April 2004 posts


Previous April 2004  

More April 2004

Souls, personalities - differing perspectives (Part 1) -- Rahael, 12:08:14 04/24/04 Sat

Recently, Sophist and I have been having a discussion concerning two quite differing ways of viewing souls & personalities in BtVS and AtS, on my livejournal. We thought the Board might like to read/comment on the exchange, so here it is. It was quite lengthy, so I might split it up into parts.

It's part of a longer thread, and so it might start a little abruptly, but bear with us!

Sophist
it is argued that when Vampires kill people, it can't be classified as 'murder'.

I haven't seen many people make this argument. A much more common argument, and a better one (hey, it's my own), is that Angel is not responsible for the killings of Angelus, nor is WilliamSpike responsible for the killings of VampSpike. It's the only way I personally can justify Buffy's behavior in S3 and S7, which is pretty much identical.

Personally, I find it very problematic to impute a moral sense to vampires, which I see as a necessary predicate to describing their killings as "murder".

Rahael
We have to segment all kinds of actions that require thought & emotion in order to make the show's metaphysics work, as far as vampires are concerned - we are forced to jump through hoops.

Oh, and I must just mention another complicating factor. Spike may be a different person. But he feels like the same person, down to complaining about how Buffy used him for sex in Beneath You. If he acts as if he should receive redress for ill treatment, or act as if it still matters to him, then, doesn't that complicate the whole thing where he's a completely different person?

Sophist
Spike was deranged in BY. I think you must mean Sleeper (or maybe it was NLM; I'm too lazy to look it up to be sure). I didn't understand him to be complaining, but to be observing a fact he didn't understand before when he lacked a moral sense. At no time have I understood Spike to believe he should receive redress for treatment he received as a vamp.

I don't think it's surprising that the souled vamp would feel responsibility for "his" previous actions. All the memories and feelings are there; psychologically, there appears to be only one "him". That is how I understand the torment of the gypsy curse to affect Angel -- all the more poignant because it's not strictly rational. I don't think it complicates the moral issue, I think it deepens the psychological one.

Since I don't share your predicate that Spike "acts as if he should receive redress", I can't share your conclusion. But even if he did, it wouldn't affect my view of the moral issue, only the psychological one.

Rahael
It's that speech in the church. I felt really shocked and moved by it. It made me really feel for Spike. The words about being used, servicing the girl, Spike as object and flesh and nothing more. Now that was the deathknell of Spuffy for me, even as a friendship. If i remembered that, if someone had treated me like that, I couldn't have stuck around. But that's just my personal reaction. After my initial one of sympathy, I then remembered the attempted rape and felt kind of manipulated. I guess it could be seen as being even handed and showing both sides of the story, but it did feel like the writers were using explosive language/situations to win sympathy for each character at the expense of the other.

I agree it deepens the psychological moment. I think the show hangs around this paradox. Sometimes it works really well, this faultline. Sometimes, it breaks the suspension of belief.

Because if you have such psychological realism, it renders the soul/no soul distinction as increasingly troubled.

There was an excellent Babylon 5 ep called "Passing through Gethsamene" where a murderer had his mind wiped clean, and programmed to have positive impulses towards society. He became a monk, a very holy man. When his memories came back, it was induced by the angry relatives of his victims. They then crucified him.

That ep was all about vengeance and forgiveness. The person who led the crucifixion subsequently had his mind wiped, and became a monk, taking the place of the man he crucified. He was offered the same chance of forgiveness and redemption.

At no point were the crimes excused, despite the fact that the 'mindwiped' men felt like a totally different person. Different personalities, no memories.

Forgiveness was offered, and it was a very strong theme in the ep, but I felt in no way that the crime was diminished. I think my feelings about Lies became crystallised after I saw it.

Sophist
It's that speech in the church. I felt really shocked and moved by it. It made me really feel for Spike. The words about being used

Allow me to nitpick for a moment in order to reach a substantive point.

In BY, Spike does not say he was used. Neither the word "used" nor a synonym appears in that speech.

This does not reach the substance of your point, of course. If nothing else, a reasonable person could infer from the "service the girl" comments that he understood that Buffy had used him. Spike himself does say exactly this in Sleeper/NLM, which I referenced above.

There are 2 key points to be made here, though. First, it certainly is true that Buffy was, in some sense, using Spike in S6. She herself said so in AYW (that grinding sound you hear is my teeth every time I have to reference that ep) and acknowledged it again in Sleeper/NLM. Thus, for Spike simply to state this fact is not in itself consequential.

Second, and most important, Spike never claimed that he was owed something as a result of the fact that Buffy used him. Not in BY, not in Sleeper/NLM, and not at any other time. In BY he was explaining the process which led him to his soul. In Sleeper/NLM, he was explaining what he now understood as a result of having a soul.

If i remembered that, if someone had treated me like that, I couldn't have stuck around. But that's just my personal reaction. After my initial one of sympathy, I then remembered the attempted rape and felt kind of manipulated. I guess it could be seen as being even handed and showing both sides of the story, but it did feel like the writers were using explosive language/situations to win sympathy for each character at the expense of the other.

If "you" were the same "you" in each case, I'd agree. I think this gets us back to the same issue I mentioned above: in my view, SouledSpike is a different "person" than VampSpike. If you take that view, I think you can both feel sympathy for Buffy in SR and still understand why SouledSpike would "stick around" in S7. However, I never felt any sympathy for SouledSpike because of the fact he was used in S6, nor did I ever believe the writers wanted me to feel such sympathy. IMHO, they only wanted me to understand the importance of the soul and the effect of the transition.

I do agree that in SR they used an explosive situation to manipulate viewers' emotions, but that's a topic for a different day.

There was an excellent Babylon 5 ep called "Passing through Gethsamene" where a murderer had his mind wiped clean, and programmed to have positive impulses towards society. He became a monk, a very holy man. When his memories came back, it was induced by the angry relatives of his victims. They then crucified him.

This is, in some ways, the mirror image of the situation in BtVS. Based on your description, in B5 the person felt different but was the same. In BtVS, the person (Angel/Spike) felt the same but was different (at least in my view of it).

I've never seen the B5 episode, but from your description I don't believe it has the psychological or moral complexity of BtVS. I don't personally believe that memories alone are important enough for us to treat the same person as though we had also forgotten the past. If, for example, Josef Mengele showed up today claiming amnesia, I would have no trouble trying him for war crimes. And I would hardly watch a show in which the heroine falls in love with him.

In contrast, the soul canon on BtVS, at least in my interpretation, separates the person (in his "essence", not physically) and the deed while preserving the memories. That solves the moral dilemma, in no way diminishes the previous crimes, and still allows for a very complex exploration of psychology, both for the (former) killer and for his victims. YMMV.

Replies:

[> Re: Souls, personalities - differing perspectives (Part II) -- Rahael, 12:14:00 04/24/04 Sat

Rahael
This is a very interesting discussion so I'll continue keep on with it!

Firstly, you may correct me as you want on BtVS S7 eps! I've only seen them once, so my recall may be less than perfect.

Of course, Spike may not demand sympathy, but if any character talked mournfully in a church, in (what I considered to be) heartbreaking terms, and then embraced the burning cross, I'm figuring the writers are going for the tear jerking. But then, Angel and Connor's conversation in "Home" made me cry buckets, whereas, I am reliably informed, it made some want to "slap Connor". So who knows!

Now Buffy did say she was using Spike in S6. She felt dirty and ashamed. And they took us, the viewers into her dilemma. I, (I acknowledge a whole load of fans were seeing a lot of it from Spike's pov) saw it from Buffy's pov - S6 and Spuffy was all about Buffy, Buffy, Buffy for me. Spike figured nowhere, other than as a protagonist in a situation that concerned her.

But in early S7, Buffy herself became withdrawn and opaque to me. Everything in the early eps I saw, I saw from Spike's viewpoint, if for no other reason than he seemed to be talking more.

Now, I do find the situation of Spike and Angel fascinating, but only because I erase away the mystical elements of their situation. I read the soul as metaphor. The metaphor of an inward transformation within. Being made 'whole', having something restored to you that was formerly lacking. The whole point of the soul is that it brings with it a conscience.

So, having got the soul there are two consequences:

1) they are different person

2) they for the first time, feel remorse.

It's a paradox isn't it? Without being a new person, they wouldn't feel the remorse for the old selve's crimes!

I'd say that this isn't entirely separate.

They are new people *because* they feel remorse. The soul doesn't exist in anything except that sense of feeling regret and remorse.*That is the soul*.

So, I'd argue that saying they shouldn't feel remorse (even though the memories mean they would) - well, then, they aren't souled.

(this reply started going on a bit, so I cut out a para discussing B5 and Connor.)

Sophist
if any character talked mournfully in a church, in (what I considered to be) heartbreaking terms, and then embraced the burning cross, I'm figuring the writers are going for the tear jerking.

Agreed, at least in part. But I think the important issue is to identify what it is that we're supposed to feel emotional about. Surely it was not Buffy's treatment of Spike in S6, but Spike's decision to restore his soul and the fact of restoration. That was what was stunning -- that a vampire could voluntarily seek a soul and attain it. I would not use the word "sympathy" here; perhaps "awe", though I'm not sure that word has enough emotional resonance these days. Think "awe" in the sense of Christian mystical experience.

Now, I do find the situation of Spike and Angel fascinating, but only because I erase away the mystical elements of their situation. I read the soul as metaphor. The metaphor of an inward transformation within. Being made 'whole', having something restored to you that was formerly lacking. The whole point of the soul is that it brings with it a conscience.

So, having got the soul there are two consequences:

1) they are different person

2) they for the first time, feel remorse.

It's a paradox isn't it? Without being a new person, they wouldn't feel the remorse for the old selve's crimes!

I'd say that this isn't entirely separate.

They are new people *because* they feel remorse. The soul doesn't exist in anything except that sense of feeling regret and remorse.*That is the soul*.

So, I'd argue that saying they shouldn't feel remorse (even though the memories mean they would) - well, then, they aren't souled.

I agree with you that the "soul" should be understood (loosely, at least) as a metaphor for conscience. Where I think we differ is that I view the soul/conscience (speaking now only of the confines of the show) as so important that it's presence or absence defines a different person. The remorse they feel is not logically or morally necessary but psychologically it's almost inevitable because the memories of the crimes remain undiminished.

I came to this understanding not because of any interest in Angel (or Spike), since I have none in either case. I came to it because of Buffy. If the sequence went as you suggest -- soul=>remorse=>"newly awakened person" (like being born again?) -- I'd have had a very hard time justifying Buffy's conduct towards Angel in S3 (and probably in S2 as well). I can understand the concept of forgiveness towards someone who has wronged you and who now seems to have discovered a conscience, but that would hardly explain how far Buffy went beyond that when it came to Angel in S3.

Rahael
Actually I have to agree completley with your last para. I think in some senses, Buffy behaved irresponsibly in S3. She gets a telling off from Giles as well.

In fact, there seems to be quite a few parallels between S3 and S7. Mysterious reapperance. madness or feralness (on Angel's part). Buffy keeps it a secret.

And they don't sleep together and then they part by the end of the season.

Though Buffy does commit what I consider ot be her most ambiguous act for Angel in S3 as well, however you view the soul. She's prepared to kill Faith, in order to keep Angel alive.

Now that's her most shocking moment. I think they make her intensely morally ambiguous, and wrong, basically. I think they exploit it magnificently in S3, in Faith's dream where Buffy appears ruthless, cold faced, knife in hand, as in Faith's pov.

It's another sobering moment. They resurrect that vision of BUffy in Selfless too - all in black, determined and sword in hand. (but emotionally vulnerable, also)

Sophist
I think I can justify Buffy's behavior in S3 under my view of the show's metaphysics, but I can't do it under any other. If I believed Angel to be the same "essence" as Angelus, I'd have been with Xander in Revelations (and we know that could never happen!). I'd also have to have even more problems with Amends, since it would then appear to let Angelus off the hook not only with Buffy but with Giles and everyone else. My view avoids this problem.

I agree with you that going after Faith in GD1 is very ambiguous. And brilliantly done. I'm sure someone could provide a metaphorical explanation that would eliminate the moral issues, but taken at face value it's fascinating.

I also agree that there are clear parallels between S3 and S7. Part of that may be intentional -- here was a road we might have taken in S3, let's see what we could have done. Part may be the "convergent evolution" of repeating the vampire with a soul storyline. I think that S3 worked better, but I certainly enjoyed both when it comes to this issue.

Rahael
hahaha re Xander.

Well there might also be this: that both meanings are possible, and that the credibility of one or the other rises and falls depending on the ep, the theme, the arc.

