to
give birth to itself?
Skip: Circle of life it's a beautiful thing.
We've seen this sort of thing before in season five Buffy.
Glory was trapped in a mortal created as a vessel for her to
live out a human life in so she would be vunerable enough to
die when the mortal did. But this is a bit
different....Cordy was convinced into becoming part demon,
then an impossible birth of a vampire/human child, and you
get what comes out at the end......and the results will be
more sturdy than Ben was on Buffy. All these acts
intersected to create the situation we have now. But is this
as hopeless as Ben's life on Buffy?
Darla: You have a choice Connor. That is something
more precious than you'll ever know.......It has to be your
choice.
This connects to the speech Gunn gives ....
Fred: Will it make a difference? If we are really are
just pieces being moved around a board.
Gunn: Then we kick it over and start a new game......Look,
monochrome can yap all he wants about no-names cosmic plan.
......The final score can't be rigged. I don't care
how many players you greased. That last shot always
comes up a question mark. But here's the thing......You
never know when you're taking it. It could be when
you're duking it out with the Legion of Doom. Or just
crossing the street deciding where to have brunch. So you
just treat it all like it was up to you. The World in the
Balance...cause you never know when it is.
Free will, choice.....depends on each person. Will you make
your own choices be they brunch or the big stuff, or will
you allow yourself to become a puppet much as Connor has,
or, at some point will someone take the unexpected final
shot...tip that balance and save the world?
[>
I loved the C/D interaction, it was intense! --
Masq, 05:30:14 04/03/03 Thu
And something I've been waiting for since Darla snuffed
herself.
Vincent K goes right up there on my list of amazing actors.
Not that he wasn't right up there already.
And always always love to see Darla.
So tell me something, oh Spoiler Queen Rufus, did we finally
get some real answers in this episode? Was any of the gang's
speculations and Skip's EVIL ramblings TRUE????
[> [>
Re: I loved the C/D interaction, it was intense!
(spoilers) -- CW, 06:13:59 04/03/03 Thu
Can't say I like the episode in the least. It made a mockery
of everything that's happened on Angel all the way back to
Doyle giving Cordy the 'gift' with a kiss. Everything we
know means nothing. The whole Shanshu business might as
well be another evil trick. ME seriously crossed the line
into bad taste last night. The story is so befouled now, I'd
be shocked if the series is renewed. I'm a big fan of Gina
Torrez, but the fight against the glowing goddess isn't
going to save the series.
However, I do agree with Masq about Connor/Darla. I've
consistantly panned Julie Benz acting ability, so I think I
ought to be a big enough person to say what a great job she
did in this episode. I was totally convinced by her
performance. VK was convincing, too. Too bad the story
makes Connor out to be such a smuck. Connor must be
attending the same school of gulliblity and bad judgement
Wesley graduated from. Didn't Holtz teach that boy
anything, but how to hate Angel?
[> [> [>
Link to Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the Game of Go
-- Rufus, 04:03:05 04/04/03 Fri
BTVS and the Game of Go
Whatever I said about Buffy and the Game of Go works exactly
the same for Angel.
[> [> [> [>
You are driving my poor brain crazy Rufus (spoilers and
spec) -- lunasea, 09:04:45 04/04/03 Fri
Here is totally wacked speculation this is probably way off
base. I haven't been right about anything on AtS, so why
should this be any different (I have been right about pretty
much EVERYTHING on BtVS though).
I think my mistakes on AtS come from a view of the PTB as
being the "good" guys and the First as the "bad" guy and
what this means. The shows are lining up for the real
apocalypse, Armageddon, the final battle between
"good" and "evil." Everything before this was evil/demons v
man, not good v evil. Big difference.
The game is being played, but we aren't the players. We
aren't the hunters. One side is being marshalled in LA and
the other is being marshalled in Sunnydale. It is these two
sides that are going to go head to head. The battle will
result in destruction of the world as we know it. Our
champions will want to stop it.
Countess Iblis is either evil who will suck people in with
her charm (Lucifer the Light Bearer) OR she is the side that
is usually labeled "good." The second actually is more
interesting to me. Nobody knows jack about the PTB. In "City
of" Angel wants to know who sent Doyle. Doyle answers him,
"IÌm honestly not sure. They donÌt speak to me direct. I get
- visions. Which is to say great splitting migraines that
come with pictures. A name Ò a face. I donÌt know who sends
them. I just know whoever sends them is more powerful than
me or you, and they're just trying to make things right."
What if the forces in LA just want to make things really
right, paradise on earth? What choice is there in that? We
only have choices because we can choose between "good" and
"evil" (and all the resultant shades of gray). LA and
Sunnydale. The First is tired of being that choice. It is
going out with a bang.
There is the Powers that Be above everything. Then beneath
them is "good" (in LA) and "evil" (in Sunnydale). Nothing is
that black and white in the Buffyverse, so "good" doesn't
look so good. It was starkly contrasted with Willow
(Orpheus) and Darla (Inside Out).
Regardless, Buffy and Angel have to stop them or life as we
know it is finished. Who wants to take a risk that paradise
is actually paradise? What side does Angel fight on in the
Apocalypse? He fights against "good" but not for "evil."
Now tell me how incredibly off I am.
[> [> [>
Re: I loved the C/D interaction, it was intense!
(spoilers) -- 110v3w1110w, 06:44:04 04/03/03 Thu
i don't think it makes a joke out of it at all the
sacrifices and heroic deeds were still real and i will
explain why i think this. i don't think skip or his master
has power over peoples will i think they power lies in
creating a situation and putting people in it making them
think they have no choice but to act in a certain way. for
instance he can create a situation and put conner in the
position of thinking he has no choice but to kill an
innocent but he still has free will he can still refuse to
do it.
[> [> [>
Re: I loved the C/D interaction, it was intense!
(spoilers) -- The One with the Angelic Face, 07:46:56
04/03/03 Thu
I was massively disappointed that they refused to
acknowledge that Cordy received the visions from a person
(i.e. Doyle), instead just mentioning how the Powers set her
up to receive the visions or whatever the line was. It
would have been a nice throwback to hear them mention him,
and I am saying that not in tribute to Glenn Quinn (although
that would have been a nice reason to mention Doyle as
well), but as a fan of continuity.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Skip could have also exaggerated -- Sheri,
10:09:42 04/04/03 Fri
Bad guys LIE, remember? So while, yeah, making Cordy into a
"saint" was clearly manipulation... do we have any real
evidence that this was the case with EVERYTHING that has
gone on? IMHO, Skip was taking credit for far too much just
as a way to mess with the AI gang. It's pretty easy to take
credit for things AFTER the fact.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Skip could have also exaggerated -- Dannyblue,
10:33:33 04/04/03 Fri
On a past show, someone mentioned that there was this demon
in town claiming to be a direct descendent of the snake from
the Garden of Eden. And someone else basically said,
"Please. Every demon with scales makes that claim."
As someone else mentioned, the First took credit for
bringing Angel back from Hell. And Buffy basically said,
"What? The Big Evil tells you something and you just believe
it?"
How do you make yourself seem more powerful, more
intimidating, more unbeatable?
Take credit for things you haven't done. Exagerate what you
are capable of.
[> [> [>
Come on CW, Connor is obviously a much better father
than Angel was... -- KdSwift, 08:22:53 04/03/03
Thu
Thanks to the discussion of Lies on this board, I've
seen the light. Angel was an appalling father! Insisting
on bringing up the baby himself, when his lifestyle was
filled with such horrible danger and the kid would always
come second to the Mission! Wes was perfectly right to give
Connor to someone who really loved him. Should have staked
the cold-hearted bastard himself while he was at it.
(I've finally worked out an name for my Evil alter ego.
Like it?)
[> [> [> [>
Re: Come on CW, Connor is obviously a much better
father than Angel was... -- Saguaro Stalker (no intials
for me. Please!), 08:38:26 04/03/03 Thu
At least Angel was reasonably sure he was, in fact, a dad,
before he started acting goofy. One moment of true
happiness, and Connor doesn't turn evil like dad. He turns
into a hen-pecked ninny. Otherwise in total agreement.
;o)
Some of us folks out in the desert have the cultural IQ of
the native lizards. Could you explain KdSwift? Is it like
Jonathan Swift?
[> [> [> [> [>
Yep, I had Jonathan S in mind -- KdS, 10:27:09
04/03/03 Thu
You may or may not know, but as well as Gulliver's Travels
he wrote a famous joke essay in which he suggeste that the
starving Irish should survive by eating their own children.
Hence anything deadpan...
[> [> [>
Lots of mixed feelings (spoilers, including
trailer) -- lunasea, 08:27:44 04/03/03 Thu
My favorite Connor moment was the look on his face when he
dragged the virgin across the floor. I liked how he believes
in Angel on one level and Cordy really had to work him this
episode. If you think about it, it is fitting that the guy
who wrote "Seeing Red" wrote this particular episode.
I am not sure how I feel about evil not understanding
Ockham's Razor. After this episode I felt like I did after
the movie "Body Double." So what in the last 7 years was
"real?" Did this thing bring Angel back from Hell? Were
Whistler and Doyle played? Is this thing the Senior Partner?
Too many questions now.
Or was it a lie? The First took credit for bringing Angel
back from Hell. Was that a lie? Evil can tell the truth, but
it doesn't have to. Why did Skip know all this any way?
What annoyed me the most is the Battlestar Gallactica plot
rip off. It was my least favorite plot then (and it is one
of my 6 favorite series of all time) and it was religious
crap written deliberately from the Jehovah's Witness
perspective on the Devil. What is Joss' excuse? Until that
last minute, the episode was incredible. So Fred gets to be
Apollo next episode by the looks of the trailer.
It could be worse, Angel could have found Earth in the
1980's and Wesley could be marooned on another planet.
The only thing saving this crappy idea is that Wesley and
Angel are brothers again (that and I have faith that Joss
will lead me to greener pastures where I can lay down). That
was quickly interjected, so I would be willing to put money
on it being important (a la Buffy and Dawn in "Him")
[> [> [>
CW, did you honestly believe everything Skip said?
-- Masq, 08:31:14 04/03/03 Thu
Personally, I loved this episode. It had me gripped from
start to finish. But I saw it very differently than you,
CW.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Skip is Evil. He
wanted to psyche out the fang gang, and so he made it sound
like everything they'd been through was all manipulated by
something evil.
But I don't believe it for a second. I'll buy that Skip
manipulated Cordy into becoming half-demon. I'll buy that
Connor was created to help bring about this new Big Bad.
But I don't believe Cordelia got the visions from anything
evil. I think the PTB's gave them to her to help her do
good, and that evil co-opted them much, much later, when
Cordelia became part-demon. Doyle certainly wasn't "in on"
the seduction of Cordelia to evil.
Cordelia bears some responsiblity in that she was flattered
by her ego into becoming part demon and in letting herself
be brought to the higher plane.
But evil certainly didn't make Lorne leave Pylea, it didn't
make Gunn kill his sister, it didn't make Fred open that
book in the library, and it didn't make Cordelia inherit the
visions or bear the burden of them for all these years.
None of those things needs explaining. They are already
explained by the choices the characters made. The only thing
that needs explaining is why Cordelia is acting the way she
is and where Connor comes from. Those things I'll buy Skip's
explanation for.
[> [> [> [>
Re: CW, did you honestly believe everything Skip
said? -- maddog, 10:00:40 04/04/03 Fri
And I interpreted it differently than you because I don't
think Skip meant that everything that happened to them was
evil. No, Doyle wasn't evil at all. I think what Skip
meant was that evil put them into the position to make the
decisions they knew were right. Like Doyle giving up his
life and giving Cordy those visions. Sure, good wins in the
short term, but it's a long term setup for evil and we all
know how patient evil can be. That's just one example, but I
can see Skip being right. And as much as I don't want to
believe him, he sounded like he was just pissed off enough
to being spilling his guts.
[> [> [> [>
I agree, Masq. ("Inside Out" spoilers) --
Rob, 08:51:06 04/03/03 Thu
From the moment I heard Skip's revelations, I bought his why-
Cordy's-evil explanations, and Connor's creation. But that
every single thing on the show has been masterminded, no
way. Why would an evil force want Cordy to be helping all
those people with her visions in the first two seasons? Why
would an evil force make Lorne choose to leave Pylea? etc
etc
I believe that the stage was set in "Birthday," but not
before. After being demonized in "Birthday," Cordy became
more and more convinced that she was saint-like, thus making
it easy for her to buy her Ascension in "Tomorrow." But to
paraphrase what Buffy said to Angel in "Amends," so a huge
evil takes credit for everything, and you just buy it? I
believe that this evil on AtS (still not convinced it's not
somehow connected to the FE) was able to manipulate Cordy
after seeing her extreme dedication and devotion to her
visions, and manipulate them into something evil. But not
that it is what gave her the visions in the first place.
