December 2002 posts
Angel
and leftism (long and thematic) - Spoilers AtS S1-3 -- KdS,
06:51:03 12/15/02 Sun
Some ruminations for those who feel starved of AtS analysis -
I can promise that this paragraph is the only one in this essay
that will so much as allude to S***e :-)
Note that I do not claim to be a Marxist, or any kind of expert
on Marxist analysis. I consider myself to be a democratic socialist
(anybody who genuinely believes that to be an oxymoron is advised
to stop reading now) from a country where the range of socially
acceptable political views extends much farther to the left than
it apparently does in the USA. One trap that I hope I don't fall
into is the tendency of some Marxist critics of literature to
imply that any creator who fails to use his or her work to express
a direct anti-capitalist polemic is in some way guilty of moral
failure. If you detect traces of such ideological puritanism here
I apologise in advance.
It has been my position for some time that BtVS is an essentially
conservative show. The vast majority of the enemies fought by
the Scooby Gang in Sunnydale have been characterised by their
utter alienation from human society*. BtVS shows the defeat
of destructive forces of chaos by individuals on the fringes of
human society. The fact that the human Scoobies are relative social
outsiders (until the reinvention of Xander as successful small
businessman) allows the defeat of the extreme outsiders to be
presented without giving the appearance of conservatism. By contrast,
the enemies portrayed in AtS are often thoroughly socialised,
and capable of practicing their evil from within the dominant
culture.
The act of analysing AtS from an explictly left perspective can
be easily justified from the plot of the series's inaugural episode,
City Of... The metaphorical portrayal of the vampire as
parasitic capitalist has been inherent to modern horror literature
since the remarkable scene in Stoker's Dracula in which
Harker attempts to stab the Count but only rips open his pocket,
causing the vampire to haemorrhage a flood of coins and notes.**
The merchant banker Russell Winters, by a considerable margin
the most socially integrated vampire ever seen in an ME production,
uses his financial wealth and social power to force young women
into sexual bondage (it is implied in the literal as well as the
metaphorical sense) in the manner of the classic aristocratic
villain of melodrama. He is able to invade Tina's flat and kill
her, in a shocking breach of the normal metaphysical laws, because
of his economic status as her landlord. After this act, he moves
on to the newly proletarianised Cordy, who appears willing to
give up her honour as an economic transaction and comes to realise
the true cost too late. Cordy is rescued by Angel, who then invades
Winter's fortress to kill him before his helpless followers can
react. The evil capitalist's status cannot protect him from the
righteous application of revolutionary force, and stripped of
the protection of his smoked glass office he dissipates before
he hits the ground.
However, such an aggressively anti-capitalist posture cannot be
sustained in the context of an ongoing drama series. Not only
is an explicitly socialist (as opposed to liberal) position unlikely
to appeal to a commercial television channel, but such a unambiguously
confident leftist perspective risks appearing in denial of world
events. The total collapse of the major Marxist-Leninist states
(the Chinese Communist Party maintains its rule, but has now abandoned
communism in all but name) and the incontrovertible revelation
of their repressive cruelty to their citizens has left many on
the left abandoning hopes of replacing capitalism and restricting
their hopes to merely regulating it to some minimal level of justice
and charity. The deceptively low key introduction of Lindsay Macdonald
in the episode serves notice that the system of socially integrated
evil is far harder to destroy than one minor and self-indulgent
representative. Throughout Season 1-2 of AtS the Angel Investigations
group can only rescue individuals from W&H's plans rather
than destroying Hell's front organisation. When Angel seeks to
actually do so in mid-S2, his crusade is explicitly portrayed
as both futile and morally corrosive. (Mere revolutionism of course,
is not necessarily derived from a left perspective. Fascists,
after all, often see themselves as heroic rebels against a corrupt
and enervated establishment.)
The slow shift of AtS from an anthology show to a continuous ensemble
drama has had an interesting effect on its politics. In the second
half of S2 and on though S3 the focus shifts to the almost entirely
personal feuds between members of AI, individual Wolfram & Hart
operatives, and apolitical loose cannons like Darla, Sajahn and
Daniel Holtz. The missions in the service of good are downgraded
to brief interludes of exciting violence with only thematic connection
to the main action of the episodes. As involving W&H in them would
draw them far more into the main action of the series, the missions
increasingly become reactive assaults on demonic outsiders in
the manner of BtVS. In many ways, AI changes into a self-appointed
vigilante group devoted to disciplining those members of society
so deviant and excluded that the official agents of social control
deny their mere existence. AI redeem themselves from such a negative
analysis by their willingness to come to the aid of sympathetic
figures within the demon community (defending the property rights
of the elderly in Double or Quits) and to defend the demon
community itself from bigoted persecution (The Ring, That Old
Gang of Mine), as well as the blurring of boundaries inherent
in such sympathetic demonic or quasi-demonic characters as Cordy,
Lorne and Groo (remember that pure identity politics, however,
are notoriously subject to cooption as yesterday's militant minority
become today's target demographic).