It might just be possible that both Xander, & Buffy have got a point (though Xander may express his with a little bit more obnoxiousness than needed - tbh, I always had a soft spot for him, despite his attitude to Angel - Angel/Xander was my first slashy pairing. Feel the UST in the air!)

S3 rocks. So does GD1.

(must correct an error I made in my previous post - I meant to say, they exploited the double edgedness of Buffy in GD1, in S4, not S3.)

Sophist
Well there might also be this: that both meanings are possible, and that the credibility of one or the other rises and falls depending on the ep, the theme, the arc.

I quite agree. However, let me reprise the B/A arc in your terms by removing the metaphor:

Buffy meets a man who seems attractive and mysterious. She begins to develop feelings for him. After shared experiences which awaken in her a physical desire for him, she learns that he is living incognito but was previously a concentration camp guard who tortured and murdered a large number of innocent people. (I'm not treading on Godwin's Law here; the portrayal of vampires leaves us with only a few plausible real life examples.)

He admits to her that this is the case (note that he did not tell her this before she learned it on her own), but says that he has reformed his life and no longer behaves as he did in the past. Rather than turn him over to the authorities, she kisses him and tells him she nevertheless can't continue to see him. She avoids reading books which are available to her which describe his earlier crimes.

Circumstances, however, continue to throw them together. He proves to be loyal and trustworthy. Her feelings, perhaps never entirely subdued, re-awaken and she falls in love. They sleep together. After she does so, he goes through a psychotic episode in which he reverts to the torture and murder of innocents, including people she knows. Forced now to act, she is able to have him committed to a mental hospital for treatment of his psychotic episode.

Under circumstances which are unclear, he leaves the mental hospital and returns to her, claiming again to be cured. He again performs actions which indicate he is trustworthy.

Stopping the narrative at this point, let us ask some questions.

1. Is it plausible that a girl in such a case would not think some punishment was in order for the man?

2. Is it plausible that she would continue to express love and concern for him?

3. Is it plausible that when a rather deranged bounty hunter comes looking for her lover, she would kill the bounty hunter in order to preserve her lover from the justice the law clearly demands?

Now, I think I have given an entirely neutral and impartial (;)) summary of S2-3 which follows your metaphor but puts it in real life terms. I can't make it plausible. I think the soul must mean something more essential in order for Buffy's behavior to be justifiable.

And now you can see why I suck at creative writing.

must correct an error I made in my previous post - I meant to say, they exploited the double edgedness of Buffy in GD1, in S4, not S3

I knew you meant TYG.

[> [> Souls, personalities - differing perspectives (Part III) -- Rahael, 12:22:34 04/24/04 Sat

Rahael
Thanks for this really interesting post.

I have thought about Angel in these contexts. Firstly let me say (as i have recently in a number of posts, or maybe it has been conversations with d'H and KdS - I lose track!) that ME portray their villain-heros very unrealistically.

A man who so loved torture and pain does not resemble either Spike or Angel as they are. Yeah, Angel has the brooding and the guilt that might be consequent, and it may work as a metaphor for such people, but the behaviour and general character of Angel has got nothing to do with, what I believe a man who really committed what he had would appear to be.

There would be a deadness of spirit, of mind. Instead, Angel as he is in BtVS and even AtS seems to suggest that his prior wrong doing is nothing more than a bad case of a misspent youth! (The angst of a Liam, not an Angelus!)

In fact, what popped into my head was Dorian Gray - is Angelus Angel's portrait? Emotionally and morally speaking. The hidden true self.

As long as the characters of both Spike and Angel are treated unrealistically, the audience can suspend belief.

But that's a bit of a cheating answer (though I think ME employ it, and I think it's fair game, it's artistic license, as long as they use it with care).

To answer your question seriously - what will we do, my community, when we find peace? Will we not have to integrate back into our societies both the torturers and the tortured? Sometimes they overlap. These people do have children, wives, family, who love them.

What will we do with the children who were forced to kill others? We will have to bring them up. We cannot turn them away, and yet we cannot allow them to go scot free.

The town I grew up in was the seedbed for the current war that has engulfed us (in the sense that its inhabitants were brutally treated, and then struck back). It would have been hard for any one who lived there, who had any kind of sense of justice, not to support in some way efforts to stop the actions of the state. They took away young men, and then young women. They prevented us from getting jobs, made gettign an education harder, made the language we spoke unofficial and unrecognised. They ruled us through the sentry point and through the gun, through army camps, disappearances and bombings.

Does this excuse the subsequent violence? the crimes that have been committed by my community.

Absolutely not.

Can I stop caring for them? No. Can I stop feeling like I belong with them? That even as they push me out, my only true home is there?

Do I think some punishment is in order? I hope mercy is shown to the vulnerable - that the broken are not thrown into the kind of prisons that my father was thrown into (where regular torture sessions and solitary confinement was the order of the day). I do not even request that the assassin who devastated my life be put on trial. What i want is for a dramatic change to occur.

The one set of people I want to see put on trial are the politicians on one side who sanctioned massacres, inflamed tensions and ordered brutally repressive measures. I'd like to see the leader of the main terrorist grou, (and his chief henchmen) put on trial and given a very long prison sentence.

But if he turned aruond tomorrow, made his sincere regrets, mourned publically for the people he'd killed, and ordered weapons to be laid down, you wouldn't know how grateful and happy I'd be.

I don't know how I'd react vis-a-vis the situation you delineate. Perhaps my example, where Angel actively *changes sides* in a meaningful sense might fit? After all the concentration guard may very well say he's sorry, but the point is, it's very easy to say sorry now, after the danger has past, at no personal risk to himself, the easy regret of comfort.

What if, after committing great crimes, he had a total change of heart and worked against the nazis? But that's just me thinking aloud...........

Sophist
A man who so loved torture and pain does not resemble either Spike or Angel as they are. Yeah, Angel has the brooding and the guilt that might be consequent, and it may work as a metaphor for such people, but the behaviour and general character of Angel has got nothing to do with, what I believe a man who really committed what he had would appear to be.

There would be a deadness of spirit, of mind. Instead, Angel as he is in BtVS and even AtS seems to suggest that his prior wrong doing is nothing more than a bad case of a misspent youth! (The angst of a Liam, not an Angelus!)

I completely agree. That's one reason why I prefer my "essentially different" view. It makes the unreality easier to accept. Of course, that may cost me some of the moral complexity. I trade that for the psychological because it's easier for me.

To answer your question seriously - what will we do, my community, when we find peace? Will we not have to integrate back into our societies both the torturers and the tortured? Sometimes they overlap. These people do have children, wives, family, who love them.

What will we do with the children who were forced to kill others? We will have to bring them up. We cannot turn them away, and yet we cannot allow them to go scot free.

While I think I know how to react to an individual case, and essentially said so above, I find it far harder to know what to do when a whole society becomes dysfunctional in such a way. There are, of course, historical examples of this problem: the US after the Civil War; Germany and Japan after WWII; Cambodia; Rwanda; Uganda; sadly, too many more. The one I know best, of course, is the US.

There seem to be 2 opposite approaches to the problem. One I'll call the Bourbon solution. When the Bourbons were restored after Napoleon, they proceeded to take revenge on anyone they believed had done them wrong. It was said "they had learned nothing and forgotten nothing".

The other I'll call the Lincoln approach. "With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves..."

The US government made serious mistakes after the Civil War, mistakes that led to a too easy acceptance of the former slave owners into the good graces of society. They, in turn, saddled the South with a system of apartheid which has taken 150 years to undo and the consequences of which we still suffer. My view is that there was too much emphasis on "charity for all" and not enough on "firmness in the right" to "finish the work we are in".

In general terms, I suspect that the leaders must be punished severely; that the society as a whole must adopt a "never again" attitude towards the crimes; and that the low-level perpetrators must be allowed to go free under a national amnesia. But if it came to personal dealings with such a perpetrator, I guess I've made my feelings clear in the posts above.

Rahael
I completely agree. That's one reason why I prefer my "essentially different" view. It makes the unreality easier to accept. Of course, that may cost me some of the moral complexity. I trade that for the psychological because it's easier for me.

Oh! Okay! Yes. That was a little lightbulb moment for me, when the bits of the puzzle connected together. I'm afraid that I'm feeling a little foolish now. My only demurral to the neatness of all this is, how powerful are memories? If one remembers the feelings, the images, the idea that one has done these things, wouldn't that shape your personality? How dependent are we on our memories? Memory is a notoriously tricky and suggestible thing. hmmmmmmm. Perhaps this is Angel's trauma. The confusing thing for the viewer is that in many ways, they don't seem to be different people. They retain tastes, and preferences, even strong emotional attachments.

I guess when the story is written powerfully and resonantly, all of the above just works, and when it's tired and not so tightly written, perhaps the metaphysical joins show more? I mean, I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about this question when the show thrilled me ep after ep. It was just a half-musing.

And everything you say after that: well, I do have to agree with you completely. Even to the point of feeling moved to say, that it is because you say that and think that - it's why I basically trust your instincts and your viewpoints. In a sense, I've denied myself, and perhaps will have to keep on denying myself what I feel I need, for the sake of being un-selfish, for the sake of the 'bigger picture'. Hah. Now that's very redolent of Lies isn't it?

Sophist
how powerful are memories? If one remembers the feelings, the images, the idea that one has done these things, wouldn't that shape your personality? How dependent are we on our memories? Memory is a notoriously tricky and suggestible thing. hmmmmmmm. Perhaps this is Angel's trauma.

Powerful indeed. Those memories certainly must shape Angel's personality going forward; his internal experience of the horror should have a profound impact regardless of an objective observer's absolution from guilt. I find his story meaningful enough just considering the psychodynamics of it.

I guess when the story is written powerfully and resonantly, all of the above just works, and when it's tired and not so tightly written, perhaps the metaphysical joins show more? I mean, I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about this question when the show thrilled me ep after ep. It was just a half-musing.

I fully admit to constructing my formal view after the fact. IIRC, we had a long discussion on the soul canon on the Board about 2 years ago and I then first put into words what I had previously taken for granted without much thought. Normally I think art works better for me when it's so tightly constructed I accept it without question, but in this case I'm glad to have been forced to think it out. There's no doubt that S7 gives me less problem than it might someone with different views.

And everything you say after that: well, I do have to agree with you completely. Even to the point of feeling moved to say, that it is because you say that and think that - it's why I basically trust your instincts and your viewpoints.

Once again you exceed my ability to thank you for such a wonderful expression.

In a sense, I've denied myself, and perhaps will have to keep on denying myself what I feel I need, for the sake of being un-selfish, for the sake of the 'bigger picture'.

Sadly yes, at least within the limits I suggested above. What limited comfort there is can perhaps be found when the society reaches the point of general agreement that this must never happen again.

Hah. Now that's very redolent of Lies isn't it?

Here, at least, I can offer you the narcotic of my view of the show's metaphysics. I assure you that it's far superior to Xander's. :)

Rahael

Once again you exceed my ability to thank you for such a wonderful expression.

No, thank you!

And also for the narcotic ;)

[Here, I add a comment that Liz, who also posts on AtPO occasionally, made to this discussion]

Liz
Maybe it kind of depends on the specific killing. Sometimes they're killing for food. Sometimes they're not. Angelus almost never just killed for food--he loved it and loved the torture. And Jenny, well I remember Joss saying that he broke Jenny's neck not only so people wouldn't be distracted wondering if she'd come back as a vampire but also because it was just so insulting that he didn't even bother to feed. Angelus killed her for a reason that had nothing to do with his nature as a vampire.

I could see how some vampires in general who just kill for food might be considered predators. But you're right, that requires them to have little narrative motivation. These are the minor character vampires, the ones who have no lines and just snarl when they see anyone.

While Spike was different from Angelus in terms of what he was thinking (or not thinking at all, as the case may be) I'd still say his were murders. Maybe not all of them, but he had himself a lot of fun. When he said otherwise in a few speeches in season 7, I think he was full of shit. I'm mostly ignoring seven and large portions of six when it comes to his character development. Not that he's being so well developed on Angel, but I find that story has little to do with how he was in season 7 buffy and I'm glad of it.

[> [> [> Re: Souls, personalities - differing perspectives (Part III) -- manwitch, 14:33:19 04/24/04 Sat

Interesting discussion, folks. Here are some rambling tangents.