UNLESS that old spec is true and the First Evil and the
Powers that Be really are working together.
And still we can't trust everything Skip is saying. For
example, his words about Cordy needing to be killed to stop
this evil force come off as a little suspicious. I'm not
sure if I believe that this is the real Cordy and she's not
still in her cloudy prison. Just a thought.
On the whole, this was my favorite episode in a long, long
time. It was so dark and so disturbing, particularly the
murder of the girl. I could not believe Connor actually went
through with that. I was shocked by the bravery of ME to go
to SUCH a dark place. Julie Benz was brilliant, as usual,
IMO. The script was great, as was the directing. I think
this was my favorite episode since "Soulless". And I am
completely fascinated by this new turn that the plot took at
the end of the episode.
"You are so beautiful."
"Angel!"
All evil beings should be as good-looking as Gina Torrez!
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I agree, Masq. ("Inside Out"
spoilers) -- leslie,
09:10:03 04/03/03 Thu
One thing that strikes me as interesting about the nature of
Cordy's evil is that she has really gone back to her high
school persona of thinking that she is "special" and thus
better than everyone else, and now she is trying to imbue
that in Connor. The thing is, even in high school, she was
aware that she was putting on a show--that whole speech to
Buffy about not being able to know whether people like you
for you or just want to be near the popular girl--and now
she seems to really believe it.
I, too, am suspicious of Skip's statement that Cordy has to
be killed, because she's going to die anyway when the Beast
is born. The scene of Angel lifting the sword to plunge into
Cordy, well, what did that do? It reminded me of the
business in Dark Age when Willow drives Eyeghon out of Miss
Calendar and into Angel, where his own demon beats the shit
out of him, by threatening the current vessel. Angel is
about to kill the vessel currently holding the Beast, which
drives it out to take another form that will be "safer" (and
it seems that becoming a beautiful woman does the trick--did
anyone else see any resemblence between Gina Torres's stance
and the position of Venus in Botecelli's "Birth of Venus"?).
And it comes out as energy, not as a physical baby--that
isn't the kind of "labor" that Skip implied. However, if he
was trying to get Angel to physically threaten or kill Cordy
in order to drive the Beast out into another form, then a)
it worked, and b) Cordy probably would have/should have died
in the process.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Great pick up (spoiler Inside Out and Storyteller)
-- lunasea, 09:40:14 04/03/03 Thu
Angel loves Cordy, so he was sacrificing his love. The child
need to be annointed in blood, but born into a place similar
to what Andrew did to Jonathan in "CwDP." It was Andrew's
tears that quieted the Hellmouth. What will Angel have to do
in order to stop the "baby"?
Great observation.
[> [> [> [> [>
And the big evil is... -- Tyreseus, 12:11:32
04/03/03 Thu
But that every single thing on the show has been
masterminded, no way.
Sure it has. It's obvious. Joss Whedon is the ultimate evil
manipulating the characters of the AtS.
[> [> [> [>
Re: CW, did you honestly believe everything Skip
said? -- CW, 09:08:29 04/03/03 Thu
I fully expect most of the damage to the plotline to be
undone in the last few episodes. But for everyone like me
who has a support group to keep me watching, there must be
scores who saw exactly what I saw and hated it just as much,
who are not going to watch the show again. Think of the
storm over "Normal Again." It's the same thing except the
episode ended with the mess even more firmly in place (at
least in my opinion.) You are undoubtably right on all
points. But at this moment, each of those points is
seemingly up to the whims of the next writer. That's not
good story structure. It's just jerking the audience around
for the sake of a cheap thrill. If Angel were straight
horror, it certainly would be a valid technique, but I'd
hoped ME was past that stage.
This was a major disaster, folks.
[> [> [> [> [>
The lies are part of it (spoiler) -- lunasea,
09:33:55 04/03/03 Thu
Lies aren't told so ME can "jerk the audience around" for
any reason. They are integral to what it going on. Why give
explanations at all? If you want to jerk the audience
around, you take 5 episodes, with many repeats between them
to answer a simple question (oh wait they did that, but not
on AtS). AtS has posed and answered questions pretty quickly
this season. Most episodes opened exactly where the previous
one did and answered things in the first few minutes.
One of the telling moments of this episode for me was in
Julie Benz's acting. There was one moment where you could
tell that she wanted to tell Connor what was going on, but
wasn't allowed to. HE had to make the decision based on his
*heart* not based on *knowing.*
One thing we have learned about the good guys, both on BtVS
and AtS, is that they don't just come out and say things.
Even Angel started out with fairly cryptic warnings to
Buffy. Whistler didn't tell Angel much of anything. He
showed him things and let him figure out what to do. Doyle
was similar. Slayer dreams are a bitch to interpret. Same
with all those prophecies. Even the visions aren't about
what they seem.
I had a dream last night that Willow figures things out, but
Tara comes to her and tells her she can't tell Buffy. If she
does, then Buffy wouldn't be acting from the right
motives.
What Skip told Cordy before he ascension (which at the time
reminded me of the Mayor. Why not use another term?). "What
you are called to do transcends love." That is what evil
thinks. It thinks even the greater good can transcend
love.
Another thing that comes to mind about the "baby" is the
scene in FOTR with Galadriel where she talks about becoming
a "terrible queen." It might not be standard evil that it is
after. It blocked out the sun to replace it. It wants to
rule to make things better, removing our free will for the
greater good.
Thing is what is an atheist doing writing this stuff? This
is standard Lucifer, the light bearer stuff. On Battlestar
Gallactica it made sense. Joss said he wasn't going to use
the devil. That is exactly who the "baby" is. Princess of
lies.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The lies / Why is an atheist writing this stuff
-- hellraiser, 09:32:15 04/04/03 Fri
If it is true JW is an atheist, doesn't it make sense he
would get inspiration from that which he hates(a great
motivator) and is certain a large chunk of humanity is duped
into believing by false authorities(Christian and Muslim -
they share Abraham which to many means they share the same
God). It must be hard to think you're the supreme animal in
your one and only life and above the stupid majority
surrounding you.
That's not saying that is all he uses for storylines. ME
treats all 'mythologies' the same and incorporates and mixes
them into a melting pot of the human and non-human
condition.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The lies / Why is an atheist writing this stuff
-- Arethusa, 10:30:39 04/04/03 Fri
You are assuming that:
1. Atheists hate religion.
2. Atheists think religion dupes people.
3. Atheists think their lack of beliefs mean they are
superior to those who have beliefs.
4. Atheists think believers are stupid.
5. Atheists think people are animals.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Couple technical points: -- Finn Mac Cool,
15:06:02 04/04/03 Fri
1. People ARE animals. Or, at least they're part of the
Animal Kingdom.
2. Atheists do have beliefs. They believe that no higher
powers exist to believe in.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Exactly! (spoilers for next week's trailer) --
Masq, 10:18:02 04/03/03 Thu
It might not be standard evil that it is after. It
blocked out the sun to replace it. It wants to rule to make
things better, removing our free will for the greater
good.
I've been trying to reconcile this higher-plane glowy stuff,
and the thought that Cordelia might have initially consented
to this, with the obvious evil that's occured. I've tried to
figure out why the Beast destroyed Wolfram and Hart enmass
and why any being would want to do what "Cordelia" has been
trying to do--give birth to a creature that smiles down on
Angel with affection.
I've tried to figure out why they're going to have a
seemingly lame plot development next week of everyone
blindly worshipping this woman.
And it seems to me just the sort of megalomaniac thing a
"higher being" would do under the assumption it is doing the
right thing. As in my "war for human souls" post above, I
think there's a division among the PTB's, among the higher
beings, about how to relate to human beings. One side wants
them to chose for themselves, the other wants to take choice
away from them, for their "own good".
One side intereferes when only when it must--giving visions
to guide Angel and co without interfering in their free will
and free choice, considering the "one tiny sparrow" of a
human life valuable above all things; the other side
interferes completely, considering individual human lives
pawns in some "greater good" for the whole human race and
what this creature thinks humanity could some day
"become".
This makes a lot of sense, lunasea. We'll see how it comes
out.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Excellent points Masq. Nail. Head. -- Rahael,
23:59:24 04/03/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Exactly! (spoilers for next week's trailer) --
MaeveRigan, 11:23:58 04/03/03 Thu
I've tried to figure out why they're going to have a
seemingly lame plot development next week of everyone
blindly worshipping this woman.
Obviously, she's an antiChrist-figure--it's all in
Revelation: the rain of fire (either after the opening of
the 7th seal 8:5, or after the blowing of the first trumpet
8:7), earthquakes, plagues, darkening of the sun, a first
beast and its master (Rev. 13).
Which returns us to the question of why an atheist keeps
orchestrating all this Biblical imagery. Why? Two possible
answers occur:
1. It's just rattling good story/imagery/metaphor.
2. The explanation given by J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis
(and the one I personally subscribe to):
"Amidst the complex narratives of myth, certain realities
are adumbrated which the Christian scriptures reveal to be
historical fact. The myth of the dying and rising god, for
instance, existing in various forms in so many mythologies,
is an adumbration of the historical reality of the death and
resurrection of the Son of God.
"The historical account in the Gospels of the incarnation,
death, and resurrection of Christ is the central
eucatastrophe of history. Eucatastrophe is TolkienÌs term
for the essence of consolationÛthe 'happy ending' that
affords a joyous sense of conflicts resolved and justice
achieved. 'There is no tale ever told that men would rather
find was true,' he states concerning the Incarnation.
(Carpenter, Letters 72) The pattern portrayed in the
life of Christ expresses the complete paradigm upon which
successful fantasies draw."
J.R.R. Tolkien: Myth & Middle Earth
But that still doesn't mean that everything will end with
sweetness and light on AtS this season. The message about
individual free will is also coming through loud and clear,
and is one which anyone--believer, agnostic, atheist, and/or
existentialist--can feel quite comfortable with, so
ultimately, I'm sure there will be something for everyone on
AtS, and (probably) Buffy. Because it's a television
show.
"We shall be as gods," eh? Time to re-read Milton! ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Milton!! MR, I have more to add later! -- Rahael,
00:01:38 04/04/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Milton!! MR, I have more to add later! --
MaeveRigan, 09:17:20 04/04/03 Fri
Great, Rahael! Would love to hear about your take on
Milton's relevance to the portrayal of evil's MO on this
season's Angel.
That's what I was thinking about, at any rate.
But you always have interesting things to say, so post
away!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Choice, virtue and Truth -- Rahael, 09:45:53
04/04/03 Fri
This is the short version, because I'm running out of time,
but hopefully I'll expand over the coming weeks.
But your mention of Milton, and Masq's posts about the
difference between 'the Good''s view of choice and Evil's
view of choice, struck a chord.
In Areopagitica, Milton says:
ÏMany there be that complain of divine providence for
suffering Adam to transgresse, foolish tongues! When God
gave him reason, he gave him freedom to choose, for reason
is but choosing.Ó
And man's (and woman's capacity) to reason is what will lead
them to God, because:
ÏThe first of the attributes which show the inherent nature
of God, is Truth Ó (De doctrina Christiana)
For Milton, God constantly presented choices, and the
ultimate choice that man could make was to choose liberty,
or bondage.
There could be a parallel made between the mental slavery
one falls into if one gives up choice, as Connor does.
Mental slavery, like Samson - who is convinced that he has
been abandoned. But it is Samson who abandoned God, by
choosing to be enslaved in his mind.
ÏWhich shall I first bewail,
Thy bondage or lost sight,
Prison within prison
Inseparably dark?
Thou art become (O worst imprisonment!)
The dungeon of thyself÷÷
Imprisoned now indeed Ó
In Areopagitica, Milton had argued that true virtue could
only be seen under trial, that through contradiction, truth
(and, thus, God) could be expressed:
ÏI cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue,
unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees
her adversary but slinks out of the raceÓ
and
Ïthat which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is
contraryÓ
This viewÌs ideal form is demonstrated in Samson Agonistes,
as different and opposing ideas build into the final truth Ò
liberty in spirit (Ò and God).
When Darla appears to Connor, perhaps it could be comparable
to this sentiment, that 'if virtue feeble were, Heaven
itself would stoop to her' (Masque performed at Ludlow
Castle). The choices are there for us to make. If we are
weak, help is at hand (Angel Investigations - we help the
helpless), but, everyone has to make their choice, whether
it's Lindsey, going back to Wolfram and Hart, or Angel in
Redefinition, or in Epiphany, whether it's Gunn and Fred in
Supersymmetry or Connor in Inside Out - virtue that is not
exercised by the temptation of evil might be
meaningless.