There are, however, some notable individual episodes that can
be productively analysed in terms of human politics. Dead End
is arguably the climactic high point of the portrayal of W&H as
unacceptable face of capitalism. The social climber Lindsay finds
himself finally unable to accept the costs of upward mobility
when faced with an alarmingly literal exploitation of a former
friend who failed to climb the ladder. Undergoing an ambiguous
moral conversion, we finally see him reclothing himself in the
garb and transportation of his rural working class origins. AI's
intervention in Pylea appears to show a clear liberal rather than
socialist political orientation - after helping to depose a particularly
corrupt and racist theocracy they leave the Pyleans to evolve
their own replacement system without further external interference
(and some of the dialogue after Groo's arrival in LA suggests
that this may have moved in an explicitly socialist if not communist
direction). Finally Billy returns to the themes of City
of... in terms of the ability of the upper class to violate
others without fear of reprisal (in a storyline with explicit
resonances to the scandal surrounding the alleged predatory sexual
activities of William Kennedy Smith). The malevolent Billy provokes
others to commit crimes for his entertainment in such a way that
mundane justice cannot hold him to account, and to add an extra
twist has been freed to do so by the enforced actions of Angel
himself. Intriguingly it is the aristocratic Wesley who is consumed
by Billy's influence. The initially middle class (but highly socially
mobile) Angel is able to resist the influence thanks to his experience
with his own inner demons, while the working class (and from a
black working class stereotyped as uncontrollably violent and
emotional) Gunn opts to invite violent neutralisation rather than
succumb. Finally, however, Billy is destroyed by a representative
of his own social class whose motivations are both personal vengeance
and a fear of the chaos Billy's uncontrolled and overt actions
are creating.
A final intriguing note is the complicated and mysterious financing
of Angel Investigations. A redeeming point of interest in the
otherwise wholly negligible I Fall to Pieces is Doyle's
attempt to provide a moral solution to the problem of how to sustain
altruistic charity in a society where money is needed to survive.
Doyle suggests that a financial transaction between saviour and
savee may be defensible as a symbolic closure to the relationship,
justifiable as a means of releasing the person saved from a potentially
crippling burden of gratitude. ME themselves appear to have been
uncomfortable with this, abandoning it in future in favour of
a portrayal of an AI whose relatively lavish lifestyles are supported
by occasional windfalls claimed by a morally ambiguous right of
pillage (Judy's money in Are You Now..., the demons' cash
in Provider), petty fraud (Cordy's claim to take advantage
of generous store returns policies in Waiting in the Wings),
and possibly by unglamorous paying jobs assumed to take place
in the spaces between episodes.*** Admittedly, it is a
hallowed tradition of American film and TV drama for characters
to lead lifestyles which in the real world would be unsustainable
by people in their employment positions. Such portrayals provide
escapist, aspirational entertainment for viewers, but more sinisterly
ignore the genuine limitations that income brings to human life.
* The single significant exception to this is Richard Wilkins,
who intriguingly is the last Big Bad confronted before Angel's
departure to LA. While Wilkins's actions, in the style of Star
Wars's Empire, are driven more by abstract cliches of fantasy
Evil than a realistic political program, his folksy personality
and "family values" rhetoric suggest to me that he is
intended as a parody of those unreflective middle class conservatives
(typified in Britain by readers of the Daily Mail newspaper)
for whom poverty and injustice are not a significant problem so
long as they do not afflict the "decent" and "deserving".
Adam is a product of a shadow government black operation, but
his actions are directed toward destroying it altogether rather
than approprating its social power to his own purpose. Glory is
a figure of external chaos, utterly outside human society despite
her apparent material wealth.
** The metaphor should be used with some caution however,
given its overlap with anti-Semitic stereotype.
*** I must also acknowledge Rahael's theory (personal communication)
that AI are financially sustained by capital amassed by Angelus
during the 18th and 19th centuries, and that ME avoid mentioning
this to avoid formally confronting the moral ambiguity of philanthropy
funded by centuries of robbery, torture, and murder. (Real world
parallels are left as an exercise for the interested reader).