My own personal vision is that vampire killings are metaphorical of selfishness. Vamp behavior, pretty much in its entirety, is insatiable ego, fulfilling its impulses at any moment without regard for consequences. There is a sense in which we all have behaved in such fashion, done things without regard for anything but ourselves. Usually, but not always, in our youth. With maturity, we come to a point where we recognize that way of living as insufficient. I think that is what the souls offer. Its the moment when we start to care, when we recognize the connection between our lives and others, even with life itself. So there's an intimation of immortality in this maturity, and I think that's what the soul is. Its that aspect of ourselves that is not limited to ourselves, but can reach beyond our bodies and our specific point in time, and care about others.

Buffy, in GD1, illustrates this idea again. The significance of her battle with Faith in my opinion is not simply her desire to feed Faith to Angel as a means of saving him, but that she fails to be able to bend life to her will and is left with only self-sacrifice as an option. That seems to me to be the theme of season three. You want life to serve you, but it doesn't. You have to serve it. You don't take, use, or consume, you must give. And that's what Buffy does.

Spike, even when performing good actions, was selfishly motivated, as Tara points out. The realization that his selfish motivations are insufficient cause him for the first time to really think about and care about someone else. That's when he get's his "real" soul. Again, he's metaphorical of Buffy and his attempted rape of her is in a sense her attitude towards herself. She needs in season six to care about something more than herself again, to let go of the pain and injustice of her situation and give of herself. When she does that, Willow is healed, Buffy is healed, and Spike is ensouled.

So I think the morality for vampires is the same as for everyone else. Are you acting out of selfishness, or out of concern for others? For vampires, the soul seems to be a mark that you care about others, however difficult it may be. Harmony, for example, is good but still selfish, so she doesn't have a soul. Like spike in Season 5 and 6 generally. Fighting on the right side, but for selfish reasons.

The soul in humans is a little more ambiguous. Humans seem to get souls that don't count for much of anything.

Buffy forgives some very horrible crimes, just as Hercules does, and Jesus. I don't think it excuses or diminishes the crime to have compassion for the perp. Which is not to say that there should be no laws. There are punishments for things and should be. But even the worst monsters in our world are human beings. We forget that at our peril.

[> [> [> [> Vampirism as selfishness -- Rahael, 15:17:48 04/24/04 Sat

Well, that's pretty much the way I view vampirism, as a metaphor for such motivated behaviours, and the soul as a metaphor too. That's why I had the reaction to Lies that I did. Those who didn't have my reaction, I took it, had a different interpretation, that Spike as he was then, had no responsibility whatsoever for the "Murder" or "killing" of Nikki.

Therefore, an apology was an unreasonable request that was made by some of the viewers.

[> [> [> [> Metaphor or Metaphys? -- Sophist, 18:46:56 04/24/04 Sat

I think the immaturity metaphor provides a good perspective for many aspects of the show.

As Rah said somewhere above, though, the varying metaphors require a shift in perspective that can be dizzying. In evaluating, say, the morality of staking a vampire newly risen from the grave, the immaturity metaphor would be inadequate (at least!).

[> [> [> [> [> The Vampire Demon Metaphor -- Dlgood, 20:32:03 04/24/04 Sat

I've always viewed the metaphor not simply as "immaturity".

Rather, I saw the Demon without as metaphor for the inner demons within the human host. Angel is not Angelus is not Liam, or at least not exactly - but that evil which Angelus did was representative of the sinfulness within Liam - manifest through the biological and metaphysical traits of the vampire nature.

Receivin a soul provides a fundamental, metaphysical transformation. Though Angel still retains the biological and metaphysical properties of the demon, he can also now reconnect to the latent humanity within Liam again.

To an extent, Angel should not be held entirely liable for the crimes of Angelus, but it should be noted that he still contains within himself all that was Angelus. And that he is the inheritor of Angelus' legacy. And that he bears responsibility both for that, and responsibility for his own capacity to act in the future.

That was what was stunning -- that a vampire could voluntarily seek a soul and attain it. I would not use the word "sympathy" here; perhaps "awe", though I'm not sure that word has enough emotional resonance these days. Think "awe" in the sense of Christian mystical experience.

It did not stun me. Because I was concerned not that Spike got a soul, but what he would do with it. Lessons learned through own experience and studies of incarceration, rehabilitation, and education programs is that it matters far less how or why someone has joined a program, but what they do once in that program.

I know drunks that have checked themselves into AA but fallen off the wagon. I know drunks that were checked in by others, yet have not relapsed.

I think I can justify Buffy's behavior in S3 under my view of the show's metaphysics, but I can't do it under any other. If I believed Angel to be the same "essence" as Angelus, I'd have been with Xander in Revelations (and we know that could never happen!). I'd also have to have even more problems with Amends, since it would then appear to let Angelus off the hook not only with Buffy but with Giles and everyone else.

Interestingly, one branch of argumentation largely absent is that of Realpolitik/Pragmatism/Utilitarianism. There is an argument that Angel - an Eternally Young Superpowered Warrior - is inherently more valuable to society and the cause of good than a mortal warrior, simply because she will be replaced upon death by a new slayer, whereas there are no replacements for him. Presuming he will remain an active and capable participant on the "good" side.

That argument alone could justify preserving the life of Angel in S3 or Spike in S7.

Additionally, there is the also question of obligation.

I cannot watch the Church Scene in BY without seeing Spike passive aggressively tying duty onto Buffy to shepherd him. He serviced the girl, suffered in the name of his esteem for her, and got the soul - not for him, he says, but to be hers. And he returns, to sue for peace and forgiveness. Which he states he wishes to earn. And the burning cross shows, God will not grant him.

This is the laying of obligation. What kind of person is she, if she does not help him. She owes him.

Buffy's guilt in S2-3, begins with her recognition that she contributed to Angelus' re-emergence by loving Angel. That Angel feels guilt over Angelus' murders is somewhat tied to Buffy's own failure in her duty to prevent him from killing when she had the chance.

There is obligation there to, though unlike Spike, Angel will never raise that issue or point it out to her.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Metaphor or Metaphys? -- Lunasea, 10:21:42 04/26/04 Mon

a vampire rising from the ground is a nice little plot device that gets them to the point where we can start to talk about things. Darla compares rising to being born. That isn't to say that Joss is advocating infanticide. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

The immaturity theme is very important this season. Lindsey has a very teenage view of the world still. Lindsey is the active rebel that Spike was on Buffy. Lindsey can't see working for the man. He is still in his little boat protesting Shell Oil. He is also protesting the man that made the boat. He is a rebel without a clue. That contrasts with the journey that Angel is now on. It also contrasts with souled Spike. The soul also factors into Illyria's development.

Demon = issue. From there the metaphors aren't too dizzying. The newly risen issue had to be dealt with quickly before it can hurt anyone. Give the issue a little bit of maturity/perspective with a soul and it changes. Buffy tackles the issue, she kills the demon. Makes sense to me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Metaphor or Metaphys?-- -- ArethusaSPOILERS to Origins, 11:24:25 04/26/04 Mon

I disagree about Lindsey; his isn't a teenage rebellion, seeking to develop or assert his individuality by rejecting his parents' society or society in general. Lindsey has learned something that Angel is also learning-after all, they did do exactly the same thing, go to work for W&H to gain enough power to control their own lives. When ME repeats something, as you know, they are stating it is important. Two or three times Lindsey told Angel to not play W&H's game-kick over the game board. Lindsey gave up W&H because despite every attempt he made, he was never the one in power, with control over his own life. He thought that becoming a lawyer for a powerful firm would mean he would be able to protect himself, but he found out that he was still vulnerable to those with more power because he was in still their power structure, playing their game.

Our "game," our hell, is individual to each of us. It's what controls us. The point ME is making regarding hells is that we create own own hell. We build it, chain by chain. "Turns out they can only undo you as far as you think you deserve to be undone," Lindsey tells Angel in Underneath. And the mention of shrimp-remember that when Anya talked about hell dimensions, she mentioned a world without shrimp, and Tara perked up at that, since she is alergic to shrimp and a world without them would not be hellish to her.

ME is telling us that most of Angel's suffering is self-imposed, not something that W&H is doing to him. He deprived himself of friends and family because he could stay in control that way, not letting anyone close enough to hurt him again. Therefore to end his suffering he has to stop playing the game he played with his father-blaming his father (or anyone else) for everything and thereby absolving himself of responsibility for his own life. We can clearly see him do this in Spin the Bottle-blame his father, act the victim. And of course Connor does exactly the same thing, which is why his story wasn't over until he let his father go, chooses to stop playing the blame game and move on with his life, no matter how difficult that life is or (is not, I hope).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The masters of the misdirect -- Lunasea, 12:05:22 04/26/04 Mon

Before we can talk about what Lindsey said and whether it is "true" or "false," first we have to see if it is even applicable. I agree with what Lindsey says about heroes. I do not agree that Angel is sitting behind his desk learning to accept the world the way it is.

Cordy comes back in "You're Welcome" to get her guy back on track, which she does. If she didn't, her grand exit is pretty lame. Then we get "Smile Time" where Angel does start to let people in. After this all hell breaks loose with Illyria. He is sad now and lonely, but that is because Fred is dead. He isn't shutting people out. They aren't around, because they too have been affected by Fred's death. What wonderful story writing. Take the mood of Angel the first third of the season, but give him a new reason for it. Same mood, people will assume same reason. The change that Cordy brings about will go under the radar.

Below I got into the various hells in the Buffyverse and what hell is. We don't necessarily create our own hell. If this was the case, Gunn would not have just stepped into Lindsey's line-for-line. What happened to Connor in the worst hell imaginable was not his doing. Buffy did not make the hell in "Anne." The females of Oden Tal did not think they deserved to have their Ko removed.

He deprived himself of family because it was the way to save Connor. He left Buffy because that was her wish so she could bake. He lost Cordy because of the situation. None of this was his own doing. As Cordy says in "You're Welcome," "We take what we can get, champ, and we do our best with it." We don't make hell, we just have to make the best of it.

If what Lindsey says in inapplicable to Angel, just why did he say it? He said it, because like Spike, his perception is colored by who he is. He cannot see being able to sit behind the desk and not be corrupted by Wolfram and Hart. Cordy says Angel is "bigger than that." If given the choice between what Cordy says and what Lindsey says, I'll take the messenger of the PTBs who was there to get Angel back on track.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We disagree on who is victimizing Angel. -- Arethusa, 12:38:48 04/26/04 Mon

Cordy tells Angel that the first helpless he has to save is himself. But as of Origins he is still trying to hide from himself, not save himself. Once he does-once he is no longer controlled, a victim-then he can help others without being a victim himself.

Gunn chose his punishment-take Lindsey's place in the game.

Things can have more than one meaning, and different meanings at different times. It can be confusing, but it keeps the show from being simplistic. In this time and place-these last few episodes-hell is what we do to ourselves, amoung other things.

Was the mind-rape, as Cordy called it, the only way to deal with a damaged person? And was what Angel needed/wanted the only thing that mattered? Wes and Gunn, Lorne and Fred matter just as much, and he erased their individuality, took away their memories. It was not Angel's decision to make.

In the beginning of You're Welcome Angel is ready to chuck it all in, stop negociating with or for evil. Then he gets the phone call. At the end of the episode he's ready to stay. Exactly which track is he back on?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> In order to look at the series -- Lunasea, 13:45:09 04/26/04 Mon

First we have to see why the gang is at Wolfram and Hart. Not why the Senior Partners want them there or what choices/events led to them being there. Why did the writers put them there? Greenwalt answered this last year. " Weíd put the characters in a new situation, both financially and physically. Itís all about us saying, íOK, youíve been on the Greenpeace ship saying, " Hey, Shell Oil is bad." What happens if you actually have to go work for Shell Oil? What happens if you had to be on the inside, grow up, get a real job?í Iím really excited about it."

That is the premise of this season, the guys from Greenpeace are working at Shell Oil. Per Lindsey, this shouldn't happen. Guys at Greenpeace don't/can't work for Shell Oil. If this was true, why doesn't Cordy get them out of there? Instead she gets Angel fired up and believing he can work for Shell Oil and maintain who he is. He is bigger than what he is facing. He was worried that it was taking him down. The only way to save himself was to get out. The track that Cordy gets him back on is believing in himself. When Cordy leaves we have the same Angel that we do in "Conviction" before Spike showed up.

Cordy tells Angel that the first helpless he has to save is himself. But as of Origins he is still trying to hide from himself, not save himself. Once he does-once he is no longer controlled, a victim-then he can help others without being a victim himself.