In the new and terrifying version of the AtSverse that Skip
posits, tempting everyone to fall into despair (and thus
mental slavery) there is still the presence of choice, of
the exercise of our rational minds, of the path to liberty.
More later, I have to run now!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Excellent post, Rah! -- Masq, 10:00:50 04/04/03
Fri
I look forward to your further comments!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: Choice, virtue and Truth -- MaeveRigan,
13:17:22 04/04/03 Fri
Thanks, Rahael! "Areopagitica" is definitely one of the
things I was thinking about.
Ïthat which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is
contraryÓ
Connor wants to be a champion? Here's his test--he's
offered the truth by an apparition of the most unlikely
source possible (at least to his mind), his vampire mother,
Darla.
I was also thinking of Skip, and the FE, and the way Milton
portrays Evil as lying with the truth, or intermingling
truth with lies, in Satan's temptation of Eve in Paradise
Lost Book 4. It's much too long to quote. So, back to
"Areopagitica":
"Good and evil we know in the field of this world grow up
together almost inseparably; and the knowledge of good is so
involved and interwoven with the knowledge of evil, and in
so many cunning resemblances hardly to be discerned, that
those confused seeds which were imposed on Psyche as in
incessant labor to cull out and sort asunder, were not more
intermixed. [...] And perhaps this is that doom which Adam
fell into of knowing good and evil, that is to say, of
knowing good by evil."
Connor thinks he knows evil, but really, he's only heard the
speeches. He's been so afraid he was a monster that his fear
blinded him to the truth, made him distrust the people who
love him and vulnerable to true evil in an attractive
disguise.
It works almost every time, especially on the inexperienced.
Now the question is--what will happen to Connor?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
"Take all that away... and what's left?"
"Me." -- Arethusa, 11:48:04 04/03/03
Thu
Which returns us to the question of why an atheist keeps
orchestrating all this Biblical imagery. Why?
"You have so much more to lose," Dinza told Angel, and I
think his dependence on TPTB is one of them. He has to be
able to reject the evil goddess(?) and TPTB to have free
will. No reward, no Brass Ring of Redemption. Just him,
and the life he creates through the choices he makes.
Very slightly spoiled spec follows.
Rufus, is Dinza important? Based on your hints, I wonder if
Angel's mention of Atlantis is a big clue for finding
something long lost. Yes or no is fine.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: "Take all that away... and what's left?"
"Me." spoilers for ATS -- Rufus, 23:11:25
04/03/03 Thu
Rufus, is Dinza important? Based on your hints, I wonder
if Angel's mention of Atlantis is a big clue for finding
something long lost. Yes or no is fine.
Dinza......so so Finding something that has been
lost..Yes Skip mentioned it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Spoiler speculation above, after spoiler space --
Arethusa, 11:51:12 04/03/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
twisted reality (spoilers for "Inside
Out") -- purplegrrl, 10:22:20 04/03/03 Thu
The very first thing I thought of when Skip started spouting
that every major event in the last couple of years had been
manipulated by the Big Evil was BOBBY EWING!! That whole
this-past-season-has-been-nothing-but-a-dream thing. It was
so preposterous that it instantly became a cliche.
That said, if Skip [BTW, love that name for a demon :-D]
really is working for the-Evil-who-cannot-be-named, then
he's going to be mixing his truth and lies until one can't
be told from the other. Why is it so easy for us to see
that Cordy has either gone evil or is being manipulated by
evil and is therefore manipulating Conor, but when Skip
starts spinning his web we fall for it hook, line, and
sinker?? Is it because we know Cordy is good? We once
thought Skip was good, too. Or is it that whole humans-
good, demons-evil prejudice? The AI gang (and we) should
know better -- just because someone doesn't look human
doesn't mean they're evil; and vice versa.
Gunn was closest to the truth. Even if the gang is all
being played by some Big Evil, they still have free will and
free choice, and in the end *that* will make the difference
in the battle between good and evil. The Big Evil always
thinks it knows what is best for us. The Big Good lets us
figure it out for ourselves. (And just because Joss is a
self-professed atheist doesn't mean he can't use the Lucifer
story for his own storytelling ends.)
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Agreed, and... (IO spoiler) -- Rob, 12:07:18
04/03/03 Thu
...personally, if Joss had just written Gina Torres in to
sit down and read the phone book, I'd still be happy.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Ahhhhh what I like, an honest man....<g> --
Rufus, 23:13:08 04/03/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: CW-agree totally Inside Out Spoils & Buffy Spoils,
Spec & Casting thru 7.22 -- Angelina, 13:18:28
04/03/03 Thu
Oh My God. I found last night's episode totally appalling.
The only saving grace was Gun's speech and Darla's scene
with Connor. The rest of this episode was so disturbing, so
brutal, I don't think I can even watch it again. I have seen
many horrible things happen in the Buffyverse, Spike's
evilness, Willow's dark side, etc., but I have never seen
such a horribly "real" portrayal of a human sacrifice. I
simply could not believe that Connor allowed this
abomination to happen. I cannot believe that Angel is such a
moronic imbecile. I never realized how much I have come to
dislike Angel's character. He calls himself a champion (and
if I hear that word one more time I am gonna vomit), but he
is a selfish bastard. I must admit that I have only just
started to watch Angel regularly over the last year or so,
(but I was watching the DVD of Season One), I am a die hard
Buffy fan, and I really wanted to continue with some form of
Jossian entertainment, but this series is horrible. Filled
with inconsistences and convenient plot reworking to fit the
present situations. Watching Angel last night, only makes me
realize how fantastic Buffy the Vampire Slayer actually was.
Oh My God, am I gonna miss the integrity of that show. Buffy
is a Hero and Buffy never hesitates to do the right thing.
She would have had Cordelia in itsy bitsy pieces before she
would have allowed that "thing" to emerge out of whatever
has become of Cordelia - just like she pushed Angel into
that hell dimension - and she truly loved Angel. Too bad he
came back. And I hate Cordy too. CCÌs overacting, pathetic
attempts at drama are ridiculous and painful to watch - she
sounds like she has marbles in her mouth half the time. I
have never seen any consistency in CC's portray of that
character. She has been re-written so many times, as to make
the character totally cartoonish. Forgive me, but I must go
on. As a total Buffy lover, I had always wanted the best for
Buff. I used to think that she and Angel should get back
together at the end of the series. Boy have I changed my
tune. I will pull an Elvis on my TV set if Joss/ME allows
that to happen at the end of Buffy. I swear. What I DO want
to happen, desperately, is for Buffy to realize that the
"big poofy ponce" to quote Spike, chose his "calling", over
her and played with her mind. I want her to remember
everything that happened in "I Will Remember You" and I want
her to slap Angel upside his square head and tell him to go
back to hell, she's in love with Spike. Spike has devoted
himself to Buffy - Angel never did. He always pulled a
retreat from her. And now, he is totally in love with
Cordelia - Oh God, itÌs too much. He goes off to save Ïthe
woman I loveÓ, I almost keeled over. This from the schmuck
who gasped BuffyÌs name after sex with Cordelia in his dream
of his perfect day. IÌm done with Angel. To be honest, I am
going to watch the rest of the season of Angel, I want to
see how they are going to justify ConnorÌs involvement in
the cold-blooded murder of a totally innocent young girl,
and I am sure that is what will happen, even though Connor
was perfectly capable of making the right decision and
stopping Ms.EvilOverActingQueen, but if the show is renewed,
and I hope it is not, I will NEVER watch that show again.
And..if what I am hearing is true, if a certain Blonde
vampire is going to appear on Angel if the show is renewed-
the actor portraying him is making a big mistake. I simply
do not trust ME to do right in the writing of that
character. Ok, I am done and I truly apologize if I have
offended anyone, but after all, this is just my opinion.
[> [> [> [>
Re: CW, did you honestly believe everything Skip
said? -- Dochawk, 16:16:12 04/03/03 Thu
We (the viewers) have a tendency to believe that our evil
sympathetic characters speak the truth. For some reason we
forget that most of what these characters are doing is
trying to manipulate the feelings of the good characters.
We see this most with Spike, whose utterances are frequently
taken as gospel, yet who frequently says things that are far
beyond his knowledge to know (most recently we saw this in
his "discussion" with Wood, for some reason we believe he
has great insight into Wood's relationship with his mother
that he has absolutely no idea about because he projects his
own mommy issues onto him), but we saw it with Webs in CwDP
and in a way we have seen it with Cordy through the years.
I find it fascinating that alot of people believe the "evil"
characters have more insight than the "good" (please I am
not callign Spike or Cordy evil, but when Spike says these
things they are intended to hurt).
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: CW, did you honestly believe everything Skip
said? -- CW, 16:34:57 04/03/03 Thu
This reply will be a bit less serious than your thoughtful
post deserves, but I think it's still appropriate.
Part of the problem is that we have seen Wesley, Connor,
Angel, et al be so abysmally wrong so much of the time this
season that we tend to gasp onto anything that sounds like
the truth. And there is no question ME has been hiding the
truth even more than usual this season of Angel. What can
we do, but jump to conclusions?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: CW, did you honestly believe everything Skip
said? -- Rufus, 22:36:44 04/03/03 Thu
Well, on a surface level Skip told a truth or two. Like when
he said everyone was a puppet.....well that can be true if
you give up the idea that your choices can make a
difference. You then allow your strings to be pulled instead
of taking control of your own destiny.
[> [> [> [> [>
On Spike and Wood -- Masq, 17:43:52 04/03/03
Thu
That's exactly how I felt when Spike said Wood's mother
didn't love him. How would he know? He met Nikki a couple
times, and he thinks he has this deep insight into
Slayers.
But the thing he should know about Slayers is they don't get
a choice. Well, they do, but it's a bad choice. The Mission
or death. Nikki can't win with Spike. If she choses the
mission, she must not have loved her son enough "to give up
her work for him". But the only way she could give up her
work was by dying--without her, there is no slayer. She has
no Kendra, no Faith to take over. If Nikki dies, Spike
thinks its because she has a "death wish". If she "chose"
to die, again, she must not love her son enough to live for
him. But why should we believe she "chose" to die? Because
Spike says so?
Nothing Nikki can do will prove her love for her son to
Spike. It's utterly unfalsifiable to him. He will believe
what he wants no matter what.
And why does he want to believe Nikki didn't love Robin?
That's the question we should ask.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: On Spike and Wood -- pilgrim, 09:33:24
04/04/03 Fri
Is it really a choice between the mission and death? Spike
does seem to have pretty good insight into the dark side of
slayers, at least of the one slayer we've seen him interact
with. I think probably his own demon, along with his gifts
of intuition and imagination, allow him more than usual
insight into slayers in general. But not into their light
side. Buffy tells him that he doesn't understand her when
he understands only her violence and self-loathing, her
complicated but very real desire to hurt others and self.
She's right, he doesn't understand her--he has yet to learn
the power that compassion, forgiveness (of others and of
self), self-sacrifice, and love of self and others,
believing in self and others, have in her life. This is the
power she's been discovering for seven years, and I for one
think she has been developing into not just a hero but a
great soul, despite (or because of) her setbacks last year
and this. (An aside--if ME kills off this strong, heroic,
well-rounded young woman, I'll choke. I really will.) And
I think Buffy's confidence in these powers--both of creating
and indulging in death and creating a loving and meaningful
life--give her lots of choices in how to live her life.
She's chosen, as we're all chosen--and we all have to choose
how to accomplish our various missions.
Although we have very little evidence of Nikki's character,
I like to think of her being fully as complex as Buffy. She
doesn't seem very young to me, but rather a 20-something
adult with some experience behind her. I prefer to think
that she had a fully developed dark side--a fascination with
death, a certain relish in the mission, the fight, the kill,
periods of frustration with the burdens of being chosen and
having conflicting obligations, a desire not to be alone but
a need to consider herself special. And a fully developed
light side--love, compassion, self-sacrifice, strength. I
expect her love for Robin was fully as complex, more
complex, than Buffy's for Dawn, with all that relationship's
conflicting feelings and desires. I expect that sometimes
she wanted to give up the mission for her son, or give up
her son for the mission, or give up her life and find some
rest from both. Probably though, mostly she found ways to
live with all of it, as Buffy has done, making her choices
for reasons that Spike isn't capable of fully
understanding.