[> Brilliant! -- luna,
08:15:43 12/15/02 Sun
Your message makes me wish I'd watched more of Angel--now I guess
I'll have to. I totally agree with you about the conservative
nature of BtVS, and the representation of vampires there. Actually
I think the swing to the right--from picturing vamps as capitalist
parasites to showing vamps as underclass parasites--has been going
on for a while (movies like Lost Boys, etc.), but it's really
consistent in Buffy.
I was particularly horrified during the first scenes with Riley
and the Initiative, when it began to appear that Buffy was going
to be allied with some huge totalitarian military operation, and
I still question her assistance to Riley and wife in Dead Things.
The ones that Riley et al. were tracking from village to village
were pictured as hideous monsters, but IRL, it's often revolutionaries
who are treated that way--and portrayed as monsters to the general
public.
Your analysis may explain one reason for some of our sympathy
for Spike: he so clearly is an outsider. In Pangs, he looks almost
like the littel matchgirl, trudging the streets starving and wrapped
in a blanket, sitting unfed at the feast the humans eat. Ironic
that the episode is dealing with white guilt vis-a-vis Native
Americans, and that Scoobies nevertheless also find these beings
to be monsters who must be killed.
[> [> More disagreement!
-- slain, 09:08:33 12/15/02 Sun
luna, I can see you have a different perspective from that of
the show (vampires good, humans bad, perhaps), and that's valid;
the reason I disagree, though, is the suggestion that Buffy lives
by the same black and white morality as the Initiative, or of
Riley and Sam in 'As You Were'. If Buffy were really 'morally
conservative' she'd have staked Spike a long time ago, wouldn't
she? But because she can see shades of grey (as opposed to vampires
bad, humans good), she hasn't. The point of Season 4 and Riley
in Season 5 was that a black and white morality doesn't work in
the Buffverse; that despite there being good and evil in a tangible
sense, the divison between the two isn't that clear. Buffy understands
that, whereas the Initiative didn't, which was why she never truly
allied herself with them, and very quickly destroyed them.
[> [> [> Re: More
disagreement! -- luna, 10:52:56 12/15/02 Sun
Oh, you're right. I really oversimplified. I meant that when she
was first involved with Riley, I thought it might go that way.
And certainly the moral grey areas are what makes the show worth
watching.
But the point that KdS makes much better than I do is this (and
if I misintepret what he (she?) said, I hope for correction):
what's presented as moral good and evil can also be seen metaphorically
as political. For example, think about the orcs in Lord of the
Rings. Yes, within the story itself, they are the embodiment of
evil--but Tolkien lived and wrote within the real world, and in
the real world at the time he wrote, people who were smaller and
darker were other races. In cartoons and stories, those people
were often presented as monsters. So when we read Tolkien (which
I do with great pleasure) for his intended points, we can also
see another way of reading that is related to the political context
of the time. And that's what I see with the vampires on Buffy,
also.
Don't know if this makes sense.
[> [> [> [> Less
disagreement -- slain, 11:58:54 12/15/02 Sun
I told myself I wouldn't post in this thread again, at least until
some other people have had a chance, but I think it's probably
early on Sunday morning for many posters, so I may as well keep
on with this interesting topic before everyone wakes up.
Lord of the Rings is a good example, I think. Vampires have had
many representations in literature, TV and film, and they're always
representative of something (I wrote an essay on this round about
the time of Season 4) - in 'Lost Boys' I see them as representing
uncontrolled adolescence, teenage gangs. Seeing as I think teenage
gangs are not a good thing, therefore I see the vampires in that
film as being a negative influences - rather than as a representative
of, for example, the unemployed youth (who mostly aren't evil,
I hope).
The same can be said for Count Dracula in the novel - he can be
seen as a representation of the parasitic upper class (contrasting
to homely middle-class Jonathan Harker, who works hard for his
money), or as a representative of the disease-bearing 'dirty foreigners'/Jews/gypsies
who 'corrupt' English society. It all depends on the reading because,
as you rightly say, it's metaphor.
Which brings me back to LoTR - many people see the nasties in
that book as representative of foreign influences, of the 'savagery'
of Africa or Asia; suggesting Tolkein was, if not exactly a racist,
certainly xenophobic. I personally disagree; because, despite
what he himself said about disliking allegory, I see the book
as an allegory of Fascism, and for the enslavement of people through
industry, with the elves and humans representing freedom and art.