I don't see where you are seeing this. In "Smile Time" he manages to ask out Nina. In "Why We Fight" he takes responsibility for what he did. In "Underneath" he bonds with Gunn and talks about how it feels to make a mistake. In "Origin" he tells Wesley that Connor is his son. He isn't hiding from himself or anything else. He is trying to preserve Connor's new life. You are saying that Cordy didn't get him back on track. Basically, she tried, failed and left. That doesn't seem to be a very nice way to say you're welcome to this character as she is leaving.

Was the mind-rape, as Cordy called it, the only way to deal with a damaged person? And was what Angel needed/wanted the only thing that mattered?

These questions aren't going to be answered any more than they have been. If it really was an evil mind rape done along the lines of Willow's to Tara in which Willow didn't want to be held accountable or Glory's that gave her power, I would think that Wesley would be a tad upset with Angel. He is mind, afterall. If Wesley accepts Angel's choice, I don't think the writers are supporting that it was something bad. That Connor takes the same choice that Angel made, namely the life that Angel got him, I don't think the writers are supporting that it was something bad. I think Illyria said it best, "Are these the memories it was so important to have back?" (or something along those lines)

I see nothing that supports that he erased their individuality. Instead they each stayed completely in character. The only thing he did was rob them of being able to learn from their mistakes, since they couldn't remember those mistakes.

We disagree on a lot of things. If things can have more than one meaning, why is the meaning I have given invalid, even though it seems to agree with what the writers have said? Is it because it agrees with what the writers have said in interviews and not how you interpret things? Making statements like Angel is still trying to hide from himself does not support anything, especially when "Smile Time" contradicts this this. Same thing with hell being what we do to ourselves. Below somewhere, I show the various hell dimensions that have appeared on either series. The Wrath may only be able to punish someone as much as believe they deserve, but that isn't the only part to hell and it still takes the Wrath to do the punishing.

There is much more to this season than self-inflicted punishment and Angel shutting himself off. Ultimately the season is about facing corruption and maintaining your integrity. It is about the people at Greenpeace going to work at Shell Oil and what happens to them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: In order to look at the series -- Arethusa, 14:53:04 04/26/04 Mon

I believe we start with the character development because the emotional arc is what I percieve the show to be built around. (I can't remember for sure, but I think writer interviews with Whedon say the same thing. (I'll check when I have time.) The situations arise from that, and could be changed as necessary while staying true to the emotional arc, although it took noticeable effort in S7 at times. The outsider-on-the-inside situation is part of, one of the themes of the season.

Angel, in Coviction, was confused, lost, uncertain, angry, and grieving, and all of this is before he blew Hauser's head off, promising that was the last act of mercy he'd commit. It was very Punisher. That's not a good place for Angel to be. Cordy was an important influence on Angel, but ultimately Angel must solve this problem for himself, and in some way probably will at the end of the season. Cordy played her part and then left.

The writers had Wes shoot his father and stab Gunn, Gunn sign away someone who turned out to be Fred, Fred die, Lorne lose his empathy, and Angel spend the season in great alienation and unhappiness. All for Connor, and so Angel can know his son is happy.

I believe Illyria was expressing suprise or wonder that Wes should want what turned out to be terrible memories. Whedon loves the irony.

If we can't learn from our mistakes we can't complete our inviduation, right? And Illyria did say that Fred changed when her memories changed.

No, no, not invalid. Just different. That's why I toss in "I think" and "IMO," because I just disagree, and want to say why. I don't really care how close my views are to the writers'. My views of the show are based on my experiences, the story is distilled through me and reinterpreted according to my needs and desires. Other views enrichen the story immeasurably, but ultimately I'm trying to figure out me, not Whedon or Noxon.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: In order to look at the series -- Lunasea, 15:55:59 04/26/04 Mon

I believe we start with the character development because the emotional arc is what I percieve the show to be built around. (I can't remember for sure, but I think writer interviews with Whedon say the same thing.

I can corroborate this if you want. Jane Espenson would be the easiest to quote, since she wrote a wonderful essay about how the shows are written. The question is what is the emotional arc of this season. Where is everyone heading. All these emotions are good, but they have to form something to be an arc.

From what Greenwalt sounds like and from what the season has been for 4 seasons, it is still the same thing that Buffy was about, growing up. In the case of AtS, it is the issues facing us as young adults, such as leaving Greenpeace to work with Shell Oil. What I gave is the emotional arc. It is the emotions in dealing with leaving behind an idealistic world view. It is the emotions in dealing with losing, reclaiming and maintaining your integrity.

I don't really care how close my views are to the writers'. My views of the show are based on my experiences, the story is distilled through me and reinterpreted according to my needs and desires. Other views enrichen the story immeasurably, but ultimately I'm trying to figure out me, not Whedon or Noxon

That is a way to look at the story, but then we aren't really discussing what the writers wrote. I figure out about me by comparing what I see and what Whedon or Noxon wrote. It's like having a transparency and laying it over something. By seeing what matches up and what doesn't, it says things. This is often how answer keys are made.

I've been re-reading today. One of the section is about mistakes in practice. "So you should be grateful that you have a sign or warning signal to show you the weak points in your practice." I use other POVs especially what the writers say in this manner. I like comments like Greenwalt's because they help refocus me and led me to wonder why I was focusing on other issues. Earlier this season, my main interest was in Fred/Wesley and anima issues. Even though this wasn't the main story, it was playing out in my own life and seeing this helped me greatly.

In some ways we aren't that different. It is more our approaches that are.

[> [> [> [> [> [> As Fab 5 Carson has said, ìThereís no I in Team, but there is me.î (S5 A spoilers) -- fresne, 16:34:31 04/26/04 Mon

While, I can see Angel and the Fang Gang, as Greenpeace Baby Boomers now working for Shell Oil, I see Lindsey somewhat differently, based, Iíll admit, on the Dilbert is funny because I've worked there perspective.

Lindsey never worked for Greenpeace. Heís Gen X, Alex P. Keaton. Rebellion, why rebel. Greenpeace, whatís the point in working there? Youíll just end up working for Shell Oil anyway. Then, ten, fifteen years into working for those large hermitically sealed corporations, Lindsey wonders if there is a point beyond the money. If he isnít freeze dried. He hasnít souled out, he signed away his soul eagerly, and now thereís just a shell. So, coming from the perspective that the rebels are all losers and corporations inevitably grind you up, where is there to go but to drop into Slacker chic. Jeans, t-shirt, tattoos. The quest to find that perfect job at some remaining heroic boutique Dot.com that cares. Not that he believes it really exists, but not like thereís anything better to do. And if that's his agenda, it's hard to tell. Lindseyís a cynic. Iíd be curious to see what he believes doesnít corrupt.

Ultimately, Iím curious to see if Cordelia keeping Angel at W&H isnít from a deeper perspective than either Greenpeace Hero/Rebel, Shell Oil Yuppie, or Dot.com Slacker. Like the discussion in Clerks about those poor contractors that got blown up when the Rebels blew up the evil empireís Deathstar.

As to Illyria, the queen without her country, and her counselor is a fool who thinks himself wise.

Itíll be interesting. The metaphor has so many facets that to the naked eye, it's smooth.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Interesting perspective -- Lunasea, 17:26:02 04/26/04 Mon

I dated Alex P. Keaton and married Riley Finn. I've found them interesting, but I'm not sure I ever really understood them. I'm not sure they really understand me.

I'm not sure exactly what label to give Lindsey other than anti-whatever Angel gets. That's what a foil is. For Lindsey, his identity is important to him and he lashes out against those who try to control him, much like a teenager, which is why I gave him that label. The problem is he doesn't have a clue about who he really is, like a teenager. He is just reacting against something, not acting for anything. Rebel without a cause.

What does Lindsey believe in? All we really know is that he doesn't want to be stepped on and hates Angel. He doesn't understand the things that Angel believes in. It is those beliefs that help protect Angel from temptation. When it came down to it, he couldn't lose his soul because he wanted to help people. He surrendered completely to Darla, but that wasn't enough for a perfect moment of happiness. In "Awakening" we see what it takes for that now. I don't think just sleeping with Buffy would do it anymore. Angel has grown up a lot since then. What it took me to fall in love a decade plus ago wouldn't be enough now.

The symbol that unites Angel and Lindsey was in season one's "Blind Date." There were some blind kids who could "see into the heart of things" whose power would grow as they matured. I see Angel maturing and his power increasing. I don't see this happening to Lindsey. His power is decreasing, since he isn't growing up. He is just growing cynical.

The rebel who doesn't believe in anything or Dilbert. He rebels against those that are rebels, making him a rebel of sorts. Either way, Lindsey's lack of faith makes him vulnerable. It was used against him by the Senior Partners. Spike now has more of a clue than Lindsey.

Thanks for sharing. It helps me get more of a perspective on this season and Lindsey.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dilbert, Wally, and Tina, the technical writer too -- fresne, 12:53:00 04/27/04 Tue

And thank you. Polishing perspectives is useful. It makes them shiny.

Well, looking at Lindsey as a foil.

I'm not certain that he grows more cynical. His cynicism is constant. Itís not that he doesnít believe or disbelieve, belief is irrelevant. It is the attitude that says, Big Bang or Genesis, who cares, I exist.

Iím somewhat leary of calling this a teenage point of view, since in a Gen X parallels the Silent Generation sort of way, itís interesting that (as I recall) Lindsey is an Okie. Great Depression, post WWI, lost. This isnít the generation that fights the Nazis and believes (Angel), and it isnít the generation that rebels against belief (Spike), this is the generation that just survives.

Whether, Angel is decrying prophecies as nonsense or sending his boy to do battle in fulfillment of a prophecy, his belief/disbelief has the power to affect him. Whether the Greenpeace rebel is fighting the good fight, or decides to chuck it and change from within, ultimately, the key is the fight itself. What is the saying, ìThere is no one as bitter about Catholicism as a lapsed Catholic.î Well, insert any ardently held belief.

Iím not so sure that Angelís beliefs protect him. Or perhaps, it seems that they protect him from temptation and they simultaneously tempt him. As with everything that we clench in dragon hands. Sometimes, lifeís epiphanies seem to be about rediscovering the things you already learned only in new ways. Iím very curious to see what Angelís epiphany will be this year and how both Spike and Lindsey as different types of foils will mirror it darkly for him.

Awhile ago, there was a discussion of what Shakespeare character Buffy and Angel corresponded to. I think Angel is a king. Macbeth and Lear and some other non mixy king. But I think he may also be Katherine the shrew. Weíll see.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> This is really helping me put something together -- Lunasea, 07:51:31 04/28/04 Wed

For me, Buffy is about faith, Angel hope. Describing Lindsey thusly:
Iím somewhat leary of calling this a teenage point of view, since in a Gen X parallels the Silent Generation sort of way, itís interesting that (as I recall) Lindsey is an Okie. Great Depression, post WWI, lost. This isnít the generation that fights the Nazis and believes (Angel), and it isnít the generation that rebels against belief (Spike), this is the generation that just survives.
really helps start the wheels turning. The series plays with hope/dispair. Lindsey does more than just survive. He has hope that he can survive. He has hope that he can be one of the steppers and not the steppies. He loses that hope by "Dead End." He is still focused on this dynamic though.

The world is still full of steppers and steppies. Heroes are just people who step on the steppers. If they don't, they become steppies. That is how Lindsey see things. It is a very black and white way of looking at things that has defined his character.

Unlike many here, I liked LMPTM. It made me think about my own attitude toward authority figures and is on the list of episodes that helped change my life or realize changes I had made. Growing up means living behind our childish ways of looking at things. We can't see things in black and white. That is where Angel is right now. Working for Shell Oil means he can't see things as black/white, stepper/steppie.

This is how/why Lindsey is Angel's foil this season. Spike also fits into this. Spike, newly resouled, is just starting to ask questions, starting to see things in a more mature way. All three of them (Lindsey, Spike and Angel) are good at seeing into the heart of things. They just do it through different colored glasses. Lindsey is so focused on security, that is all he sees. Everything revolves around this stepper/steppie dynamic. Angel doesn't see things quite as distinctly.

I know you have problems with the mindwipe and many here do. This however was one of those gray areas. "Peace Out" Angel fights for free will. "Home" he takes it away to some degree. Nothing is an absolute in the Buffyverse. I like it that way. I like watching the characters give up their childish world views over the course of a season. That is what growing up is all about.

That seems to be a part that teen dramas tend to forget. Growing up isn't just about facing various issues. It is about those experiences changing us, maturing us.

Iím not so sure that Angelís beliefs protect him. Or perhaps, it seems that they protect him from temptation and they simultaneously tempt him. As with everything that we clench in dragon hands. Sometimes, lifeís epiphanies seem to be about rediscovering the things you already learned only in new ways. Iím very curious to see what Angelís epiphany will be this year and how both Spike and Lindsey as different types of foils will mirror it darkly for him.