So why does Spike need to make it simple, need to believe
that Nikki didn't love Robin? Spike loves Buffy in the way
Spike loved his mother, and (notably) in the way that the
four-year-old Robin loved his mother. Buffy is the center
of his world. The show suggests strongly that although this
is natural for a four-year-old, it's unhealthy and immature
for the 30-year-old Robin and the 120-year-old Spike. Buffy,
unlike Anne, does not love Spike back the way he wants her
to. Spike says that the reason lies in Buffy, she's "wrong"-
-she is a slayer, has a mission, as the chosen one she
fights alone and damn everyone else. That reason, I think,
Spike can accept. It's rational. And most importantly, it
doesn't reflect on him. It makes you mad, Spike says, but
he can handle it because it makes some sense and doesn't
require any self-reflection. It doesn't, for instance,
require Spike to confront the possibility that his way of
loving--mutual obsession--may be "wrong," nor force him to
find a new way of loving. It doesn't require Spike to come
to terms with the fact that his own conduct--he tried to
rape Buffy--may be contributing to her complicated feelings
and inconsistent behavior toward him. (I can't believe
Buffy doesn't still feel angry/betrayed/afraid of Spike
because of what he did to her, and that although she needs
to believe he can be a good man, she's gonna have a damn
difficult time being physically intimate with him, imo.)
Although he clearly feels guilty about trying to rape her,
does he really understand how deeply he hurt her? (at
least, that's my opinion that he hurt her worse than she is
letting on). I don't know--he recognizes early in the
season that she is "skittish" around him, he says he doesn't
want her to look at him and that he can't ask her for help
because of what he did--but in all this he seems childlike
in that he is most concerned with how much he is hurting.
She's proven to him that she's strong, so maybe he isn't
caring enough or looking deeply enough at her pain. Spike
is making it easy on himself, which may be understandable
given the terrors and changes he has experienced in the last
year. But boy, I'd like to seem him grow up a bit in regard
to his relationship with Buffy--and I'd like to think he's
capable of it.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Huh, I didn't actually think he believed it... --
dream, 09:43:06 04/04/03 Fri
That is, I don't think Spike believed that Nikki didn't love
Wood. I think he knew that a) Nikki had a duty which would
sometimes at least come into conflict with her ability to do
what she might want to for her son and that b) any child is
going to find that issue confusing and difficult and that c)
Wood hadn't reconciled that, as his obsession with Spike
indicated, therefore d) the most hurtful thing he could say
at that moment was that Nikki never loved him. So he said
it. Nice? No, particularly not from the man who killed your
mother. But Spike had been betrayed by a man whose life he
had saved on several occasions, despite obvious mutual
dislike. And Wood had also betrayed Buffy, and I'm pretty
sure Spike would have known that. So he offered up to Wood
his worst fears - wrong, but understandable.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Huh, I didn't actually think he believed it...
-- Dochawk, 11:31:14 04/04/03 Fri
Ummm, when did Spike save Wood's life?
More importantly Spike only thinks he understands Buffy's
dark side. From his "slayers have a death wish" to "what
kind of demon are you" Spike projects his desires and
interpetations onto Buffy. We buy them. And sometimes they
are right, but just as often they aren't (or aren't
substantiated and for some reason we take Spike's word).
Same thing alot of people are doing for Skip. Yet, we
always question the "good guys" partly because we are
frequently shown they made wrong interpetations. Spike (and
certainly Skip) just aren't up there in intelligence with
Willow, Giles, Fred and Wes, yet they are frequently shown
wrong.
[> [> [>
Re: CW-agree totally Inside Out Spoils & Buffy Spoils,
Spec & Casting thru 7.22 -- Angelina, 11:18:46
04/03/03 Thu
Oh My God. I found last night's episode totally appalling.
The only saving grace was Gun's speech and Darla's scene
with Connor. The rest of this episode was so disturbing, so
brutal, I don't think I can even watch it again. I have
seen many horrible things happen in the Buffyverse, Spike's
evilness, Willow's dark side, etc., but I have never seen
such a horribly "real" portrayal of a human sacrifice. I
simply could not believe that Connor allowed this
abomination to happen. I cannot believe that Angel is such
a moronic imbecile. I never realized how much I have come
to dislike Angel's character. He calls himself a champion
(and if I hear that word one more time I am gonna vomit),
but he is a selfish bastard. I must admit that I have only
just started to watch Angel regularly over the last year or
so, (but I was watching the DVD of Season One), I am a die
hard Buffy fan, and I really wanted to continue with some
form of Jossian entertainment, but this series is horrible.
Filled with inconsistences and convenient plot reworking to
fit the present situations. Watching Angel last night, only
makes me realize how fantastic Buffy the Vampire Slayer
actually was. Oh My God, am I gonna miss the integrity of
that show. Buffy is a Hero and Buffy never hesitates to do
the right thing. She would have had Cordelia in itsy bitsy
pieces before she would have allowed that "thing" to emerge
out of whatever has become of Cordelia - just like she
pushed Angel into that hell dimension - and she truly loved
Angel. Too bad he came back. And I hate Cordy too. CCÌs
overacting, pathetic attempts at drama are ridiculous and
painful to watch - she sounds like she has marbles in her
mouth half the time. I have never seen any consistency in
CC's portray of that character. She has been re-written so
many times, as to make the character totally cartoonish.
Forgive me, but I must go on. As a total Buffy lover, I had
always wanted the best for Buff. I used to think that she
and Angel should get back together at the end of the series.
Boy have I changed my tune. I will pull an Elvis on my TV
set if Joss/ME allows that to happen at the end of Buffy.
I swear. What I DO want to happen, desperately, is for Buffy
to realize that the "big poofy ponce" to quote Spike, chose
his "calling", over her and played with her mind. I want her
to remember everything that happened in "I Will Remember
You" and I want her to slap Angel upside his square head and
tell him to go back to hell, she's in love with Spike.
Spike has devoted himself to Buffy - Angel never did. He
always pulled a retreat from her. And now, he is totally in
love with Cordelia - Oh God, itÌs too much. He goes off to
save Ïthe woman I loveÓ, I almost keeled over. This from
the schmuck who gasped BuffyÌs name after sex with Cordelia
in his dream of his perfect day. IÌm done with Angel. To
be honest, I am going to watch the rest of the season of
Angel, I want to see how they are going to justify ConnorÌs
involvement in the cold-blooded murder of a totally innocent
young girl, and I am sure that is what will happen, even
though Connor was perfectly capable of making the right
decision and stopping Ms.EvilOverActingQueen, but if the
show is renewed, and I hope it is not, I will NEVER watch
that show again. And..if what I am hearing is true, if a
certain Blonde vampire is going to appear on Angel if the
show is renewed- the actor portraying him is making a big
mistake. I simply do not trust ME to do right in the
writing of that character. Ok, I am done and I truly
apologize if I have offended anyone, but after all, this is
just my opinion.
[> [> [> [>
What the hell... -- Calvin, 11:39:30 04/03/03
Thu
Don't worry, I'm not going to go round-for-round with you.
I recognize a good old fashion rant that you just have to
get out of your system. Having said that, I just wanted to
make one point. You clearly worship Buffy and loathe Angel.
Fair enough. However, I think that you've overlooked (to
me) the most important and intriguing aspect to *both* of
their characters. The idea of "right". You say that "Buffy
is a Hero and Buffy never hesitates to do the right thing."
In season two, Buffy could not bring herself to kill
Angelus, even when she had the chance, and Jenny Calender
and others died as a result. Eventually, yes, she did do
the right thing, but she clearly hesitated.
What about the flip side? Does Buffy really do the "right
thing"? More recently, she had no qualms about killing
Anya/Anyanka. Xander and Willow weren't on board for this.
Given the choice, Anya made the decision to sacrifice
herself in order to make things right. So, was killing Ayna
the right thing? I really don't know, and I think that is
one of the things that I love about her character so much.
I could do the same for Angel, but you get my point.
Again, I'm not trying to change your mind here. Just
throwing a few things out there to think about. Oh, one
more thing. I think you are *completely* wrong about one
thing. If the show is renewed next season, I think you will
watch. Anyone who posts an admittedly well done rant like
that and then closes by saying that they will still watch
the rest of this season has some sort of emotions vested in
this story. Just my opinion, though :).
Calvin
[> [>
Re: I loved the C/D interaction, it was intense! --
Rufus, 18:00:51 04/03/03 Thu
So tell me something, oh Spoiler Queen Rufus, did we
finally get some real answers in this episode? Was any of
the gang's speculations and Skip's EVIL ramblings
TRUE????
You have gotten some answers where you
weren'looking...remember what they were saying about
distraction? And about Skip......he said they were just
puppets but what Gunn and Darla said gives you the idea of
what type of power humans have but don't realize it.
Skip: It doesn't even have a name.
Darla: You have a choice Connor something more precious
than you will ever know.
Gunn: Then we'll kick it over and start a new
game.
Angel: To create a vessel.
Oh, at the end....Angel changed when he saw what came from
Cordy, but did you notice what it was just before shaping
into the beautiful Gina Torres? What did Angel see and most
of all what did Connor see?
[> [> [>
Re: I loved the C/D interaction, it was intense! --
Rob, 22:02:31 04/03/03 Thu
"Oh, at the end....Angel changed when he saw what came from
Cordy, but did you notice what it was just before shaping
into the beautiful Gina Torres? What did Angel see and most
of all what did Connor see?"
Um, it looked like an octopus, or some creature with 8
legs.....and for a while the shape almost looked like a
dragon. I'm missing the signficance. Rufus, please tell me,
even if it involves a little spoilage. If it's possible to
tell without giving away everything, I really wanna
know!
Rob
[> [> [> [>
Re: I loved the C/D interaction, it was
intense!....spoilers for ATS -- Rufus, 22:34:08
04/03/03 Thu
If you read my post on Lovecraft, Marvel and BTVS you will
understand what is going on. There are rules in the universe
(Angelverse and Buffyverse) that even the most powerful and
old creatures have to follow. I see the Buffyverse as one
with Gods, demons, and other creatures, but they aren't the
biggest power, the PTB is even bigger but has rules about
intervention in the world. The biggest gift given to the
mortals has been "choice".
Now to what we saw.....we saw something from another
dimension giving birth to itself, or pouring itself into a
vessel. Strong magics surround this being and the beautiful
woman we see is not the reality....as you will see more of
next week.
[> [> [> [>
Whoa! (lotsa spec) -- HonorH, 22:36:20 04/03/03
Thu
Okay, Roberino, remember "Amends"? Just before FE-as-Jenny
took off, it took the form of a spider--an eight-legged
beastie.
"Along came a spider and sat down beside her . . ."
Could it be that the First is actually part of the Powers--a
balancing force? It's gotten sick of the whole balancing
act, as it said, so maybe it's decided to up the ante. If
the Powers truly did send Darla to stop Connor, methinks
we've got a war of truly epic proportions brewing here.
[> [> [> [> [>
Great spec......oh, I'm so excited about the upcoming
eps!! -- Rob, 07:11:43 04/04/03 Fri
Fits in perfectly with everything. And yeah, duh, I
completely forgot that in "Amends." I was sort of thinking
that maybe the monster was supposed to look similar to the
one that escaped Glory's hell dimension in "The Gift." This
makes even more sense, though. I wonder when the two gangs
on both shows will find out that their apocalypse-i (?)
aren't unconnected after all.
Rob
[> [> [>
before reading any spec...(& a possible casting
connection w/b5 [but no future casting spoilers]) --
anom, 14:34:10 04/04/03 Fri
"...but did you notice what it was just before shaping into
the beautiful Gina Torres?"
Y'know what it reminded me of? Any "Babylon 5" fans out
there? (C'mon, I know there are!) Remember when Kosh opened
his encounter suit & we saw the real being inside? Wasn't it
a similar hovering-squid kind of glowy outline?
Not that I have any idea what that might mean in
terms of "Angel." Kosh never appeared as anyone who looked
like Gina Torres...although he did appear to Sheridan in a
dream as his father. And somebody check me on this: wasn't
Sheridan's dad played by the same actor who was in Carpe
Noctem? Not that I think that has any significance
either....
[> [> [> [>
Re: before reading any spec... -- CW, 15:06:55
04/04/03 Fri
The Shadows on Bab-5 also seemed addicted to that form.
Their ships always seemd spider/squid like, and could change
shape.
Not much help, but I still have "Bummin' a Boombox" playing
over and over in my head. ;o)
"Now, that's not right." (Spoilers for
IO) -- Solitude1056, 08:33:31 04/03/03 Thu
Mild disclaimer: I will not be held responsible for anyone
taking any of the following personally.
I do not like Touched by an Angel.
I don't like moralizing series where every episode ends with
a tag of all the characters sitting around reviewing what
they've learned this week. I like it even less when it's
wrapped up in some touchy-feely christian religious crap.