I've also heard a convincing reading in which the book is an allegory
of writing a PhD thesis - which goes to show that interpretations
are always various!
Personally, I see vampires in the Buffyverse as a representation
of the 'dark side' of all humanity (specifically men, most often),
and the balance in society that Buffy upholds being beneficial
and socialist, rather than repressive. I think AtS works differently
- Angel slaying a vampire isn't a feminist statement, so the show
can't work that way. Instead of the status quo, as in BtVS, being
something which should be upheld, on AtS it's rather something
which should be at least questioned. I don't think vampires on
AtS are any more or less evil than on BtVS - but I do agree that
demons are sometimes representative of, for example, different
races or different social classes. The shows are quite different
on this metaphorical level, for me; it's not that BtVS is about
conservatism, and that AtS is about radicalism - it's that the
two worlds are different (town and country, perhaps), meaning
the methods they use are different.
[> Re: Angel and leftism
(long and thematic) - Spoilers AtS S1-3 -- slain, 08:48:14
12/15/02 Sun
I think you may regret the aside about BtVS, because I think I'm
not the only one who's going to find it difficult to talk about
AtS once BtVS is mentioned! But, firstly, I agree in general about
the leftist bent of AtS. It's fairly explicit, after all; I'd
characterise the change in AI from being Marxist to democratic
socialist, and that change being made at the point Angel realises
that Wolfram and Hart don't want to win. Or, in other words, that
he can't topple them by force of revolution, because W&H don't
want to fight. So, instead, he takes a less radical approach;
working on a more explicitly commerical basis, and working closer
in some ways to W&H - within the system, instead of outside it.
That's all I have to say about AtS for the moment - now, as for
BtVS, I almost completely disagree that the show is morally conservative.
The 'almost' I add because the show is somewhat different from
reality, and the way we view political systems doesn't always
apply. For example, conservatism is about conserving belief systems
(usually meaning christianity, patriachy, capitalism). On BtVS,
belief is more real and tangible; Christian symbols have power
on a literal level, and there are clear mystical forces and manifestations
of good and evil. In the Buffyverse, someone who isn't conservative
in this way, and in favour of sticking to some traditonal
views is inevitably a fool; it's no good waving The Communist
Manifesto at a vampire, after all, unless perhaps it's a New Labour
vampire (British joke, there!).
However, that's the literal level. On the more metaphorical, that's
where I disagree in the 'completely' way. Vampires aren't representative
of the Other, they're representative of traits within all of us.
Buffy and the Scoobies aren't moral crusaders for the religious
right, upholding capitalism and the right of big business. Where's
the evidence for that? The Master in Season 1 and in 'The Wish',
Angelus, The Mayor and the Sunnydale government, The Initiative,
Glory (perhaps a representative of destructive industry, thinking
specifically of all the slaves and that big ol' tower). All of
these were offically Bad Things, and representative of captialism,
patriarchy, the military and the government.
Where the show is 'conservative', it's only because things that
are usually conserved (religion, spirituality) are made explicit.
However these things are often carry-overs from the Horror genre,
which was morally conservative, much as Stoker's Dracula
was xenophobic; BtVS has already subverted the misogynistic bent
of Horror, by making Buffy (rather than Angel or Spike) the hero,
but I don't think it's possible to it to subvert the religious
elements of the genre. After all, Horror would be no fun without
good and evil; though that itself has been subverted and blurred.
[> [> You're confusing
moral and political conservatism... -- KdS, 09:24:20 12/15/02
Sun
Of course BtVS is morally conservative in terms of accepting the
literal basis of specific spiritual belief systems. This doesn't
necessarily translate into *political* conservatism though - there
is, after all, a strong British tradition of Christian socialism.
Of course one can interpret vampires and demons in psychological
rather than social ways, and in relation to BtVS this is undoubtedly
much closer to the producers' intentions. However, looked at socially,
I cannot see the Master, Angelus, Adam, Glory or Warren Meers
as social insider figures. Most of them define themselves in implacable
opposition to humanity, in many cases to the physical destruction
of the planet and/or human race. Warren's plans are smaller-scale
and more human, but based on a romanticisation of social deviancy
and criminality. Richard Wilkins is the only exception, and I
specifically excluded him in a footnote. I fail to see how any
of them are "representative of capitalism... the military
and the government." The Master is patriarchal, certainly,
but a deviant reflection of patriarchy. The political forces behind
the Intiative are malevolent, but I don't see the arc as anti-military.