In Buddhism we say that the only way to hold water is in a cupped hand. Close your fist and it will run through your fingers. Hold it flat and the water will run off. Life's epiphanes are "the simplicity on the other side of complexity" (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.).

I'm wondering, since everything keeps leading me back to what is a hero, if Angel's epiphany will have something to do with this. Conviction, mercy, being bigger than everything, giving in to the system, hating the word champion, his dream, Numero Five, the return of Lawson asking why we fight, THE apocalypse, these things seem to point toward Angel really finding out what it means to be a champion.

Spike is just starting to find this out and Lindsey has given up. Because Spike is just staring his journey, he doesn't have quite the baggage that Angel does. His clarity comes from this. He has enough baggage that he can ask the questions. He has no answers, unlike Lindsey who has the wrong answers. They form an interesting triad. There are three children in "Blind Date." I can see them representing Angel-Spike-Lindsey. "As they mature, so does their power."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Did you know Semper Fidelis is a polka? -- fresne, 11:17:02 04/28/04 Wed

I did it on Saturday and given the current heat wave, I practically had a stroke spinning madly in a hot crowded room. Plus, it was the fourth set, so given the heat prostrated fall out in attendance, I had to be the guy, which well, Iím not sure either of us was leading. Good polka though. Very energetic and Marine-like. Spin like a top. Fall like a flower. Iíll have to check with Karen if Semper Paratus is also a polka. Or perhaps you knowÖ

Which for some reason make me think of Clausewitz and his statement that ìblood is the price of victory.î I much prefer Liddel-Hartís view that strategy is a way to reduce the need for conflict through the moral is to the physical as 3 to 1, i.e. wars are fought in the head, not the battlefield. With a certain emphasis on the type of the peace to be achieved after conflict. i.e. Actions have consequences and often not the ones you expect.

Unlike many here, I liked LMPTM. It made me think about my own attitude toward authority figures and is on the list of episodes that helped change my life or realize changes I had made. Growing up means living behind our childish ways of looking at things. We can't see things in black and white. That is where Angel is right now. Working for Shell Oil means he can't see things as black/white, stepper/steppie.

This makes me think of something a college friend of mine said, ìThe most disappointing thing about becoming an adult was realizing that people donít become rational.î Iím inclined to think BtVS was about growing up. AtS is about grownups who, because people are like that, arenít terribly rational and have quite a bit of baggage about their childhoods.

Actually, I quite enjoyed LMPTM. Mainly, because I think everyoneís perceptions were, well, a step in the dance. The two galloping steps to the lift, before the centrifugal force of the dance whips you around (because you are both moving forward and spinning at the same time) as they take two steps to the right. I just wish that there had been more Buffy / Giles, because it isnít LM(mother)TM, itís parents. Two mothers and one father. Two boys and one girl.

Lindsey does more than just survive. He has hope that he can survive. He has hope that he can be one of the steppers and not the steppies. He loses that hope by "Dead End." He is still focused on this dynamic though.

Yes. Itís interesting that we see the character in, dare I say, fundamentally different ways, and yet, ah, exchange of ideas am good. Plus fire pretty.

See, for me Linsdey isnít about black and white at all. Although I absolutely agree, stepper/steppie, but itís a gray world. One a perception about how the world works, and one is the color scheme that enables you to operate in that world. Possibly, because in my mental picture, black and white says there is hope and gray says I have hope I will survive, but secretly I think that hope is a tool. How can I get what I want for the least damage? What will the world be like when I have it? Being oh so careful to not invest too much in the having.

Lindsey isnít the farmer at the beginning of the Grapes of Wrath or even the convict returned home. He is the displaced at the end and the world is washed away in a flood and the Rose of Sharonís child is dead and the Lord is crushing the grapes and pulling out his terrible swift sword and itís the end of the world and I feel fine and perhaps we should all learn to swim while listening to Tool by nema.

They form an interesting triad. There are three children in "Blind Date." I can see them representing Angel-Spike-Lindsey. "As they mature, so does their power."

Absolutely. Perhaps too, they are monkeys. They see, hear and speak no evil.

Good thoughts. Good words. Good deeds. And in the end the sacred fire, which represents ìthe Truth.î A fire so hot that it is not only red and yellow, but blue and all over with color.

Yes, I think for the May Day party, Iím definitely dressing as fire. Although, I think less polka, more lounging with margarita.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Did you know Semper Fidelis is a polka? -- Lunasea, 11:21:30 04/29/04 Thu

Iíll have to check with Karen if Semper Paratus is also a polka.

Technically it is a march, but you could probably make it sound like heavy metal if you wanted. Such is the beauty of music.

Iím inclined to think BtVS was about growing up. AtS is about grownups who, because people are like that, arenít terribly rational and have quite a bit of baggage about their childhoods.

I did a post about this comparing heart/spirit/mind on BtVS and AtS. I think it is titled "We're Off to See the Wizard." Buffy is the innocent who just had to find her way. Along the way, she became not-so innocent, so heart/spirit/mind reflect this season 6 and 7. It would be great if we could just grow up and not gather all this baggage along the way. My goal as a parent is to mess my children up as little as possible.

I don't want to be rational. It is highly overrated. Or rather I don't only want to be rational. There are four psychological functions and I want to use them all. I did the whole unbalanced thing in my teens. Being a Vulcan holds little appeal for me. I want to be an Elf.

I just wish that there had been more Buffy / Giles, because it isnít LM(mother)TM, itís parents. Two mothers and one father. Two boys and one girl.

I wrote somewhere else that I wish they had included the scene where Giles confesses to killing Ben. 11 minutes cut out means that something had to go. The show was slanted in favor of Wood/Spike. Someone says this was the main story and you can overemphasize the main story. It is nice to see someone that agrees with me. It was Lies My PARENTS Told Me and Buffy/Giles' storyline is what carries over to resolution by the end of the seasons.

Although I absolutely agree, stepper/steppie, but itís a gray world. One a perception about how the world works, and one is the color scheme that enables you to operate in that world. Possibly, because in my mental picture, black and white says there is hope and gray says I have hope I will survive, but secretly I think that hope is a tool. How can I get what I want for the least damage? What will the world be like when I have it? Being oh so careful to not invest too much in the having.

Interesting perspective. I would say that Lindsey has hope, but doesn't label it or think of it as such. That way he can be above all those tools. He thinks he can see and therefore use the system. The only way to beat Wolfram and Hart is to not play their game, get them to play yours. Lindsey's game is THEIRS. He doesn't see that. The universe itself sets the rules.

Lindsey reminds me a lot of Spike. Because he can see more than most, he thinks he can see. He thinks he can make judgments about others. He thinks he understands. Holland is able to manipulate Lindsey because he says he sees things, he understands things. This makes Lindsey think what he knows is all he needs to know, what he knows is right and complete.

That does remind me of a teenager.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: As Fab 5 Carson has said, ìThereís no I in Team, but there is me.î (S5 A spoilers) -- Pony, 07:13:58 04/27/04 Tue

I'm thinking that between the Angel change the system from within position (which is looking a bit shaky these days) and Lindsey's destroy the system (which hasn't really worked), there's the third way - create your own system. We're reminded that there are other forces out there, other missions - the Slayers, whoever sent the robot dudes - that may have different perspectives on ways to do good.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Third Way -- dlgood, 12:23:19 04/27/04 Tue

I'm thinking that between the Angel change the system from within position (which is looking a bit shaky these days) and Lindsey's destroy the system (which hasn't really worked), there's the third way - create your own system.

I've long held that, but I don't think Whedon does - so I don't expect the story to go that way. IMHO, he's an entropy guy.

The council's destroyed, the hellmouth's gone, and Buffy's done empowered a whole new mess of slayers - but at no point have the scoobies ever appeared to entertain building a system of their own. Which, given mortality rates, it probably would have been a good idea to do.

I'd like to see these characters stand together and build something, but I don't see it in the offing.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> i think that's exactly what they've done -- anom, 12:40:36 04/27/04 Tue

"The council's destroyed, the hellmouth's gone, and Buffy's done empowered a whole new mess of slayers - but at no point have the scoobies ever appeared to entertain building a system of their own."

They did more than empower new Slayers--they're looking for them, training them, taking responsibility for damaged ones. We don't see or hear much of this, just bits & pieces, mostly offscreen, but it's clear they are building a new system. Some parts of it are modeled on the old Watcher system, but there are aspects of that system they don't want to emulate. (I hate to think how the Watchers' Council would've dealt w/Dana.)

Certainly there are problems w/the new system, like the way they've cut Angel off, & w/the way it's portrayed on the show, mostly due to practical show-making considerations. But there definitely is a new system under construction.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Exactly -- Pony, 12:57:01 04/27/04 Tue

Granted Andrew's always going to be played for laughs but his appearance and more importantly his action of taking Dana away in Damage pointed to this new system. The end of Chosen seemed to me to be entirely about creating a new structure to replace an old, destroyed one.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Exactly -- Dlgood, 17:02:34 04/27/04 Tue

Granted Andrew's always going to be played for laughs but his appearance and more importantly his action of taking Dana away in Damage pointed to this new system. The end of Chosen seemed to me to be entirely about creating a new structure to replace an old, destroyed one.

Given the complete absence of details as to what that new structure is, and the complete lack of onscreen discussion about alternative structures over the past season - I don't really feel like that was set up by the story at all.

More troubling is the scene where Andrew does all the talking, with his silent army of Slayer Stormtroopers in the background. I know Whedon wanted to give the scene to Tom Lenk rather than some extra, but I did find that particularly troubling.

It's all well and good to project what they might be building in the aftermath, but I never saw within S6 or S7 where they were laying the groundwork to do so. If such building occurs, it happens almost entirely offscreen, almost entirely outside the bounds of the story that was told or shown onscreen.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Exactly -- Pony, 19:44:02 04/27/04 Tue

Well, Andrew does talk about travel and training the Slayers and various conference calls which sounds rather like an organization. And there were a few lines in the last scene of Chosen about finding the other Slayers that implies a direction for the characters. Plus Buffy's entire huge honkin monologue about creating a new structure of Slayerhood. My problems with Chosen are legion but I do think it makes a good counterpoint to Home's decision to change the system from within.

I know that you don't share the sentiment but I think that Buffy and the other BtVS characters are considered by ME to have earned a certain amount of audience trust, and can be assumed to be fighting the good fight somewhere offscreen

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Exactly -- DorianQ, 20:55:03 04/27/04 Tue

Maybe, but as a counterpoint to Home and Angel trying to change the system from within, in Chosen and Damage we see the Scoobies making a system that just ends up mirroring the old one (the Watcher's Council) along with the problems it had. Seriously, I saw the behavior of Andrew and the Slayers in Damage as the same way the Council would have handled it, albeit with better henchwomen. And Buffy's behavior and war mentality resembled Quentin's rather closely (she even had her own version of the Crucimentium for the potentials). This isn't necessarily a bad thing (Just think of how effective Buffy would have been in the first couple seasons without Giles's preparation, training and just general support), but I don't think their really is a better approach to changing the system of systems. All strictly IMHO.

[> Spoilers for all aired BtVS eps only -- Rahael, 12:35:04 04/24/04 Sat


[> open questions -- manwitch, 05:19:28 04/25/04 Sun

" Personally, I find it very problematic to impute a moral sense to vampires, which I see as a necessary predicate to describing their killings as "murder"."
--Sophist

This is a thought-provoking thread, and has been for me pretty much all night. And it raises some questions for me.

So, Sophist, do you agree then with Forrest of the Initiative, that "they're just animals, man." I always felt that Forrest was wrong. They are more than animals. What, then is the distinction? I mean, I grant that calling the behavior of a lion or shark "immoral" is somewhat pointless. But is that the same as calling a vampire or a demon immoral? Vampires and demons, like Nazis, do have ethical systems, and intuitively recognized codes of ethical behavior. Spike's ass-kicking by the demons in the bar speaks explicitly to it. Also, vamps and demons, unlike animals (I assume), do have at least an intellectual understanding of the significance of their kill to the one killed. They are not simply feeding. Does morality come from an essence, or from an understanding of what morality is or means?

Although, even if they were just feeding, they aren't always. Spike does not feed off Nicki. Dru does not feed off Kendra. Angel does not feed off the undoubtedly delicious Jenny Calendar. It seems to me that assigning those killings to the category of "utility" doesn't make them less immoral either. To Kant, using people as means to an end is the definition of immorality.