Not only do I not like Touched by an Angel, I'm not going to
watch any show with some guy from Little House on the
Prairie being all angelic as he wanders around the country.
David Carradine did it already, with a completely different
spiritual bent, and it really wasn't much better. The words
"organized religion" and "entertainment" go together like
"paint" and "dry." Perhaps so much of this is because the
world's biggest book-religions (Judaism/Xtianity/Islam) have
a certain moralizing black-white element to them. I mean,
really, you die, and you go to hell or heaven. (I hear
there's the option of purgatory if you're Catholic, but I'm
not, so I don't give a damn. So to speak.)
My point is, I like Joss. No, I adore Joss. He seems to be
the one man in mass-media entertainment these days that can
give me a sense of right and wrong, solid ambiguous evil and
good, and he can do it without shoving some religious agenda
down my throat. If Joss has any agenda, in all the time I've
seen, it's that: a) believe in yourself; b) your friends and
your family are your true salvation; and c) in the end,
you're all you've got.
Last night, I wasn't so much struck by the idea that, woe is
anyone, we were lied to for four seasons. Well, that thought
amused me momentarily but was quickly replaced by the
realization that Lilah was right: nobody is coming to save
anyone.
"You donÌt get it, do you, twinkie? IÌm what I believe
in.
And you think I got this far by sticking my head in the
sand? The Beast that eviscerated me has a boss and that
boss is going to end life as we know it and nobody is
coming to save us! Not Angel, not the Powers That Be and
not the Forty-damned-second Cavalry!
[...]
Just waiting to prove that your Powers That Be are all
hat
and no cattle. And if they do pull it through, well
then,
braid my hair and call me Pollyanna. The upside of being
in it for yourself, Wes? You always end up on the
winning
team.
[...]
Divine intervention? Trust me. You have more chances of
winning the lottery six times in a row. I had the
numbers
done.
There was a certain producer on AtS who apparently has quite
a leaning towards the organized crime, err, religion side of
things. For the past few years now we've been contemplating
the idea that both Angel and Buffy exist in a Buffyverse,
yet Angel has frequent intrustions by and interventions from
the Powers That Be. Buffy, on the other hand, is left to
tell Webs that the verdict is still out on a force for good.
The assumption on BtVS is that Buffy is The Force For
Good, if there is one. When the PTB act on BtVS, it's a rare
instance, yet in fact it happens every time a character says
or does something that pushes the choices towards a positive
or fruitful conclusion. The emphasis, in BtVS, on self-
determination, and away from a Saving PTB, means more of
that crunchy empowerment goodness.
Over in Angel's world, however, the PTB have had a heyday.
Some have posited this is because some major force has to
step in and balance the scales against Wolfram & Hart. These
past four years, anytime the going gets tough, count on
Cordy (or Doyle) to suddenly have a vision and whammo,
somehow the gang pulls off another happy ending. I'm not
saying the deus ex machina (as Lilah noted) isn't
also done in BtVS; the difference is that in BtVS we have to
believe that one or more characters had an intuitive leap
and figured it out, or that such-and-such an old text just
happened to have the right information or picture.
(The second option, incidentally, has never been that hard
to believe. The Buffyverse good-guy modus operandi has
always been 'intensive research,' so finding something
eventually becomes likely, if you look long enough.)
Hmm.
The turning point, I think, was discovering that Wolfram and
Hart's little girl was one of five significant powers. She
may have been evil, as Manny said, but underneath that it
was clear she was an evil who preferred a well-managed
destruction. The beast's chaos is anathema to Creepylocks.
Given this perspective of different types of evils, and
Lilah's comments about 'being saved,' it got me thinking
that maybe it's entirely possible that all the visions, all
the PTB nonsense, all of it was completely engineered by A
Bad Thing.
If I wanted to prime you for complete destruction, would I
just spring another apocalypse on you, or would I maneuver
you into a position where you'd just take what came along?
How to explain... The visions may be a lesser of two evils,
so to speak. I am Bad Thing, I send visions of something
small and icky happening over there, you run and stop it,
but you never notice what I'm doing over in this part of the
boardgame. Distraction factor; even Lilah mentions it at
some point in the first or second season that Wolfram and
Hart doesn't bother to toss out AI because the gang was too
small peanuts to have any serious impact on AI's plans.
Who's to say that some Chaotic-evil (as opposed to Managed-
Evil) isn't also treating AI with the same toying
attitude?
In some ways, I prefer the notion that Big Evil has been
toying with the gang all this time. I certainly prefer it
over the idea that there's some Big Good sitting up in the
sky, able to fix everything but only deigning to on a few
spare ocassions. Darla's appearance, for instance, counts as
an unexpected moment of Big Good, if a bit more active than
the legendary Big Good we saw back in Amends. Thing is, this
Big Good's message was simple and perhaps equally
unexpected: you make the choice, on your own. Do it for a
number of reasons, do it because it's the right thing to do,
but you make the choice.
Besides, the idea of excessive elements of a former
producer's Xtian bent getting warped in the space of a
single episode just pleases me to no end. Take that, you
despairing AI gang, waiting for Cordy to hurry up and have a
vision that would tell you what to do. Take that, you lay-
down-and-die AI gang, living in a world where the PTB are
supposedly actively watching over you, making sure it all
turns out all right. What if there's no PTB? What if there's
just more of the Buffyverse same, where gods are just more
powerful demons, and demons are the other side's gods, and
they're all out to remove humans from the planet? What if
the only real power is the power to make choices? In that
case, wouldn't the battle already be won if you've set up
your opponents to believe they can't make a choice without
being told what to do by some wonky visions and a few
cryptic passages?
Just makes ya think, is all.
[>
Interesting post, Solitude. (spoilers IO) --
Ixchel, 22:17:40 04/03/03 Thu
You have voiced some of my own feelings about the overt
religious tones inherent in the PTB. However, I have come
to a different conclusion.
I can accept the PTB in the Jossverse as some supernatural
(super-demon/god, whatever), powerful (but not omnipotent)
force for "good". (Imagining a scenario where several
different factions of these beings are trying to influence
events to their individual liking. And so are fighting a
war by proxy.) What bothers me is the PTB's resemblance to
the CoW. The goals may be noble (or are perceived as such
by humans), but the methods are not. There is an implied
disregard (by either side or sides) for the "chess pieces"
in their ultimate game. So, however good the intentions,
IMHO it was blatant manipulation for the PTB to use Darla to
talk to Connor. Also, I believe that it was impossible for
Connor to make an informed choice _without_ the complete
truth. As it was, he made a choice based on the emotional
manipulation coming from both Cordelia and Darla. So, I
submit that the PTB are a force for good, but does this mean
that they are moral in what they do? Do they really know
the best course of action? Do they have any individual's
best interests in mind, or just some lofty abstract idea of
humanity as a whole? What fate would they have decided for
Dawn on the tower? And if they would have sacrificed her,
then how is this so different from sacrificing a girl for
Cordelia's "baby"? As one final point, the PTB may care a
great deal for humans, but there is the possibility that
it's not for altruistic reasons.
BTW, I loved the episode (it was wonderful to see Darla
again) and thought it one of the best of this season. SDK
doesn't disappoint.
Ixchel
[> [>
Nothing is true, everything is permitted. --
Solitude1056, 05:26:13 04/04/03 Fri
I was discussing this last night over dinner, and I think I
phrased it better. Of course, this was after several beers
and a half-bucket of hotwings, and the mixture of spice and
alcohol seems to increase my philosopher tendencies... even
if now I can't remember half the oh-so-witty and thought-
provoking things I'm certain I said the night before.
Anyway.
I can see how some would argue that the "it was all a
machination" could come across as a "it was all a dream"
notion. I just don't agree. For starters, Joss' villians are
always the ones speaking truth - that's what makes them so
difficult to handle. We want to ignore them, write off their
words as noise fueled by being a Bad Guy, but we can't,
because eventually we recognize they were telling the truth.
Being a Bad Guy sometimes means, if you're a Jossian Bad
Guy, that you can see what's going on, and you lose nothing
by saying so. The Mayor reminded Angel of the truth of
loving someone who will grow old while you don't. Spike
pointed out the truth of Buffy and Angel never being
friends. Lilah spoke of not being saved by a last-minute
action from the PTB. Why would Skip be any different
here?
There's nothing new about the idea that we're maneuvered or
manipulated into various things, but Skip wasn't saying
anyone was forced into actions. It may have been some
skillful machinations that brought Darla back, souled,
unsouled, and then stuck her in a room with a desperate
Angel - but there were only two people in that room. No one
made either of them have sex. Nor did anyone hold a
knife to Gunn's sister's throat to get her to become a
vampire; no one did the same to Gunn to get him to stake
her. At each point, the players had a choice, regardless of
whether they chose to see it as such.
As Masq mentioned above, that's the point of the story,
children. I'm aware of that (and I think, in the end, it was
a bit overdone with the whole "Conor, you have a choice!
Make the right one!", but whatever). Thing is, I think it
was about time someone reminded AI that they do have a
choice. Willow's intervention played the role of a smaller
reminder, but obviously it wasn't enough. We needed a Bad
Guy to tell the truth. Dunk our heroes in some cold water
and wake their asses up.
Part of my harping on this is due to the the overbearing
emphasis on the PTB, over the past few seasons, and a great
deal of blame for this is square on Cordy's shoulders. "I
can't give up my visions, then we'd lose our sole
connection to the PTB... Why would the PTB hurt me, when
I'm the good guy? I'm the one with the visions, why would
they do this to me?" We have this showing up as late as Long
Day's Journey, when Cordy bemoans the fact that the PTB
wouldn't have led her wrong, so why didn't the resouling
mumbo-jumbo work? (I know Evil!Cordy knew it wasn't supposed
to, my point is that no one around Cordy thinks such
explanation - it was a vision, therefore must be from
infalliable source - is out of line.)
Once, back in season two (I think), the gang tracked a
vision to its source and determined Lilah had her fingers in
the pudding. At no other time did they ever stop to say,
"who is sending the visions? what are they gaining from
this? what is their agenda?" It may be that the person
paying you for the chemisty equipment has an agenda of
saving the world, but if their idea of doing so is killing
everyone and starting over, do you really want to help them
along on their science project?
In the end, having everything stripped down to "we
manipulated you, but it was your choice" is actually, in my
opinion, freeing. It takes everything we've done,
everything we could do, and puts it squarely on our
shoulders. I would hope that AI, getting the same message,
finally takes that kick in the pants and gets on with it,
and recognizes their responsibility for actions. In the AtS
half of the world, Angel is probably one of the few
characters doing that (albeit inconsistently, but that may
be due to the writing as much as his development) -
understanding his past and present are his responsibility
even if it was while unsouled or while being
manipulated. Throughout it all, he had a choice.
I guess it's just that when it's a Big Good manipulating
you, people tend to assume this means - like Cordy assumed -
that it must therefore be towards an end that will provide
good things for you, the pawn, as well. Not always. At least
if you come at things with Buffy's attitude - in the end,
you're all you've got - then you realize that it really is
you, your friends, your family, against all Big Guys
who would run your show, regardless of what color hats the
Big Guys are wearing. And when you refuse to be jerked
around or told what to do, you're no longer a pawn. More
importantly, it's only then that you can become a Big Guy,
too.
[> [> [>
Re: Nothing is true, everything is permitted. --
yabyumpan, 06:51:23 04/04/03 Fri
With regard to no one at AI questioning the visions and
being somehow at fault for this, I think it's also the case
that up untill this point, we, the audience also have rarely
questioned the visons. I think for AI and for the audience
it goes back to Ep 1, S 1. Angel is told (and we are told)
that the visions are sent by 'the powers that be' so he can
help fight evil, save lives and save souls, maybe his own in
the process. The people that first Doyle and then Cordy see
in their visions, obviously need help. Angel and AI are
doing a 'good thing' and helping people, the visions are a
tool to help them to do that. They also help people who just
walk in off the street and they have Wes and Fred there to
research so it's not total relience on the visions. They
seem to be a good thing, why should they question them if it
helps them to help people?
They havne't questioned the visons before for the same
reason the audience hasn't, because there hasn't seemed to
be any need to.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Nothing is true, everything is permitted. -- J,
11:14:15 04/04/03 Fri
They havne't questioned the visons before for the same
reason the audience hasn't, because there hasn't seemed to
be any need to.
Does that make the ultimate Whedonverse message "Question
Authority"?
[> [> [> [> [>
Yes. -- Solitude1056, 18:42:24 04/04/03 Fri
Duh!