Later on in As You Were it's suggested that the actual
military are pretty decent guys when not mixed up with mad scientists
and bureaucrats. If I were feeling really nasty, I would sugges
the Initiative arc as epitomising grassroots conservative fears
of untrustworthy intellectuals and Big Government.
While the Scooby Gang certainly aren't "moral crusaders for
the religious right, upholding capitalism and the right of big
business", they equally have no quarrel with the status quo.
Again with the exception of S3, their actions are broadly directed
at maintaining the status quo, not altering it. And it's in that
social sense that I see the series as conservative (small c, as
many capital C Conservatives are now committed to radical free
market economic policies that tend to deconstruct society as it
has been established).
[> [> [> All I can
say is see below, really -- slain, 09:52:08 12/15/02 Sun
As you were replying I was writing a post which, I think, more
clearly addresses what you meant by conservatism - which I have
to say I misinterpreted. Sorry about that - I should have read
your post more thoroughly.
[> [> [> The vampire
as (not) Other -- Sophist, 11:45:02 12/15/02 Sun
Perhaps Rob's friend should read this thread.
Rah has argued forcefully on several occasions that it's a profound
mistake to interpret the vampires and demons as "other"
if the intent is to equate them with, for example, minority groups.
I think her points are well taken, and I wanted to add some thoughts
along that line.
If we are to interpret vampires in social terms, the most meaningful
way for me to do so is as an organized crime society. Say, a drug
cartel. In a few cases, an alienated political extremist sect
might work also -- KKK or a terrorist cell. Criminals are "other"
to society, but not in the way the term is usually intended, and
there are manifest difficulties in trying to apply the same analytical
tools to criminals and to minority groups.
Buffy's opposition to vampires does not strike me as conservative
(or, for that matter, liberal) mostly because I don't see any
disagreement between right and left over whether, say, the attempted
destruction of the entire world should be prevented if possible.
She is not upholding any particular system nor even the status
quo; what she is doing is upholding the idea that there must be
some system. IOW, she opposes nihilism. That's the only
political message I see.
[> [> [> [> I've
got it! -- KdS, 12:16:07 12/15/02 Sun
After some groping about I've finally worked out the distinction
I'm trying to get to here. BtVS has nothing to compare with W&H and
their clients in AtS - the figure of supernatural evil who is
deeply integrated into society, uses the paranormal to get ahead
within society, and is quite happy to stay within society. The
Initiative was a government organisation, but they were still
lurking in a basement and sneaking round town in masks. Adam came
out of the Initiative, but he wanted to destroy humanity with
extreme violence. He didn't want to use his technological powers
to take over the world's desktops and launch an IPO. Even Richard
Wilkins, who was an establishment figure, still wasn't happy with
his insider status - he wanted to transcend it and become something
entirely inhuman. I don't see any members of Special Projects
(probably the most wild-and-wooly part of W&H) wanting to
become a giant snake. For a start, you'd never be able to fit
into a Beemer.
I still regard BtVS as essentially conservative because all the
major forces of evil are either already outside society or trying
to break out of it. The family man in the Hugo Boss suit who leaves
answering machine messages for the Dark Lord of Torment... that's
unique to AtS. (OK, there's Reptile Boy and Help,
but they ewere standalone eps.)
[> [> [> [> [>
I think the difference comes from the fact. . . -- Finn
Mac Cool, 12:40:05 12/15/02 Sun
. . . that BtVS tends to believe that most people genuinely want
to be good. While they may be tempted to evil through lust for
power, anger, greed, or peer pressure, they aren't evil at heart.
"Angel" doesn't seem to feel that way. They don't go
the whole nine yards and say people are naturally evil, but they
leave it in doubt whether or not being corrupted is the natural
state for human beings. The evil on "Angel" seems so
much more insider because people are not trusted so readily; the
populace at large is viewed as having a lot of potential to turn
to the dark side with very little nudging.
You couldn't have Wolfram & Hart on BtVS because there's no way
so many people would join a law firm that is so plainly very evil.
BtVS basically trusts that most people will do the right thing,
so having a corrupt, internal evil doesn't really work.
Which is why I can't see BtVS as being conservative. The view
that humanity is inherently tarnished is one I associate heavily
with the right wing side (see the concept of "original sin").
Oh, one more thing. On "Angel", institutions (the symbol
of the establishment) are presented in a very negative light.