Now, obviously, I'm getting slippery with words without really meaning too. Your conversation with Rahael, admittedly out of its original context, talks specifically about the difficulty of seeing vampire actions as "murder." But the moral nature, or lack of it, of the perp seems to be important in describing the particular act.

Can an amoral actor commit an immoral act? Or is that by definition impossible? Are vampires really amoral, or immoral? Does Angel's understanding of what he does to Jenny Calendar, why he does it, and what he does with her after not attribute some "sense" of morality to Angel as the actor?

Also, to what degree is the perspective of the perpetrator relevant. We all agree that a priest who molests children is behaving immoraly. Even the priest agrees. But does a Hitler think he is behaving immorally in his quest for lebensraum? A strong argument can made that he is doing what he thinks is right and necessary. Should we care one jot about his perspective when assigning moral culpability? Should the Nazi moral perspective have been considered when assigning legal responsibility at the trials? I don't mean to sidetrack us into a discussion of the legal issues raised at Nuremburg, but rather to consider to what degree the morality of an act comes solely from the actor, from the context, or from those pissed off about it. A murderer doesn't have to be remorseful in order to be convicted. Nor does their indifference lack moral implications for the community at large.

I don't know much about the apology issue specifically being discussed. I do think that Spike and Angel are responsible in a certain sense for the killings they committed pre-soul. But there are different forms of responsibility. If your morality is one of guilt and atonement, as Angel's is, you will apologize for your past wrongs and seek to make amends. If you have Spike's approach to the world, apologizing in itself is a claim of irresponsibility, implying that there was some sort of "ideal" Spike capable of either manifesting itself in this way or not. Spike sees that as a cowards way out. He did what he did. That's his form of responsibility. Your not going to get much more of an apology than his gracious willingness to leave Wood alive "on account of I killed his mum."

The soul itself is wierd in the buffyverse. At times it is implied that it is an actual thing, that can be observed, measured, set on a shelf. And when you need it, you get the right one, like pulling it out of a library archive. But how does Willow get Angel's soul specifically? Is it his specific soul, or is it just the quality of caring about what he did? The difference would seem to be significant to Sophist's argument. When Faith and Buffy switch, what switches? Do the souls switch, or just the memories? Buffy doesn't become immoral in Faith's body, but Faith does change from being in Buffy's. Is that change solely from the pressure of external forces?

Anya, when she returns to vengeance, continues to be troubled by what she does. So it would seem that demons can have souls. Its all very complicated. I should say right off that I don't require consistency on this issue in the Buffyverse, because I don't require it in real life. My soul's probably not the same as Andrew Greeley's. And I hope its nothing like Dahmer's, although we did have the same shirt which was kind of embarrassing.

Anyways, I guess I'm trying to drive at some understanding of Sophist's personal difficulties, if any, in effecting the kind of comparmentalization that his statement quoted above implies. I'm not asking for a defense because I don't mean to be attacking. I'm curious as to if you have your own gray zones, and if so, where they are in this, how you deal with them, and what sort of comfort level you have with them and/or your solution. Although I'm interested in anybody's thoughts on this. I'm less concerned with constraining Joss Whedon to some rigid consistency than with hearing how people see these issues and how they deal with/feel about the (I think) inevitable gray zones.

[> [> Re: open questions--Spoilers for AtS also to date -- Arethusa, 07:58:51 04/25/04 Sun

So many thoughts that these posts inspire....

I think vampires with souls have to be judged in the same catagory as humans. They have free will, and are not mentally under supernatural influence (Will's get-out-of-jail-free card). By definition vampires don't have absolute free will to chose between evil and good. Spike couldn't choose to get a soul until his bent to do evil was modified, counteracted. Connor couldn't fully and freely choose to do good because he had been brainwashed as a child; he was operating under diminshed capacity. (It is theorized that severe abuse in early childhood re-wires the brain.) But when comparing Spike and Angel, the only thing we need to recognize is that they are just two different men, whose viewpoints are based on different temperments and different experiences.

One of their main differences is that Angel thinks being a vampire is a special state. Spike thinks being a vampire is more of an inconvenience, like a guy with a disability who matter-of-factly goes about his life as much as possible. But then Angel was Chosen, and Spike was not. Angel feels that TPTB gave him a duty and responsibility to use his abitlites for good, and that puts a different cast to his actions as a vampire. All that killing was something the vampire did which was unnecessary and evil, but if he hadn't become a vampire, he never would have been able to become a champion. It puts a different cast on his past, almost an inevitability that he would be a murderer so he could become a savior.

BUFFY
Since when did you become the champion of the people?

SPIKE
I didn't. I'm just a guy who can lend a hand, if you'll let me.

Spike doesn't have a nod of approval from above, and he thinks that apologies are really excuses, and "sorry" is woefully inadequate.

BUFFY
...You tried to rape me. I don't have the words.

SPIKE
Neither do I. I can't say sorry. Can't use forgive me. All I can say is: Buffy, I've changed.

BUFFY
I believe you.

SPIKE
Well, that's something.

BUFFY
I just don't know what you've changed into. You come back to town. You make with the big surprises. Twice. I don't know what your game is, Spike, but I know there's something you're not telling me.

SPIKE
You're right. There is. (stands) But we're not best friends anymore, so too bad for me. I'm not sharing. We've been through things. The end of the world and back. I can be useful 'cause, honestly, I've got nothing better to do. Make use of me if you want.

At this point, in Beneath You, he won't even tell her he has a soul because it's irrelevent to the past. It doesn't excuse any of his actions, in his opinion. He did them, and there's nothing he can do about it now. Like Angel he knows that the vampire will do things the human won't-he knows his mother loved him, he knows he was a decent guy-so he does not feel that he and the vampire were the same man. Now he has two sets of memories-vampire and human-so sure, the vampire's memories are part of the human, affect how he feels about the past and about himself, even make him more aggressive and deadly when angered, but they are the vampire's memories, not his own. Like Connor, Spike focuses on the memories he wants to use to make him a good person, and learn from the bad memories. Connor's old, real, memories showed him the worst he was capable of. His fake memories showed him the best he was capable of. Now he has the choice, just like eveyone else, of moving on, and learning that both Connors are him, and he is free to choose which one he wants to be. Likewise Spike decides to help because he wants to, because that is what this vampire is best suited for.

Angel is in a worse position, becasue his memories of his "real" self are mostly negative. He drank and wenched and stole, out of a sense of inadequacy and resentment. He still has to ask himself, am I a rightous man? because his double memories are both bad. As a result he feels he has to very clearly delinate the line between human and vampire, to prove to himself that he is a good guy. The vampire wasn't him, and he is now a champiion. It's how he endures.

ANGEL
[...]I've been thinking...about the past few weeks and Angelusó

FRED
Angel, you can't feel guilty for anything Angelus did.

ANGEL
I know. I knew the risks. We all did. (looks at Wesley) And some of us paid a higher price than others. Angelus didn't kill Lilah. She was already dead, killed by the Beast.

Wesley looks pained and upset and confused.

FRED
Well, that's...less terrible.

ANGEL
(to Wesley) There's no excuse for...what Angelus did to her, but... I'm sorry for your loss. (Wesley looks down)

Angel can apologize for what Angelus did, but he is ashamed to apologize for what Angel does, which is why very soon after he becomes Angelus he again plays God with lives, purportedly for good-save Connor and have the resources to save the world-but because he is afraid. We see this fear played out in microcosm during Underneath, as he begs Wes not to reveal how he failed his son and himself. He is stil trying to hide who he is, focused on the past that all but he is willing to forgive. Connor and maybe Spike moved on. Wes and Gunn and Lorne must do so also, and probably will. Will Angel?

Yes, they are all murderers. But the world is harsh, and won't let us stay in that one point of time when everything is perfectly clear. People grow older and change, and are no longer quite the same people they once were. The murderers sometimes learn to value life, to late for their victims but not for their own futures. And the victims sometimes are forced to acknowledge that not everyone is always acting out of absolute free will, and therefore are clearly and unequivicably guilty for all time. Time passes, people change, and if they don't move foreward they're no better than vampires, stuck forever in the moment of their crimes.

Just some disconncted thoughts, hope it wasn't too disconnected, and totally my own opinion, based on the laws of the Buffyverse and not directly analogous to real verse laws and behavior.

[> [> [> Vampires have the capacity to be good -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:24:38 04/25/04 Sun

"I think vampires with souls have to be judged in the same catagory as humans. They have free will, and are not mentally under supernatural influence (Will's get-out-of-jail-free card). By definition vampires don't have absolute free will to chose between evil and good. Spike couldn't choose to get a soul until his bent to do evil was modified, counteracted."

But vampires do have free will. Yes, they don't have souls, but the soul merely removes the desire to do good, not the ability. And, since a whole complex ritual has to be gone through to give a vampire this desire, it could be argued that lacking a soul and the conscience that goes with it is as much their natural state as humans having a soul. From a vampire's perspective, after all, possessing a soul actually limits free will, as it imposes an artificial desire to do the right thing.

[> [> [> [> Re: Vampires have the capacity to be good -- Arethusa, 10:56:37 04/25/04 Sun

I really don't think they have free will. Spike says he free will only after there is nothing affecting his ability to choose to do good-no trigger, chip or overt demon. (Although everything Spike says has to be examined, since he, like many people, seldom says exactly what he thinks or lets himself think.)

The thought is father to the action. If a vampire can't contemplate doing good without external factors, he is not truely free. He feels pulled towards and connected to evil, something he ordinarily can't reject. Humans are free to reject their pull towards good, and do. Are there any instances of vampires doing good for the sake of doing good? (I can't think of any off-hand.) I think it comes down to choice; that vampires don't have a choice in feeling connected to evil but humans do, despite their natural bent towards good. (Which I believe exists only in the Buffyverse.)

[> [> [> [> [> Yeah, but when do people do evil for the sake of doing evil? -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:52:57 04/25/04 Sun

I, at least, don't think that happens. People may do evil things because they're insane or want to be cool, but they feel no innate drive to do the wrong thing, not like vampires. While we rarely, if ever, see vampires doing the right thing, that doesn't mean they can't break away from their evil leanigns. It's just that, often, doing the wrong thing is also in a person's best self-interest, regardless of moral leanings.

[> [> [> [> [> [> No, I don't think they do. -- Arethusa, 19:26:46 04/25/04 Sun

If I did I'd be watching, uh, some other show.

I said humans can choose to be good or evil, but vampires can't. This is an arguable point, of course. I can think of several vampires who said they felt connected or purposeful after becoming vampires, and one, Lawson, who feels something is missing-a sense of purpose in unlife-when he doesn't feel joy in the kill. He can't feel the way he did as a human but he can't feel like a vampire either. I just can't think of any souless vampires who was able to break away from good wtihout an external factor. Demons, yes. Vampires, no.

And I think you've hit on it here-when we do things out of self interest, we tend to think only of our own wants, and not those of others or the consequences of getting what we want. The consequences could be good (fighting evil) or bad (lots of killing, etc), but often end up bad.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, I'd say it takes an external factor to make people do evil -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:44:02 04/25/04 Sun

The closest we come are psychopaths who hurt people out of dillusions, a need to be important, or a sadistic impulse. However, these are often induced through life traumas, which could be considered similar to the behavior modification Spike, for example, went through. Others, from what I've heard, suffer from a chemical imbalance, which we can liken to the presence of the chip.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nah, people manage all on their own. -- Arethusa, 20:29:17 04/25/04 Sun

IMO people don't "do evil," they make decisions that have bad consequences, at least for others. Somebody wants something and lies or cheats or hurts someone else to get it, and someone else suffers as a result. Someone gets angry and chooses to do something about it, harming another, leaving others victims as well. Bad choices, made for selfish reasons, with harmful consequences, are what we often really mean by "evil."

I think becoming a vampire is a bit like a chemical inbalance. A chemical inbalance can perhaps even be induced by abuse. But these are extreme cases, although all too common. Many terrible things occur just because someone is self-indulgent and thoughtless, or afraid, or greedy. Small things can have terrible consequences, which kinda teaches you that there's no such thing as small things.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Nah, people manage all on their own. -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:54:40 04/25/04 Sun

Your example reminds me of, oh say, Spike helping Buffy defeat Angelus for his own selfish goals, or the vamps in "War Zone" backing off from fighting Gunn's gang because they knew they could be hurt in the process, or Angelus killing the Beast simply because he didn't like the guy or being bossed around, even though that act helped a lot of people. I guess I interpreted what you meant by outside influences differently so that the beliefs you espoused would fit with these vampire examples; what you describe above, however, as an example of humans doing bad things out of free will seems to be no different than my examples of vampires doing good things out of free will.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's why they do it that matters. -- Arethusa, 08:10:11 04/26/04 Mon

Free will isn't just being able to do good things, it's being able to choose to do good things for good reasons, that have nothing to do with self-interest, which might even be antithical to self-interest. For instance, IMO Spike sought a soul because Buffy told him in Crush and several times thereafter that she could love a vampire (Angel, of course) because he had a soul. He went out and got one so that he would have a better chance with her, not because he wanted to be good for his own sake. (Again, this is arguable, and boy have we ever all argued about it!)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> If we take that as our premise, though -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:45:18 04/26/04 Mon

"Free will isn't just being able to do good things, it's being able to choose to do good things for good reasons, that have nothing to do with self-interest, which might even be antithical to self-interest."