Bwahahaha.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
But wait! -- Arethusa, 05:05:01 04/05/03 Sat
Wouldn't it be "Reject Authority" or "You Are All the
Authority You Need."
(I like the second one better.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Hmm... you're right - the second, definitely. ;-) -
- Solitude1056, 07:35:18 04/05/03 Sat
[>
What Is Jasmine? -- Convict 430019, 23:48:12
04/03/03 Thu
Jasmine did seem to have a rather octopus-like
characteristic while she was all glowy and being a creature
of "evil" and chaos the first reference that came to mind
was Cthulu, the Lord of the Abyss.
[>
Free will and moral choice--the war for human souls
-- Masq, 08:58:05 04/03/03 Thu
Given this perspective of different types of evils, and
Lilah's comments about 'being saved,' it got me thinking
that maybe it's entirely possible that all the visions, all
the PTB nonsense, all of it was completely engineered by A
Bad Thing.
It would be an interesting twist, wouldn't it? I do believe
some of the things we've seen that we thought were brought
by benevolent PTB's were in fact brought by evil. Cordelia's
call to be part-demon. Connor's birth.
But I don't believe all of it was. I don't think Doyle's
visions, or his death, or the Oracles, or any of that was
orchestrated by evil. I don't think Cordelia's inheritance
of the visions was brought on by evil. I think there are
good PTB's, I just don't think they're all powerful. I think
they help where they can, and when all this Big Badness came
down in L.A., there was very little they could do.
Darla, if she was real, and not just the voice of Connor's
conscience, was sent by the PTB's, but notice what she said.
"There's things go on here, and I can't--". She can't tell
Connor the whole story. Connor has to be able to chose for
himself what he'll do, and if she tells him the whole truth,
he won't have the exercise of his free will anymore.
The PTB's exist, and they are good, or well-intentioned,
anyway, but they are not all-powerful. There are beings just
as powerful as they are who are evil. Who have manipulated
things.
The PTB's are also stymied by the fact that they must let
our characters chose for themselves. Find out what is going
on for themselves. The AtS characters have never been spoon-
fed information OR moral choices by the PTB's. The PTB's
believe in human agency, human choice.
Skip wanted the gang to think they had no choice in some of
their biggest decisions. That was a mind-fuck. He wants them
to stop making free choices. The PTB's want to encourage
free choices.
This is the lesson of "Inside Out".
[> [>
Being a parent really sucks (spoiler Inside Out and
Bring on the Night) -- lunasea, 09:57:47 04/03/03
Thu
We have had 2 visits from parents this season. Darla gets to
appear to Connor and Joyce got to appear to Buffy. (Joyce in
CwDP probably wasn't here. Too glowy. A lot like the
"baby")
These are probably the only real visits sanctioned by the
PTB this season. Interesting that parents, real parents were
used.
If it was Holtz who appeared to Connor, Connor would have
jumped at whatever he suggested. If it was the First Slayer,
Buffy would have taken the words more seriously. She took
the dream she had about Chloe more seriously than she did
Joyce's words, as evidenced by that crappy speech she gave
at the end of BOTN.
It sucks being a parent. You don't want to see your kids
make mistakes. You want to protect them. You do have it in
your power to do this pretty much. What sort of child would
that raise though?
The PTB are like parents. They only interfere when it is
absolutely necessary, like saving Angel in "Amends." They
may gently guide, but they really leave it up to us to
figure things out. Doyle and Cordy's visions were never
about what they seemed. Just a quick example off the top of
my head, from the Prodigal, Angel is sent to the subway to
fight the drugged up demon. What it was really about was
Trevor and father issues.
I do think the PTB are pretty damn powerful. They did manage
to block out the sun to save Angel. The Oracles managed to
fold time. They choose not to because if they save the world
is it a world worth saving?
I don't think evil did all the things it said it did,
because it would have to understand the goodness in the
characters in order to do that. It wasn't just a mind funck
to get them to give up free will. It was a mind fuck
designed not to get them to trust their own goodness. I
still think that Wesley and Angel's relationship will be the
"baby's" undoing.
[> [>
Re: Free will and moral choice--the war for human
souls -- Dannyblue, 09:58:13 04/03/03 Thu
Exactly, Masq. That's one of the things that has always
irritated AI about the PTB. "Why don't they just tell us
what to do? Why do they make us figure it out all on our?
Why don't they get more involved? Why don't they give us all
of the answers?"
Because they want AI to do things on their own. To make the
hard choices. To come to their own conclusions.
I also think there are forces of evil that are as powerful
as the PTB, forces of good. But evil doesn't follow these
rules. They don't care about whether or not Angel can learn
important lessons on his own. They want the results they
want, and will do anything to get them.
And the PTB (or someone) do seem to be involved in the
goings on in Sunnydale. They sent Angel to Sunnydale in the
first place. They sent Whistler to Buffy, to prepare her to
kill Angelus. They made it snow (we assume) when Angel tried
to walk into the sun.
The message doesn't seem to be that there are no higher
powers trying to help us out. It's that, despite that, where
we go, what we do, is ultimately up to us. But there's
nothing wrong with getting help every once in a while. (You
seem to be saying, what? That the Scoobs are somehow better
than AI because they don't have a link to the PTB? How
foolish would AI have been not to use this connection in
their mission to help people? Just as foolish as Buffy
would've been not to try to urge Willow to use her powers to
fight the First.)
Also, belief in a higher power doesn't have to equate with
organized religion. I know plenty of people who believe in a
higher power without practicing any "recognized" religion in
particular.
[> [> [>
I didn't think there was a "versus" here.
-- Solitude1056, 05:33:32 04/04/03 Fri
You seem to be saying, what? That the Scoobs are somehow
better than AI because they don't have a link to the PTB?
How foolish would AI have been not to use this connection in
their mission to help people? Just as foolish as Buffy
would've been not to try to urge Willow to use her powers to
fight the First.)
No, I don't think anyone's said that. Rather, I've always
gotten the impression that the Scoobies are more suspicious
of free information than AI; then again, AI now has four
years of a direct pipeline to Cordy's brain... from
somewhere. The Scoobies, on the other hand, had cameos by
Joyce, Cassie, and Eve, and lumped all of them into "guest
spot of the First" category. Rather than assuming all
visitations are positive until otherwise specified, they
tend to see all visitations as negative until otherwise
informed - hell, the Scoobies were pretty quick to suspect
Giles based on little more than a snippet of information.
AI, on the other hand, seems to have taken an equally small
snippet of information and worked it for all it was worth,
refraining from total action until Cordy was caught
redhanded.
In some ways, AI may be more cautious - about taking action
- than the Scoobs, as befits the impression that AI is a
collection of slightly older in-the-world folks, rather than
late college age small-town folks. But I think the Scoobs
also have a cautiousness about free information that AI
seriously lacks.
[> [> [> [>
Re: I didn't think there was a "versus"
here. -- Dannyblue, 07:11:13 04/04/03 Fri
You can almost see why Angel wants to trust in these higher
powers. They (through Whistler) were the ones who sent him
to Sunnydale in the first place, where he found a life
waaaaay better than living in the sewers. And, as far as
anyone knows (I'm about 80% sure) it was a higher force for
good that made it snow when Angel tried to commit suicide by
walking into the sun.
I think that, when Angel moved to LA, he had nothing. He
went out every night to kill vampires, but that was almost
like something to do to pass the time. (I also think that
not doing anything would have made him feel even more
guilty.) As far as he was concerned, he was preparing
himself to spend an eternity just existing.
Then comes Doyle, to give him a purpose and a mission
courtesy of the Powers. And Doyle had visions, sent by those
Powers to help him with that mission. Angel is bound to have
a certain amount of trust in them.
I think slowly, over the past seasons, he's found more and
more reasons not to trust them completely. But, as far as he
could tell, they never did anything intentionally
"wrong".
[> [>
Re: Free will and moral choice--the war for human souls
Spoilers for OI -- Arethusa, 10:26:46 04/03/03
Thu
If you want to control someone, you make them think they
don't have a choice. The evil characters all try to make
everyone believe they are powerless, so the people don't use
the power they have. And our greatest power is in our
ability to make choices. They might not be good choices, or
they might not give us what we want, but we are the ones who
decide. It's our only true power as humans.
Angel told Faith that he knew what it was like to feel the
power of holding someone's life in your hands. But it's an
empty power, because as soon as that life is extinguished,
the power disappears. By taking the life, you lose the
power over life and death. That is why killers must
continue to kill, over and over. Real power is in the
feeling of control, and Evil can only control Good by
convincing Good that it has no power, no choice.
It's all about power-it makes us feel we have control,
value, purpose. It makes us feel like gods. ("We are
gooooods!") So what's a god to do, since they can all give
and take away life at will? In American Gods, the gods'
powers come from the belief of their worshippers. The power
is given to them; it cannot be taken. If a god strips its
subjects of free will, that's an empty power, a power over
nothing. It's too easy. Now, convincing the subject to
voluntarily give up free will, and do what it is told-
-that's real power. That's the sacrificial gift that
keeps on giving.
(The creature from the higher dimension-the goddess-when she
was born, did we see tentacles, snakes, or many waving
arms?)
[> [> [>
Re: Free will and moral choice--the war for human souls
Spoilers for OI -- Dannyblue, 10:37:55 04/03/03
Thu
I'm fascinated by how people seem so willing to take
whatever Skip said at face value. Every villain does what he
did.
Darth Vader tells Luke, "The Empire is strong. You are weak.
The Dark Side of the Force will always previal. And you know
we're gonna crush those rag-tag rebels. So, hey, why don't
you join with me. We can do evil together."
The Borg tells the Federation, "Resistence is futile. You've
seen for yourself that we can't be stopped. Why fight us?
Why resist?"
The Mayor tells the Scoobs, "I will ascend and turn this
entire town into mince meat. You've already seen that you
can't stop me, so stop trying. If anything, you should hop
in a car and get as far away as possible."
Skip tells AI, "You're noting but pieces on a chess board.
And we've been making the moves all along. Everything is
already pre-determined, so why bother fighting anymore. Give
up. As powerful as we are, you know we're gonna win
anyway."
It's a tactic designed to make the good guys give up.
[> [> [> [>
small problem (spoiler trailer) -- lunasea,
10:42:05 04/03/03 Thu
If the trailer is any indication, the good guys don't have
to give up. The "baby" had Angel (and Connor) on his knees
at the end. Don't think he has really given up.
There is a lot more going on here. I want to know why Fred
is playing Apollo in the next episode. Interesting choice.
Are we seeing something similar to "Billy" going on?
[> [> [> [> [>
agree with lunasea - but I'm spoiled rotten.*L
(spoilers for trailer only) -- Briar Rose, 17:31:00
04/03/03 Thu
It would appear that not all the AI Gang is going to be so
enthralled with the "BabyGoddess" as Angel and Conner were
at the moment of birth.
That shot of Fred walking on the street and seeing that what
appeared to be the urban "temples" were full while life was
being allowed to come ot a full stall made me think that
this is NOT going to be some "pro-religion" backlash for the
rest of the season.
ME has set it up for us to know that BabyGoddess is not
necessarily of the good. She was brought forth by shedding
innocent blood and seems to have morphed from either snakes
or a large octopus into something human and we alreadd know
(from Skippy) that Evil!Cordy was the bearer of something
that the PTB were not exactly thinking was going to be good
for the world.
My personal feeling is that they are pulling both storylines
together of AtS and BtVS to have the *WKCS* work out by
tying both shows together in what the Ultimate Big Bad is up
to.
Angel and Addiction -- lunasea, 11:05:20
04/03/03 Thu
This is going to be three separate threads. Please keep any
mention of this season out of this particular thread. It is
only for Angel up to ÏDeep Down.Ó I will start a different
thread for AtS this season. I really would like TCH to be
able to respond and there is plenty of material to cover
prior to this season. Thanks for your cooperation.
What started this was why I think Willow would make such a
wonderful addition to AtS, beyond the obvious. It ended up
with me understanding why I love Angel so much. I knew that
I identified with what Angel(us) had done (on a metaphorical
level) and how Angel(us) had grown, but writing this really
explained why Angel pushes all my buttons (in a good way).
Moderation really isnÌt something he is familiar with. He is
one intense guy, as people with addictive natures are. It is
his ÏPassionÓ that attracts me. He goes from one
addiction/obsession to another, getting deeper and deeper
since he doesnÌt understand moderation.