Most pursue their own, selfish ends without any regard for who
they hurt along the way, and some operate against humanity on
principle (like Wolfram & Hart). This is clearly a liberal position,
but BtVS doesn't go the other way and sing praises for the institutions.
Rather, we have the Sunnydale police, the Initiative, and the
Watchers' Council, all of which have (had) good intentions, but
failed due to beaurocracy, corrupt individuals in positions of
power, or genuine stupidity. BtVS doesn't trust the establishment
too much, but doesn't demonize it either.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I've got it! -- Sophist, 09:56:00 12/16/02 Mon
I still regard BtVS as essentially conservative because all
the major forces of evil are either already outside society or
trying to break out of it.
I agree that Buffy and AtS differ in this way, but I still wouldn't
conclude from this difference that Buffy is "conservative".
I would describe her role as the protector of society. Not any
particular society (that might fairly be described as conservative),
but the very possibility of society.
Certain extreme individualist thinkers (Ayn Rand, maybe) don't
value "society" much, but even Rand would hardly approve
of a society broken apart by terror (especially if it involved
the destruction of private property). Given the general value
placed on society by both right and left (compare, say, Bleak
House with Habits of the Heart), I don't think Buffy's
role provides any basis for associating her with one side or the
other.
[> [> [> Re: You're
confusing moral and political conservatism... -- sunshine,
12:29:17 12/15/02 Sun
Though somewhat OT, it might also be worth distinguishing moral
and political conservatism from cultural conservatism. Buffy gives
mixed messages on the latter front. Willow's unconventional sexuality
and interest in Wicca is presented very sympathetically (setting
aside the great SR debate). However alcohol and sex usually seem
to result in dire consequences. Also the emphasis the show places
on recognising the consequences of one's actions and taking responsibility
for them is, traditionally, a conservative theme.
[> [> Balancing vs. conservatism
(vague spoilers up to 7.9 and AtS 4.7) -- slain, once more
with feeling, 09:45:10 12/15/02 Sun
What you're saying is that BtVS is about preserving society (conservatism)
and AtS is about overthrowing it to see what happens (which is
more anarchism than socialism). On that level, I kind of agree
with your argument, particularly when we look at Season 7 in contrast
with AtS Season 3.
Balance is what Buffy's role is; she knows she can't win forever,
so she chips away in her small way, trying to prevent each apocalypse
but not to eradicate evil. In Season 2, she prevented the triumph
of evil as Angel tried to tip the scales; similarly in Season
7, the First Evil is trying to tip the same scales, ignoring the
age old balancing act, and Buffy is bound to try and stop it.
In contrast, in AtS Season 3 Wolfram & Hart were the ones doing
the balancing, the ones who were less concerned with the end result,
than with the game itself. Angel wanted to try and tip the scales
by defeating the Senior Partners, but became disillusioned when
he found that his actions were futile.
I think the reason why I don't like politcal parallels with the
Buffyverse any more than I like that age old "Spike is like
a serial killer/Nazi/etc" parallel is that they don't quite
agree. Marxism is based on the fundamental principle that society
as it stands is not right; but in the Buffyverse, that isn't the
case. Or, rather, in the Buffyverse I'd argue that the metaphysical
society is right; the balance between good and evil is right,
and needs to be preserved.
Angel, I think, has come to that realisation, though he might
not have said as much. The metaphysical society needs conserving;
in this sense, vampires, the First Evil and now W&H (who seem
to be looking for the final apocalypse) are outside of this society.
In think AtS exists on the same wavelength as BtVS this season,
as instead of trying to defeat evil and destroy the balance, AI
are trying to stop an evil which wants to bring about the real,
final apocalypse, and to preserve that balance. Real world conservatism
is different from the 'conservatism' in BtVS and AtS; I'm not
going to voice my opinions about it, in case I offend anyone,
but my point is that in the Buffyverse, their kind of metaphysical
conservatism is very much a good thing, and not about repression
so much as survival.
Thanks for such an interesing first post, KdS. My apologies for
so many replies - perhaps I should start using aliases?
[> [> [> Re: Balancing
vs. conservatism (vague spoilers up to 7.9 and AtS 4.7) --
sunshine, 12:19:52 12/15/02 Sun
Interesting post, but I wonder if you could clarify the sense
in which preserving the current balance of good and evil in the
Buffyverse is a good thing. Granted, it's better than allowing
the FE, or some other big bad, to tip the balance in the direction
of outright apocalypse, but wouldn't it be better still to aim
to eradicate evil?