Ignoring the fact that all good actions are done in self-interest (since doing good makes us feel good), there is a problem which occurs if we use this definition of free will. If in order to have free will we must be able to "do good things for good reasons", then couldn't it also be said that we must be able to do bad things for bad reasons, not out of stupidity, self-interest, or psychological trauma, but simply for the sake of doing evil? Vampires would fulfill this qualification, but not the first, whereas people would fulfill the first but not the second.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: If we take that as our premise, though -- Dlgood, 09:28:20 04/26/04 Mon

If in order to have free will we must be able to "do good things for good reasons", then couldn't it also be said that we must be able to do bad things for bad reasons, not out of stupidity, self-interest, or psychological trauma, but simply for the sake of doing evil?

I'm comfortable accepting that claim. But then, I do believe that souled-individuals can freely and knowingly choose to do evil.

To an extent, I would support Arethusa's comments on intent and moral awareness. One can "do" good without "being" good. One can do "evil" without being "evil".

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: If we take that as our premise, though -- Arethusa, 09:50:46 04/26/04 Mon

Doing good doesn't always make us feel good, I've done many good things that I didn't really want to do, but felt I ought to do.

Yes, people sometimes do choose to do bad things for no reason, just to see what happens.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: If we take that as our premise, though -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:10:48 04/26/04 Mon

You felt you ought to do those good things, therefore it can be assumed, had you not done them, you would have felt bad. If we do good things, we do so either because we think it will make us feel good or because we think not doing so will make us feel bad.

Also, doing evil just to see what it's like is curiosity; it's not evil for the sake of doing evil. The knowledge that they're doing the wrong thing isn't what fuels them; curiosity, rebellion, thrill; all of those things, while they can prompt evil acts, don't qualify as doing evil for evil's sake, which is what vampires do. For them, evil itself is its own reward.

[> [> BtVS: Myth, Metaphor, and Morality -- Sophist, 10:36:02 04/25/04 Sun

If anyone ever asked me what to call a course on the show, that's the title I'd give it.

IMO, a perfect work of art would make free use of different metaphors while keeping them all consistent. I don't know that BtVS manages that. At the same time, I doubt that anyone can formulate a perfect ethical system, much less communicate it in a television show with drama, pathos, and humor.

What I think JW did succeed in doing with BtVS was creating a jewel. Each facet reflects a different aspect of reality, of psychology, of humanity. If, however, we move from one facet to the next, we may need to change the angle of vision or lighting in order to appreciate the excellence of the next facet.

That's a long-winded way of saying I'm not sure I can answer all your questions both completely and consistently. I can only say that there are some damn fine facets to that jewel if you look at them in the right light and with the right angle.

So, Sophist, do you agree then with Forrest of the Initiative, that "they're just animals, man." I always felt that Forrest was wrong. They are more than animals. What, then is the distinction? I mean, I grant that calling the behavior of a lion or shark "immoral" is somewhat pointless. But is that the same as calling a vampire or a demon immoral? Vampires and demons, like Nazis, do have ethical systems, and intuitively recognized codes of ethical behavior. Spike's ass-kicking by the demons in the bar speaks explicitly to it. Also, vamps and demons, unlike animals (I assume), do have at least an intellectual understanding of the significance of their kill to the one killed. They are not simply feeding. Does morality come from an essence, or from an understanding of what morality is or means?

More than animal, less than human is the best answer I can give. I think we'd all agree that vampires show motives that we could hardly ascribe to animals. Sadism, for example. When a cat plays with a mouse we wouldn't use that term, but when Angelus arranges for Giles to discover Jenny's body, we know right away that it's the only term possible.

That, to me, does not invest vampires with a moral sense. If we think back to the Scottish moral philosophers of the 18th C (Francis Hutcheson, Adam Smith), that would give some hint of what I think JW means with the soul canon. According to those thinkers, each human was imbued by God with a moral sense, a guide to making moral decisions as complete as was required for all purposes here on earth. IOW, that moral sense, if uncorrupted and exercised as was "naturally" intended, would suffice to lead each person to Heaven. Lacking a soul, vampires can use the words and phrases of that moral sense, they can perform the acts and show the motivations of a person in a way that no animal could ever do, but they cannot be considered moral actors.

It seems to me that assigning those killings to the category of "utility" doesn't make them less immoral either. To Kant, using people as means to an end is the definition of immorality

From the perspective of the victim, I agree. But if a tiger uses a human as a means towards an end (in this case, dinner), I doubt even Kant would condemn the tiger as immoral. He might commit the sin of pragmatism and shoot it, though.

Can an amoral actor commit an immoral act?

In my view of BtVS, yes, but I'm perhaps cheating in giving this answer by relying on the soul as a metaphor for the moral sense. In the show's terms, all humans have that moral sense; while we might loosely describe Warren as "amoral" or "immoral", what we mean is that he behaves as if he lacks that moral sense, even though he does not.

By focusing on the act rather than the actor, we can apply the same terminology to vampires. Thus, Spike's attack on Angel in Becoming 2 could be described as a morally proper act, but Spike himself is not then moral.

Also, to what degree is the perspective of the perpetrator relevant

I'm not sure it is at all. I'm proposing an objective test: presence of the soul. All humans possess one, ergo they are responsible. No vampires possess one, ergo they can be destroyed without the protection available to humans as a result of the presumption.

When Faith and Buffy switch, what switches? Do the souls switch, or just the memories? Buffy doesn't become immoral in Faith's body, but Faith does change from being in Buffy's. Is that change solely from the pressure of external forces?

Great questions. I don't think I have an answer within the limits of this topic, or at least not yet. Perhaps this is one of those facets that requires a different angle.

I guess I'm trying to drive at some understanding of Sophist's personal difficulties, if any, in effecting the kind of comparmentalization that his statement quoted above implies. ... I'm curious as to if you have your own gray zones, and if so, where they are in this, how you deal with them, and what sort of comfort level you have with them and/or your solution.

I think my point above about the differing facets allows me to avoid many of the problematic aspects. To take WAY for example, I might say that JW is not there commenting on ethics or metaphysics, but is exploring through metaphor the psychology of Faith's character (and Buffy's too). He's granting Dylan's wish: "I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes and just for that one moment I could be you..."

[> [> [> Quote of the Month! -- OnM, 20:32:09 04/25/04 Sun

Speaking of gems:

*** What I think JW did succeed in doing with BtVS was creating a jewel. Each facet reflects a different aspect of reality, of psychology, of humanity. If, however, we move from one facet to the next, we may need to change the angle of vision or lighting in order to appreciate the excellence of the next facet. ***

You know, some time back we had talked about rotating (as in changing periodically, no fancy java tricks please!) the quotes up at the top of the board, and the discussion just sorta drifted away. Now there's no question that I'm a shadowkat fan like most of us are, but this might be a good chance to update the board header.

Masq?

[> [> [> [> another nomination -- anom, 20:42:12 04/25/04 Sun

I love what Arethusa said, just above: "Small things can have terrible consequences, which kinda teaches you that there's no such thing as small things." Beautiful.

But Sophist's is great too--can I vote for both?

[> [> [> [> [> Ya know, you could replace the word 'things' with... -- OnM, 07:03:53 04/26/04 Mon

... 'philosophies' and give it a whole 'nother level of meaning!

;-)

[> [> [> [> I'm game. s'kat? -- Masq, 11:11:25 04/26/04 Mon

I think the Spike vs. Angel issues are behind us since those boys and now holding hands and all.

Although I am not removing the JM or Joss quote, or the Angel quote from "Underneath". That last one pleases me especially. ; )

[> [> [> [> [> Nomination -- Tchaikovsky, 11:27:30 04/26/04 Mon

I still immediately think of Graves'
There's a cool web of language winds us in
whenever I stumble across a good thread at AtPo.
I mean, the double meaning of 'cool', the double (at least) meaning of 'web', the idea of 'language'...
Since I got it from Rah, I'm guessing I may have a second. Rah?

TCH

[> [> [> [> [> [> Quotes -- Rahael, 14:14:17 04/26/04 Mon

of course you have a second here! tho i do wish that sk's quote doesn't have to be removed to make space. if only the board header was magically able to show an infinity of quotes!

maybe i'll sublimate by changing my bio in my user info again!!

[> [> [> [> [> and = are *eesh* -- Masq, 12:54:57 04/26/04 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> Go ahead. Please remove it. -- shadowkat, 13:07:17 04/26/04 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> I'm very flattered. -- Sophist, 13:49:04 04/27/04 Tue

However, I've always liked s'kat's phrase and it may be a useful reminder even if the slash proponents see their fondest wishes fulfilled.

If you do use the quote OnM suggested, you should edit it to remove the word "however". That ties in to some earlier sentences which would be irrelevant to a stand alone quote.

And, gosh, thanks for the nomination.

[> [> [> Jossverse and Eastern Philosophy -- Joyce, 13:42:22 04/26/04 Mon

Did Whedon ever utilize Eastern philosophy in any of his shows? If so, could you point out in which BtVS or AtS episodes it was used?

[> [> [> [> Well, there's Buffy's reference to Gandhi in Anne. :) -- Sophist, 13:44:08 04/27/04 Tue

I recall that Giles had a statue of Shiva, that the name Tara has associations with Buddhism, and that manwitch has compared Buffy's journey with the path of enlightenment. Maybe someone more knowledgeable could come up with more.

[> [> [> [> [> Here are a few more -- Ann, 15:50:26 04/27/04 Tue

I checked the Buffy Dialogue Database for east and eastern. There were many to find (the search for east included all rhymes, beast, least, etc and there were no delimiters) so I picked these couple. References to the word east seem to include times of discussion of family and friends and relationships. Could they be pointing us perhaps to Buffy and Angelís ìfamiliesî as the guide, the eastern guide, perhaps as path for the journey of life (thanks Manwitch)? The Giles quote aside, it is interesting that the choice of the word east is used in this way at least for these quotes.

From the Harvest

BUFFY: I've got a friend down there. Or at least a potential friend. Do you know what it's like to have a friend? (no answer) That wasn't supposed to be a stumper.

ANGEL: When you hit the tunnels head east towards the school. That's where you're likely to find them.

From Checkpoint:


ANYA: Yes I do. Ever since I moved here from southeastern Indiana, where I was raised by both a mother *and* a father.

From Whats my line Pt 1

Kendra: Den I suggest ya move quickly. Eastern exposure. De sun will be comin' in a few hours. More dan enough time for me to find your girlfriend.

From There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb

GROO: I had your body smuggled to your mother's farm. Your cousin Landok shall meet us at the eastern watchtower. He will transport you home.

From Billy

LILAH: Billy never touched me, and you can't touch him. Nobody can. Billy as in Blim? As in congressman Nathan Blim's nephew? That family is the closest thing this country has to royalty. They'd own half the eastern seaboard even if they weren't clients of ours. The law won't go near him.

From Unleashed:

ANGEL: What do you got?

ROYCE: Usual suspects. There's the sacrificers, wackos who want to rid the world of abominations, and werewolf packs looking for new recruits. Then there's the paranormal sporting groups.

(Fred sees a semi-translucent Spike walking through the lobby)

FRED: I'll be... (runs out of the office)

ROYCE: Vampire hunting in Eastern Europe. That kind of thing.

FRED: Spike. Spike, wait! Spike!

(spike keeps striding through the building, apparantly unable to hear Fred)

And

WESLEY: The Dutrovic markings suggest an eastern origin. There might be something in the Journals of Saitama.

ROGER: That, uh... Winifred... she seemed to like you.

WESLEY: Yes, well, she's a very special person.

From Bargaining Pt 1

GILES: (training BuffyBot) That was splendid. Now ... try it again ... only this time, remember your breathing. No, uh, that's good, but, uh ... ...think of the breath as chi. Air as a, a life source.

BUFFYBOT: I don't require oxygen to live.