There is an ongoing debate in the world of biology, nature
vs nurture. The characters of Angel and Willow illustrate
the positions of this debate in regards to addiction (and
this is what the 3 threads will be about). That is why I
think that the character of Willow Rosenberg would be a
great addition to the cast of AtS. If Willow doesnÌt come to
AtS, at the very least another character that illustrates
the nurture side of the debate and how recovery/redemption
for her/him is different should be created somewhere in the
Buffyverse. Perhaps Ripper/Giles will serve this function as
he is expanded into a movie and possibly his own series. I
think there is another area that Giles could explore that
would be rather interesting (the man behind blue eyes whose
dreams arenÌt as empty as his conscience seems to be)
One of the criticisms of Angel is that he had a soul forced
upon him (whereas Spike ÏchoseÓ to get his). I see this as
integral to his character. Since he didnÌt choose it, he can
have a rather strong moral compass, equally strong good as
it is evil. Historically speaking, often the greatest saints
were once the greatest sinners (for those unfamiliar with
the Communion of Saints, I would be happy to elaborate on
this). Their change of heart comes from the Grace of God. If
Angel ÏchoseÓ his soul, he would have to be more wishy-washy
when it came to his moral compass. Think of it as a magnet
with two poles equal in strength. When you turn the magnet
around, it now attracts what it repelled (or is attracted to
what it was repelled by) and vice versa. Something has to
happen to turn the magnet around though. It canÌt do it
itself. The stronger the magnet, the more force it takes to
turn it.
Angel didnÌt have a choice about being vamped either. His
attempted seduction of Darla resulted in him being reborn a
vampire. One current theory about addiction that has a lot
of empirical support is that addiction is genetic, that we
are born with it. AngelÌs first addiction is his bloodlust.
He has this because his is a vampire. He canÌt change that.
It is something that will always be with him (unless/until
he Shanshus).
AngelÌs choices are in how he handles what he was reborn
with/as. With his magnet turned to attract evil, he fed that
bloodlust in horrible ways. Those ways were determined by
how he was nurtured (or rather not nurtured). He had a thing
for families and religion. In ÏAmendsÓ Angel is tormented by
visions of AngelusÌ past deeds and their Ïghosts.Ó Travis
remarks how Angelus killed his children first and then
arranged them for him to find in typical Angelus style. In
his parting shot to Margaret, he tells her that her son will
Ïmake a fine dessert.Ó In both these instances, he uses the
children to torture the parents. It isnÌt about families,
but bringing the parents maximum pain. The kids are just a
means.
Angelus kills all of DrusillaÌs family and friends, but that
is to outdo Darla by turning Drusilla mad. Darla made him.
Drusilla reminded him of himself and he took out his rage on
Drusilla (much as Buffy hated herself season 6 and took it
out on Spike). Drusilla wants to be good, just like a 17
year old Liam that we see in ÏSpin the Bottle.Ó Drusilla is
another one of AngelusÌ way to feed his addictions,
religion/morality. Drusilla runs away to a convent, which
Angelus refers to as Ï a great big cookie jar.Ó As he tells
Wesley ÏAnything you want to know. How sweet that virgin
gypsy tasted. The special smell of a newborn's neck. My
first nunÛnow that's a great story.Ó The newborn also plays
into the morality thing, since a newborn is so innocent.
It is a newborn that is AngelÌs first really good act when
his magnet is turned around. AngelÌs rock bottom isnÌt an
alley in New York City. It is a house in 1900 in China when
Darla wanted Angel to eat an infant. Two years later he
comes to America. What happened in those 2 years? We know
that Angel was in China and that he uses Tai Chi to center
himself. He is also fairly proficient in the martial arts.
When did he learn this? We have never seen Angelus fight in
a flashback. He didnÌt even fight the Beast. It is quite
possible that he learned this in those 2 years. When Angel
is trying to get over BuffyÌs death, his reaction is to go
to a Buddhist monastery.
Prior to China, Angel was in serious denial. With his magnet
turned towards evil, he couldnÌt even see he had a problem,
an addiction. It was just who he was and he loved how he
was. He didnÌt realize how it controlled him or made his
life out of control. (at least unsoulled Spike did) When his
magnet was turned towards good, he didnÌt have a way to feed
that addiction any more. He tried. He fed off of ÏRapists
and murderers, thieves and scoundrels,Ó but eventually even
that felt wrong. He becomes so desperate he goes back to
Darla to either be killed or get her back. When Angel canÌt
feed off the baby, even to win Darla back, he is at
bottom.
After China, Angel at least realizes he has a problem. In
China he probably learned a few techniques to help him. He
probably wasnÌt there the entire time. He ends up in New
York City, not San Francisco. He probably back tracked
across Europe, but he had a lot of memories there (think how
Spike was in ÏLoverÌs Walk). Almost 150 years is a lot of
memories. He comes to America to escape all of this. It
isnÌt easy and he ends up in the gutter avoiding humans all
together. He tells Whistler to Ïget away from me!Ó
He doesnÌt think there is help for his addiction. He isnÌt
in denial, but he doesnÌt realize there is a Ïpower outside
ourselves that can restore us to sanity.Ó Whistler shows him
this. Angel starts off slowly, but quickly gets obsessed in
his cure and the cure becomes another addiction.
Angel is the new addict. A theory about genetics and
addiction is that some are born with an ÏaddictiveÓ gene or
propensity. Someone isnÌt an alcoholic or a gambler or a
sexaholic or a codependent. They are an addict. Any 12 step
group will help an addict. It doesnÌt even have to be your
particular addiction. Many addicts ÏcureÓ one addiction
(though per this theory we never are fully cured and have to
take it Ïone day at a timeÓ for the rest of our lives) and
move onto another and another. Many even become addicted to
12 step programs. That is what we are seeing with Angel.
AngelÌs addictive state first manifest itself as his vampire
bloodlust. (The argument could be made that is shows up in
human Liam with regards to drink and women and this helps
inform the addictive nature of Angelus. There are only a few
brief scenes of Liam, so it is hard to draw any conclusions.
This could be discussed on the other thread in regards to
SpinTB.) In China Angel realizes he cannot feed his
addiction. He still wants to, but just canÌt. He tries to
find a way to deal not only with the guilt, but the
cravings. He does this by removing the temptation and
isolating himself more and more. This culminates with
Whistler finding him in an alley in New York City. Without a
way to feed the source of his addiction, he is nothing.
Whistler gives him something, helping a 15 year old blond
girl who is The Slayer. Angel pour all his energy into
helping this girl.
He trains with Whistler for a year to prepare. Maybe that is
where he learned Tai Chi and Martial Arts. It makes more
sense to have happened in China and Whistler doesnÌt seem
like the sort of guy that would know these sort of things.
Whistler could have taken him to someone else for training.
It isnÌt shown, so it is left up to the audience to
speculate and write fanfict about it (wax on, Angel-son).
Regardless, Angel was willing to go through some sort of
preparation to help Buffy.
Buffy is the first thing Angel is really willing to fight
for. As he tells her in ÏHelpless,Ó Ïmore than anything in
my life I wanted to keep it safe...Ó This is AngelÌs new
addiction, protecting Buffy. When he is doing this, he gets
his fix. He is able to get more and more involved. First it
is cryptic warnings, then not-so cryptic ones, then he
actually risks his unlife and begins to fight with her. Even
when he feels it is best he doesnÌt see her because they are
developing strong feelings for each other, he still tries to
help her by going to Giles.
These strong feelings complicate things. The source of
AngelÌs addiction is served better by these romantic
feelings than it is by just helping her. Angel tries to
resist and just help her, but that attraction is just too
powerful. AngelÌs new addiction has a new rock bottom,
ÏAmends.Ó Instead of having to wait almost 100 years, his
addiction gives him another way out, Ïyou have the power to
do real good.Ó After this episode, not only are Buffy and
Angel back together, but that relationship is different.
Angel has his new addiction and is able to continue with it
when he leaves Buffy. As his own series progresses, he gets
more and more obsessed with doing good. He doesnÌt just have
to find vamps to dust any more. He has Doyle and his visions
to help him. He is still not overly involved though. He just
does what the visions tell him to. Then IWRY happens and
Angel gives up Buffy and being human, the two things he
wants more than anything. When he does this, he resigns
himself to Ïfighting the good fight.Ó
Season 1 ends with the Prophecy of Aberjian. Angel will get
to be human again. It just probably wonÌt happen in time for
him to be with Buffy again. He buries himself in doing real
good. He is so focused/obsessed that he does make mistakes.
When Darla shows up, Angel has found his means to do good
and pours his energy into her. Angel even tries to
completely ignore one of CordyÌs visions for this and
brushes it off. Rock bottom for AngelÌs new addiction is
ÏReprise.Ó Angel has tried to do Ïreal goodÓ when it came to
Darla. He couldnÌt. He tried to make a difference when it
came to destroying Wolfram and Hart. He couldnÌt. He has no
power and he crashes.
Luckily, again it isnÌt another 100 years before Angel finds
a way out. ÏEpiphanyÓ gives him another option Ïthe smallest
act of kindness.Ó He doesnÌt have to go for Ïreal good.Ó He
can take it down a notch or two. Angel isnÌt very good at
keeping it low key.
After Pylea, he is feeling pretty good about himself. He has
to deal with BuffyÌs death, but he takes that in stride. He
helps Fred recover from Pylea. He probably said something
that helped Buffy when they met. HeÌs doing pretty good with
this taking things down a notch. Then Darla shows up again,
pregnant. He is given his next project, Connor. Angel loses
Connor and goes to remarkable ends to try to get him back.
He is heading for a major fall again. That fall happens in
ÏDeep Down.Ó No matter how many smallest acts of kindness
Angel tries to show Connor after he gets back (it was almost
painful to watch Angel try to connect with his son, they
both do an excellent job), it doesnÌt help.
ÏDeep DownÓ is AngelÌs fourth rock bottom (China, ÏAmends,Ó
and ÏRepriseÓ) It seemed to me to be more of S3Ìs finale
than S4Ìs premier. They just needed a few months for Angel
to be at the bottom of the ocean. Again, we donÌt have to
wait 10 years for the new addiction to present itself. Angel
gives it in his ÏChampionÓ speech at the end. This season
has been great with AngelÌs new addiction. I will leave that
for the next thread though.
What is missing in this essay is what is the ÏsourceÓ of
AngelÌs addiction. Those addictions have been: Bloodlust,
helping Buffy/relating to Buffy, doing good, small acts of
kindness, being champion/an example. All these things do one
thing, they reconnect him to humanity/life. I have done a
post about how bloodlust does this. In helping Buffy he was
connected to someone. In doing good, he is connected to
something larger than himself. In those small acts of
kindness, he is connected to those he does the acts for.
Angel is disconnected from humanity because he is a vampire.
People are as shadows to vampire, as Jesse tells Xander in
ÏThe Harvest.Ó
AngelÌs addiction is still genetic, still something he was
born with/as. AngelÌs recovery/redemption can never be
complete since he cannot escape his addiction. He can only
learn how to deal with it. It is something that will always
be with him as long as he is a vampire. His path, his 12
steps, have been in how to cope, not how to transcend. He
broods because as Giles tells him in ÏAmendsÓ Ï Because,
sir, to be blunt, the last time you became complacent about
your existence turned out rather badly.Ó Angel has gone from
addiction to addiction, starting out each time fairly
moderate and getting deeper and deeper until it controls his
life and he hits bottom. Wonder how badly things will turn
out this time.
This essay is a precursor to what I think it going on this
season, which helped me put "Inside Out" into some sort of
perspective. I will not talk about that here, since I would
like TCH to chime in, since he has seen the episodes more
recently than I have.
[>
Some notes -- Tchaikovsky, 00:47:53 04/04/03
Fri
Since he didnÌt choose it, he can have a rather strong
moral compass, equally strong good as it is evil.
Historically speaking, often the greatest saints were once
the greatest sinners (for those unfamiliar with the
Communion of Saints, I would be happy to elaborate on this).
Their change of heart comes from the Grace of God. If Angel
ÏchoseÓ his soul, he would have to be more wishy-washy when
it came to his moral compass. Think of it as a magnet with
two poles equal in strength. When you turn the magnet
around, it now attracts what it repelled (or is attracted to
what it was repelled by) and vice versa. Something has to
happen to turn the magnet around though. It canÌt do it
itself. The stronger the magnet, the more force it takes to
turn it.
Like Saul/Paul. The Damascus road experience was so
unnatural and powerful that, because he hadn't come to his
revelation by slow degrees, he became possibly the most
fiercesomely evangelical Christian ever. I think this is one
key point in delineating Spike and Angel. Shadowkat and
others have mentioned how Angel has the father problems,
Spike the mother problems, but this is another angle.