I know that establishing the eradication of evil as one's goal
may be futile, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good thing
if it happened. Put it this way, if there were a magic "eradicate
evil" button buried in the basement of Sunnydale High, would
Buffy be wrong to push it?
The idea of preserving balance sounds nice in the abstract, but
in reality, the current state of balance involves humans regularly
being fed upon and killed by vampires and other things that go
bump in the night.
btw, I think I probably agree with you - there's something delusional
about the notion that we could eradicate evil once and for all
- but I just want to hear more about the idea of balance...
[> [> [> [> Re:
Balancing vs. conservatism (vague spoilers up to 7.9 and AtS 4.7)
-- slain, 12:48:39 12/15/02 Sun
I think perhaps what I mean is that Buffy doesn't think she can
eradicate evil, and I doubt the Watcher's Council or Giles do,
either. Not just because she's only one woman but, as Season 6
made very explicit, evil isn't just an external force, it's innate
in all humans. That's been metaphorical throughout the series,
with the numerous "Men Go Crazy" episodes (The Pack,
Beauty and the Beasts, Innocence), but Warren and the Troika made
that explicit.
The main reason I was talking about balance was the First Evil;
it clearly saw the ongoing battle between good and evil as a balancing
act, and Buffy as being part of the good side. It's great evil
is that it wants to upset this; so while I don't think Buffy consciously
tries to keep the balance, by her nature that's what she does.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Balancing vs. conservatism (vague spoilers up to 7.9 and
AtS 4.7) -- sunshine, 15:11:25 12/15/02 Sun
Thanks, I think that answers my question. If everyone, including
ourself, has the capacity for evil, then the attempt to eradicate
evil destroys ourselves, and the people we love, and with it everything
we were trying to protect in the first place.
Isn't there a Nietzsche quote about how, in order to defeat monsters
we risk becoming one ourself? I'm sure that's come up on the board
before and it certainly seems to apply here.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Mutant Enemy goes beyond Nietzsche... -- KdS, 05:16:27
12/16/02 Mon
The really scary thing is not that those who fight monsters must
take care not to become monsters, but that some people fight monsters
to give themselves an *excuse* to become a monster - see Faith,
Dark!Angel, Daniel Holtz, to a certain extent Quentin.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Unfair to poor Holtz! -- Sara, who's always
been a sucker for a gravely voice, 18:20:39 12/16/02 Mon
I can't see how Holtz belongs in your list. There wasn't any indication
in the flashbacks that he was motivated any differently than someone
like Gunn when he was hunting vamps. His current behavior didn't
need any excuses. Holtz wasn't trying to rationalize his actions
as anything but pure, cold, angry revenge, and wasn't trying to
appeal to anything more or less than that in others.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Nietzsche -- oceloty, 20:29:51 12/16/02 Mon
I think there are a few different translations, but the quote
goes something like, "He who fights with monsters must take
care lest he become a monster. When you gaze long into the abyss,
the abyss gazes also into you."
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Nietzsche -- Cleanthes,
07:01:59 12/17/02 Tue
Wer mit Ungeheuren kampft, mag zusehn, dass er
nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange
in einen Abrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in
dich hinein
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Fussy correction -- Cleanhtes
[sic], 07:19:43 12/17/02 Tue
Hmm, looking at what I wrote, I see "einen Abrund" and
then "der Abgrund". I confess, I just copied the German
from this site:
http://dqs.worldatwar.org/robots/958.html
but I think there's a typo there and it should be "Abgrund"
in both places. Sorry.
"Abgrund" is the word translated as "abyss",
although I disagree with the translation strategy of using English
words derived from Greek when a German writer fond of quoting
Greek uses a distinctly German word. (had Fred wanted "abyss"
he would have probably used that word) I would prefer an Anglo-Saxon
word here. Hmm, well, not thinking of a good one, so from beneath
me it devours, I guess. Bottomless place?
[> Very interesting
-- matching mole, 14:38:26 12/15/02 Sun
There's a lot of juicy ideas in there and I like what you have
to say. I would characterize the difference between BtVS and AtS
as more a difference in perspective than ideology. BtVS seems
to be clearly a much more internal show, especially from S4 on.
The focus isn't on society at all, it is on Buffy and the Scoobies.
The external world seems to be only important to the extent that
it affects them.
In contrast AtS has always placed AI within a specific social
context. You have Wolfram and Hart and the Powers that Be and
the extensive demon culture with clans and whatnot that is shown
throughout the series. AtS is much more a show about society as
a whole than BtVS is.