GILES: Of course, strictly speaking, but-

ANYA: Um ... (walks into the room) Maybe you should stick to the standard drill. You know, you don't want her to blow another gasket.

GILES: I'm testing her responses after her injury. I see no harm in imparting a little Eastern philosophy.

ANYA: Well, I just think that, the concept of chi might be a little, you know, hard for her to grasp. You know, she's not the descendant of a long line of mystical warriors. She's the descendant of a toaster oven.

From Blood Money:

ANNE: I just... I couldn't see over the box. I was rushing. I'm late for work.

ANGEL: (holding item) You do clown work?

ANNE: No. Just some old clothes that got donated.

ANGEL: East Hills Teen Center.

(Anne stares.)

ANGEL: It's on the box.

ANNE: Oh. Right.

[> [> [> [> Re: Jossverse and Eastern Philosophy -- manwitch, 17:58:28 04/27/04 Tue

Martial arts are Eastern in origin. Yoga appears occasionally, as well as yoga poses in meditation. Several Eastern pieces of art are shown at pointed moments.

I can't really speak to Angel the Series. Buffy does an interesting mix of Eastern and Western. And before it becomes a problem, let's recognize that by those terms we are talking about the differing religious philosophies that developed out of some relatively common source some 4-5 thousand years ago East and West of the Old Levant, or roughly Iraq/Iran. Persia. The systems that developed West of there, our Biblical Tradition in all its guises (Judaism, Christianity including Eastern Orthodox, and Islam), stemming from Zoroastrianism and with influences from the Greeks and Egyptians has some distinct differences from the thought systems that developed East of that location, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism.

Generally speaking, in the Western systems, God is separate from the created world and from people. God is something not you, to be worshipped by you. In the Eastern systems, God and the created world are one and the same, a truth hidden for some by the illusion of temporal forms.

In the Western systems, religious life is a linear history, with a beginning and moving towards an end. In the Eastern systems, life is an endlessly recurring cycle, with no beginning and no end.

In the Western systems, that linear history represents an ethical project of the world's improvement, a fight for what is good in the world, against what is bad or evil in it. In the Eastern systems, good and evil, ethics itself, are illusions that stem from attachment to ego.

In the Western systems, the goal is the victory of good over evil. In the Eastern systems the goal is the realization that you are not your ego, that you are the creator god. Difficult to even put into words the goal of the Eastern systems. Enlightenment one might say.

In the Western systems, the ego moves along in linear history until it ends, at which point it is judged and goes to either heaven or hell. In the Eastern systems, the ego is reincarnated again and again until it achieves enlightenment, at which point the ego is dispelled into eternity.

Its certainly easy to see the historical project of good v. evil in Buffy. But the slayer also seems suggestive of the endlessly reincarnated ego, recurring until it "gets it right" and reaches enlightenment, which is what Buffy does.

The entire series is structured around that path to enlightenment, which is a reasonably specific program of spiritual transformation. It fits surprisingly specifically with the Tantric Hindu adaptation of yoga called Kundalini. It fits slightly less gracefully with the trials and stages of illumination of the Buddha. In each case, there are seven transformations to be achieved, the final one being enlightenment, and each of these transformations is illustrated by Buffys struggle and victory over the big bad in each of seasons 1-7.

The first transformation, or chakra, of kundalini yoga is to go from a childish clinging to ego to a willing embarkation on the spiritual path. The second transformation is to recognize the importance of desire, but to not be ruled by it, to let it pass through you in favor of other aims. The third transformation is to move from wanting life to serve your purposes to wanting to serve life. The fourth is to recognize your true self in the opening of your heart to others. The fifth is to recognize yourself as divine. The sixth is to recognize the world, in all its mundane pettiness, as also divine. And the seventh is to blow away your ego all together and become one with creation.

The major themes of each Buffy season match this almost perfectly. In addition, in Kundalini, each of the first five chakras is associated with an element. In the East there are five elements, rather than the four of the west. Season one, like chakra one, is associated with earth (the earthquake for example). Season 2, like chakra 2, is associated with water. (The rain, the sprinklers, the harbor, the swimming pool, the ocean, even the lunar symbol of Oz is a water symbol). The third season, like the third chakra, is associated with fire (for example the end of the season). Season 4, like chakra four, is associated with breath, or air. Think how many times in season four you see it sucked out of someone or removed from them. Season 5, like chakra 5, is associated with space or ether (for example our space alien, the negative space around Joyce, the ether from which Dawn comes and into which Buffy goes).

There are other more detailed parallels.

The match to Buddhism works but is less graceful. The first season can be thought to match Buddha's tempation by fear. The second season, Buddha's temptation by desire. The third, Buddha's temptation by social responsibility. The fourth represents Buddha's knowledge of previous existences, that he acquires when the tempting demon is dispersed. The fifth Buddha acquires the divine eye. The sixth, Buddha realizes the Twelve Knots of Dependent Origination. And at the seventh, Buddha achieves enlightenment.

There is a strong suggestion in Season one, and it recurs occasionally, that the whole story is a dream world. In that sense, the reference to Vishnu in season one is significant. Vishnu is the sleeping hindu god whose dream is the universe. And the statue of Shiva's dance of life, as well as many of the themes and episodes, suggest the necessity of recognizing the dual nature of life, living in the knowledge of your particular incarnation and of the eternity that is the reality behind it. Similar to the Buffy/Slayer relationship potentially.

I am not even remotely knowledgeable about Taoism, but I've heard that Taoist concepts are regularly illustrated.

That's just a start. I hope others will offer more.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Jossverse and Eastern Philosophy -- Caroline, 06:56:51 04/30/04 Fri

Yay, finally there is part of a thread that I don't have to avoid in order to stay unspoiled for Angel. I'm in Australia and we're running 8-10 episodes behind the US.

Put very simply, the Tao is basically a set of teaching that are based on observations of nature, how people fit into nature. If one fight's against nature's force, there is a massive struggle as a result. Nature acts without intent, so is neither benevolent or malevolent. The forms of martial arts derived from the Tao - aikido, judo etc, are based on the use of the other's force against them. The Tao is also without intent. In nature, there are seasons, which means that there is continual change - birth and growth, followed by maturation, decay and death, followed by rebirth and so on. It just is. One lives one's life realizing one's potential rather than attempting to achieve honours.

I think that in many ways there is a taoist influence in BtVS. The recognition that Buffy is a slayer and her life becomes easier when she just accepts the irrevocable. The fact that she doesn't seek honour and recognition but is rather just interested in fulfilling her own potential. She shows a love of mankind and uses her abilities to protect all of them, even those she doesn't know. By not seeking fame and the recognition by others she gains it. Even when Buffy seems to be far away from the Tao, she is actually just struggling against it and eventually returns to her Tao, and even this struggle is Taoist because everything always changes.

Where Buffy is not Taoist is that the Tao does not approve of the use of force. But this is purely a literal interpretation. We can see the violence and use of force in Buffy as a symbolic internal struggle which occurs when one tries to defeat those aspects of oneself that prevent us from following the Tao. In this sense, Buffy became more Taoist as the seasons went on. In S5 she sacrificed herself, in S7 she used tools other than violence to defeat the Big Bad - witchcraft by Willow and the evenutal (and unintended by Buffy) sacrifice of Spike. The Tao says to yield is to become - Buffy yielded from the conclusion of S5 onwards and became so much more in S6 and S7. She eventually develops the virtues of the Tao - mercy, bravery, compassion, generosity, the willingness to lead from behind. She respects all of her Scooby Gang, recognises their powers and strengths and allows them to flourish in their realization of their own potential. Generous indeed.

More later.
Classic Movie of the Week Suggestion? -- AngelVSAngelus, 15:56:43 04/24/04 Sat

OnM,
I vastly enjoyed your reading and relation of the Matrix Revolutions. Though we disagree on the movie, and have differing appreciations of it, it was still an engaging read and at least offered me the hope that the Wachowski brothers were trying to do more than horrify me.
That having been said, I had a suggestion for a CMotW post, one that would be of particular relevance to the last episode of Angel show, "Origins", because of its emphasis on memory and experience defining a person and being the source of their pain: The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Don't know if you've seen it, but I find it positively delightful, and I'm betting from your previous posts that you'd be able to do it and "Origins" a lovely bit of justice. Just a thought :)

Replies:

[> Great choice! -- Rob, 07:39:47 04/25/04 Sun

I completely adored Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which is one of those movies that is so good that it's a shame that even from this point in the year, we know it probably won't win Best Picture. Because it's weird and different and completely non-cookie-cutter, which might help its chances of nabbing a Screenplay award or nom, at the least. One reviewer I read said that, although the "film year" has just started, Hollywood would be hard pressed to release a better film than this in the next 11 months. Have to say I agree. And, yes, it would be an excellent CMotW column!

Rob

[> [> Well, it also doesn't have the best advertising in the world -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:45:04 04/25/04 Sun

I go to see movies on a regular basis, and, while I'd heard of "Eternal Sunshine", I had no clue what it was about, and so didn't bother seeing it. Poor advertising is a bigger killer of movies than an weirdness has ever been.

P.S. What is it about, anyway?

[> [> [> Synopsis for ya, Finn -- AngelVSAngelus, 11:31:23 04/25/04 Sun

We the audience get to witness the process of falling in love for Joel Barrish (Jim Carrey) and Clementine (Kate Winslet). Unfortunately, things go sour in their relationship, and there's an ugly breakup.
Barish later, feeling horrible about the entire ordeal and wanting to reconcile, goes to deliver a present to Clementine at work and is shocked when she acts as if she doesn't even know who he is.

But she doesn't.

Joel finds out that Clementine has undergone the experimental process of a medical organization called Lecuna, having all memories of her relationship with him erased. Joel is so distraught at her having done this, and in his anger he decides to undergo the same thing.
I'll leave it at that so as not to ruin the rest of the movie for you, but it asks a bunch of intriguing questions:
How much of our identities is defined by experience and memory? If it weren't for memory, would we be able to be truly happy?
Right about now, with my own breakup, I'm really wishing there was a Lecuna Corp.

[> [> [> The advertising is actually exactly why I went... -- Rob, 16:16:42 04/25/04 Sun

All I had to hear was that it was a Charlie Kauffman scripted film starring Jim Carrey, Kate Winslet, and Kirsten Dunst, and I was completely sold on it and was waiting anxiously for months after seeing the first preview. The ads seemed to be mostly geared towards Kauffman fans who expect the type of weirdness that couldn't possibly be adequately summed up in a 20 second promo spot. I went in to the theatre knowing absolutely nothing about what the plot was about, and was all the happier for it. The less you know going in, the better.

Rob

[> [> [> [> I've personally got mixed feelings about Kauffman -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:33:56 04/25/04 Sun

But I hadn't even heard he was involved. All I knew was that it was a drama with Jim Carrey and Kirsten Dunst. Since I rarely see a movie because of the actors in it, I felt no desire to go. With movies in theatres, unlike with TV, you're taking a gamble. You're stuck there for the running time and are out 5-7 dollars whether you love it or hate it. As such, I'd prefer not to take a risk on a movie when I only know the actors and a slight hint of the mood. That's how I ended up seeing "Lost in Translation", the only movie where I've actually laid down across three seats and tried to take a nap just so I wouldn't have to watch it anymore.

[> [> [> [> [> Heh... -- Rob, 08:05:29 04/26/04 Mon

That's how I ended up seeing "Lost in Translation", the only movie where I've actually laid down across three seats and tried to take a nap just so I wouldn't have to watch it anymore.

That just about perfectly describes my Alamo viewing experience a few weeks ago.

Rob

[> [> Re: Great choice! -- Fred the obvious pseudonym, 12:04:05 04/27/04 Tue

NOT impossible. "Silence of the Lambs" swept the major Oscar awards despite being released in February. Problem is more the unwillingness of Hollywood to support with advertising and other crowd-gathering methods "little" films that rely on brilliance rather than on explosions and special effects.

[> Thanks! And the film you suggested is an excellent one. -- OnM, 20:15:40 04/25/04 Sun

But don't wait for me to do it-- if you (or anyone else) are interested, by all means, write up a 'review' and express some thoughts. You are quite right, there is relevance to Origins, and for that matter to other events in the Buffyverse.

Go for it!

:-)

[> Do you mind if I do a quick one? -- shadowkat, 20:39:23 04/25/04 Sun

I rewatched The Chosen , 1981, starring Robbie
Benson and Barry Stiller on Saturday, and one of the themes really hits on Angel.

If I do it, it will be pretty short since I don't have a lot of time on my hands right now (busy job hunting)
and it would be posted tomorrow at the latest.

sk

Current board | More April 2004