Spike's development is relentless and gradual- from te
posturing big bad of 'School Hard', through the double agent
of 'Becoming' and the 'Uncomfortable Truth Teller' of
'Lover's Walk and 'Pangs', through the lusting adolescent
and the besotted youth to the confidant, the sexual partner,
the valued comrade to possibly the lover, (or more probably
not, but that's the trajectory at the moment). It's notable
that a lot of these roles are in relation to Buffy- Spike
believes he has become a character in Buffy's story- which
is another reason why 'Beneath You' is so tragic. He wants
to believe that he did it for Buffy, but it can't be that
simple. Meanwhile, Angel gets cursed right in the middle of
being dastardly, and as a result, he becomes the inverted
magnet, as you say.
It isnÌt about families, but bringing the parents maximum
pain. The kids are just a means.
Yes, good point.
Angelus kills all of DrusillaÌs family and friends, but
that is to outdo Darla by turning Drusilla mad. Darla made
him. Drusilla reminded him of himself and he took out his
rage on Drusilla (much as Buffy hated herself season 6 and
took it out on Spike). Drusilla wants to be good, just like
a 17 year old Liam that we see in ÏSpin the Bottle.Ó
Drusilla is another one of AngelusÌ way to feed his
addictions, religion/morality.
Well, I haven't seen 'Spin the Bottle' yet, and I'm quite
happy to believe that this imtimates your theory, but from
what I've seen to date, I never believed that Drusilla was
uncomfortably close to Liam. Liam seemed to be the drinking,
whoring waster to me, and he took out Drusilla because she
had a life that he could never have had as a human. Will be
interested to watch that episode.
He comes to America to escape all of this. It isnÌt easy
and he ends up in the gutter avoiding humans all together.
Interesting to consider Angel's trajectory between 1902 and
1996. Although he is a brooding, asocial wreck in 1952 at
the Hyperion, he still keeps relating all the Rat Pack tales
in 'The House Always Wins'. I'm happy enough to believe he's
makign it all up, but if not, it's an odd twist in a tale
which leaves him languishing in that alleyway waiting for
Whistler.
He trains with Whistler for a year to prepare. Maybe that
is where he learned Tai Chi and Martial Arts. It makes more
sense to have happened in China and Whistler doesnÌt seem
like the sort of guy that would know these sort of things.
Now I'm desperately trying to think of occasions on which it
is clear that Angel was a good fighter before Whistler. It's
certainly not a given that he had martial arts skills, but
there are a few hints that he is a great warrior, (think
about the demon who he fought all night with before sunrise
in 'Blood Money' for example). I agree that Whistler
wouldn't ahve known that stuff, and tend to believe that
Angel learnt it much before he was found by him.
This is AngelÌs new addiction, protecting Buffy. When he
is doing this, he gets his fix. He is able to get more and
more involved. First it is cryptic warnings, then not-so
cryptic ones, then he actually risks his unlife and begins
to fight with her. Even when he feels it is best he doesnÌt
see her because they are developing strong feelings for each
other, he still tries to help her by going to Giles.
This is a very interesting take on Angel's side of the
Buffy/Angel relationship, and one that I can certainly
believe. I'm not entirely sure about your referencing
'Amends' as being about protecting Buffy- it seems more to
do with Angel's personal struggles- and it isn't until Buffy
explains that 'they're doing guest spots in each other's
dreams' that it becomes important to her. 'Amends' is, for
me, the pilot episode of the series Angel. Otherwise,
agree.
After this episode, not only are Buffy and Angel back
together, but that relationship is different. Angel has his
new addiction and is able to continue with it when he leaves
Buffy.
That's an interesting point- that it only after 'Amends'
that Angel is able to leave Buffy, because he has
transferred his obsession. I would tend to agree with this-
I cannot see The Mayor or Joyce's speeches working to Angel
and Buffy around the time of 'Surprise', say. Although
changing the timeline of events in the Buffy/Angel
relationship is tricky, because although they were involved
for three seasons, the dynamic of the relationship is always
changing. The whole of Season One is about lusting after the
unattainable for Buffy. The start of Season Two,
particularly from 'What's My Line?' onwards, is about the
build-up to sex. 'Innocence' sees the beginning of the bad
boyfriend arc which really propelled the show to a new
level. In Season Three, there is the return of Angel, the
attempt to just be friends, the re-union in 'Amends'- the
brief insecure relationship which can never be consummated,
and then the break-up. It never stands still for more than a
couple of episodes at a time.
After Pylea, he is feeling pretty good about himself.
This is the point in the series where his addictions, if not
altogether absent, are at their most latent. Between,
'Heartthrob' and 'Billy' his character is gentle, in
control, almost peaceful.
ÏDeep DownÓ is AngelÌs fourth rock bottom (China,
lAmends,Ó and ÏRepriseÓ) It seemed to me to be more of S3Ìs
finale than S4Ìs premier. They just needed a few months for
Angel to be at the bottom of the ocean. Again, we donÌt have
to wait 10 years for the new addiction to present itself.
Angel gives it in his ÏChampionÓ speech at the end. This
season has been great with AngelÌs new addiction. I will
leave that for the next thread though.
Now I'm with you until this point. Here I disagree a little.
Although Angel's speech to Connor is his most powerful since
'Epiphany', I frankly don't believe that the cataclysms that
affect Angel leading in to the end of the episode, nor the
new resolution is as stark or important to his life as China
'Amends' or 'Reprise'/'Epiphany'. I don't accept that he has
lost his addiction to the idea of 'the smallest act of
kindness'.In fact, I would say that after he lays aside the
idea of 'fighting the good fight', he doesn't have an
addiction for a while. That's why end Season Two/beginning
Seasno Three is such a good tiem for him. Then I would claim
Connor is his new addiction- if a healthier one than any of
the previous, because it is full of a love that it
ultimately selfless. In this perspective, I would argue that
'Deep Down' does not come at the end of a phase. In 'Amends'
Angel is ready to kill himself. In 'Reprise' he experiences
a moment of perfect despair. In 'Deep Down', what? He has an
MC Esher moment under the sea. He is brought back to health
by someone against whom he has expressed a massive vendetta.
He is re-united with his 'family' (Fred/Gunn). It's not a
rock bottom moment, for me at least, but a moment where he
accomplishes another point in his most constructive
addiction to date- helping his son. He explains how what
Connor did was wrong and untrusting, and he throws him out,
but the evidence of the next two episodes, (all I've seen so
far), is that he is still watching Connor's movements very
closely.
So disagree on the end bit, but as for the rest, excellent
stuff, and I agree that Willow's take on 'addiction' would
fit nicely with Angel's
TCH
[> [>
Thanks for responding -- lunasea, 06:06:53
04/04/03 Fri
I have really been enjoying your odysessy. It has been great
and often I have very little to contribute. I like that.
As for Deep Down, his rock bottom moment is on the boat
talking to the Lorne hallucination. He asks "why is it like
this?" He hasn't come to the realizations he gives Connor at
the end yet. He is still is dispair, which is what drives
his hallucinations as much as not feeding.
The prior addiction isn't just "the smallest acts of
kindness." It is them making a difference. Angel is still
addicted to helping and it mattering. When all those acts of
kindness don't help and result in everything around him
turning to ashes, he changes it to just being an example,
even if it doesn't matter. "It doesn't matter where we come
from, what we've done or suffered, or even if we make a
difference. We live as though the world was what it should
be, to show it what it can be."
It could be said that this change in perspective allows him
to hold onto his prior addiction, but the flow of S4 doesn't
say that to me. I'm still working on that. It isn't small
acts of kindness mentality that leads to the trouble he gets
into S4. I am looking forward to your interpretation of the
current season.
Now onto specific comments:
I think this is one key point in delineating Spike and
Angel. Shadowkat and others have mentioned how Angel has the
father problems, Spike the mother problems, but this is
another angle.
I don't think Spike had mummy problems S2. He is probably
written with mother problems later 1) because that is the
thing on BtVS and 2) it does contrast him with Angel. For me
the key thing to seeing where Spike's redemption (now that
he has a soul) isn't which parent he has issues with, but
how strong his mettle is. The mother/father problems aren't
the issues but the vehicle to explore deeper issues.
But I am going to refrain from talking to much about Spike.
After "Lies" anything I say is just going to sound like
bashing. His character rests in Pathos and the writers have
done an exceedingly good job with this.
The other thing is both the curse and obtaining Spike's soul
are just plot devices so that the writers can explore
certain things with their souled vampires. The curse wasn't
some dramatic statement. It was a way to explain how Angel
was good and then it was used to explain how he could be bad
again.
I never believed that Drusilla was uncomfortably close to
Liam. Liam seemed to be the drinking, whoring waster to me,
and he took out Drusilla because she had a life that he
could never have had as a human.
Not really sure what the writers were thinking S2 when they
showed human Dru in that confessional, other than Angelus
was uber-evil because he would vamp someone so pure. The
thing I get from Angel(us) is they are trying so hard to be
something that his father said he wasn't. Dru wanted to be
good even though her mummy said her visions were evil.
When I first started taking S2 apart, it was quite obvious
that Dru and Spike were written to compare/contrast with
Buffy and Angel. Spike served to highlight both Angel and
Angelus. I miss a lot because I was only pairing Angel with
Spike and Buffy with Dru. It also works the other way
around. Spike pairs with Buffy and Dru pairs with Angel. In
many ways, loosing his soul drove Angel "crazy." Couples
compliment each other. They have to have somethings in
common and identify with each other, but they also have to
fill gaps. That is why Spuffy never excited me.
I hope you enjoy Spin the Bottle. It is one of the funniest
episodes this season.
I'm happy enough to believe he's makign it all up
I used to think he was making it up, but not so sure any
more. You'll have to share your opinion after you catch up
with this season.
I agree that Whistler wouldn't ahve known that stuff, and
tend to believe that Angel learnt it much before he was
found by him.
I think it makes more sense to his story for him to learn it
in China. It would be a proactive step he took after her
realized he couldn't feed again. We know he didn't go
directly to the gutter. How was he able to get a remote
handle on this powerful drive?
I'm not entirely sure about your referencing 'Amends' as
being about protecting Buffy- it seems more to do with
Angel's personal struggles- and it isn't until Buffy
explains that 'they're doing guest spots in each other's
dreams' that it becomes important to her.
He is going to kill himself because "I'll never hurt her."
Angel's moments are so great because one thing initiates
things and then he starts piling things on top of them. Here
is my take on "Amends."
Angel will not kill Buffy, so he decides to kill himself.
With this decision to die, he finds tremendous peace. In the
almost 100 years with a soul, he hasn't found the motivation
to die. Now he has one. He feels a great burden lifted. It
was initially about Buffy, but this releases all the
personal stuff that has been inside of him.
A similar thing happens in IWRY. Angel had time turned back
for Buffy. The Oracles know this. They won't do it just for
Buffy, so he tries to convince them by saying he has been
taken from their cause. In that action, the Oracles make
Angel into a higher being. Once he has given up everything
for Buffy, he then justifies it to himself. In IWRY it is
"Because more then ever I know how much I love you." In
"Hero" that has become "We don't belong to ourselves. We
belong to the world, fighting."
That is one thing I love about Angel. His motivations are
always shifting.
Buffy did care before they were doing guest spots in each
other's dreams. She was concerned since she saw him on the
street. She mentioned it to Xander and Willow, she just
didn't want to bother Giles with it. The dream thing brough
a supernatural angle to it, so Buffy had to resort to going
to Giles. (I really hope that we find out why she was in
Angel's dream this season and I would like a repeat of it in
reverse)
the dynamic of the relationship is always changing. The
whole of Season One is about lusting after the unattainable
for Buffy. The start of Season Two, particularly from
'What's My Line?' onwards, is about the build-up to sex.
'Innocence' sees the beginning of the bad boyfriend arc
which really propelled the show to a new level. In Season
Three, there is the return of Angel, the attempt to just be
friends, the re-union in 'Amends'- the brief insecure
relationship which can never be consummated, and then the
break-up. It never stands still for more than a couple of
episodes at a time.
I am sure that you see it as more than this, but I just
wanted to be sure. Underlying the relationship from Day 1,
back in LA is "he identified so much with Buffy because
there are so many similarities. And she brough that out in
him." (interview with DB) I would say the same is true of
Buffy. What enthralls me about their relationship isn't the
how dynamic it was, but why it was. It is how they brought
these things out of each other and made each other better
that I love. No matter what stage they are at, that always
underlined it. Both characters are about their hearts. It is
the heart that is the focus of their relationship. Their
relationship mirrors their hearts. It was ME's way to show
us these characters in a very intimate and powerful way.
[>
Great post -- Tchaikovsky, 11:34:20 04/03/03
Thu
Need more time to do it justice in a reply, but shall sit
down properly some time soon
TCH
Current
board
| More April 2003