I could easily see someone arguing that this difference, in and
of itself, represents a distinction between right wing individualism
and left wing collectivism. However my personal bias is to see
right and left wing distinctions as only useful in economic terms
and to be highly sceptical of ideologies with more encompassing
scope. So I guess I have a hard time seeing BtVS as a conservative
show except within the rather limited view of regarding the 'demon
problem' as being analogous to the 'crime problem'.
[> [> Tend to agree
-- shadowkat, 20:41:30 12/15/02 Sun
I would characterize the difference between BtVS and AtS as
more a difference in perspective than ideology. BtVS seems to
be clearly a much more internal show, especially from S4 on. The
focus isn't on society at all, it is on Buffy and the Scoobies.
The external world seems to be only important to the extent that
it affects them.
In contrast AtS has always placed AI within a specific social
context. You have Wolfram and Hart and the Powers that Be and
the extensive demon culture with clans and whatnot that is shown
throughout the series. AtS is much more a show about society as
a whole than BtVS is.
I tend to agree. As Whedon himself has stated in more than one
interview: Btvs is really about the horrors of growing up which
to some extent limits their ability to go too far a field with
great epic metaphors or stories. Btvs is also primarily focused
on those horrors through what I like to term the Buffy prism -
or pov. We see the pain of anyone who directly affects this one
young girl. Since it is a young girl living in a small surburban
town who has just recently reached the age of 21 - the themes
will be on the more conservative side - b/c well we're dealing
with adolescence and adolescent themes tend to be more limiting
than broader adult themes. Also we're discussing "growing
up" as opposed to the darker themes of people who've grown
up and are struggling with current society. One show is shaped
like a square while the other is a rectangle - if that makes sense.
Ats on other hand is noir and noir can handle a larger range of
metaphor and theme and epic mythos. The prisim is not a recently
post-adolescent girl, but a 250 year old vampire, who has two
decades of history behind him. The prisim is not a good human/hero
but an ensouled vampire who is continuously trying not to sink
back into being a villain, a vampire who must seek out strangers
to help in order to be redeemed. So you can be a lot more liberal
in your themes, story, etc in Ats just based on who the central
character is than you can in Btvs. Also Ats takes place in a city
as opposed to a surburban town.
If the perspective of Btvs was say a vampire or an old watcher?
Things might be different.
[> Re: Angel and leftism
(long and thematic) - Spoilers AtS S1-3 -- Rahael, 15:10:02
12/15/02 Sun
Glad you wrote this up!
Because I want to write this before I get kicked off of AOL (very
imminent now!) I just wanted to say I agree that Buffy is socially
conservative in the sense that she is conserving and saving society.
While on Angel, that is much more ambiguous, cos it is very clear
that demons are very much a part of civil society (they employ
lawyers, run bars, provide information for money, be champions
for pregnant women, have epiphanies, etc!)
However, I think there is one very strong theme in Buffy which
prevents it being in any way 'conservative' and that is its hostility
to Grand Narratives, whether they be about organised religion,
hierarchies, institutional power, the idea of a larger fate moving
one to your prophecied fate - no Buffy has always been about the
the breaking up of grand narratives - which is why it isn't Marxist
or dogmatic either, because those are classic grand narratives.
I'd say it stands for ambiguity, not sharp delineations, multiple,
not one truth.
Buffy doesn't save the world because she thinks the status quo
is right, or worth preserving. She saves it because it contains
beauty. It contains Dawn. It contains human beings, who have so
much potential within them (potential which is often suppressed
or stunted by the way the world is organised).
Oh, and THANK YOU for the books you lent me. I read all three
in one sitting! Can't wait to get the rest.
[> [> Grand Narratives
-- matching mole, 10:34:50 12/16/02 Mon
I agree completely and I think that is part of what I was trying
to say above but not very well. I was actually thinking of that
term (Grand Narrative) when I was writing but as I am not really
familiar with the term other than hearing it used on this board
I wasn't sure it was appropriate.
So while BtVS is a very individual based show (as opposed to AtS
which is less so) I don't think that relates to any Grand Narrative
about the importance of the individual.
[> [> [> Metanarratives,
is another word -- slain, 14:00:02 12/16/02 Mon
A 'Grand Narrative' is basically a definition of a metanarrative;
something which acts outside of characters/society and works on
a 'big' scale. Buffy is resistant to metanarratives, whereas Angel
thrives on them (I mean the characters as much as the shows);
Buffy is just about saving specific people, but Angel is about
'bigger' things. Which is why arcs on Angel are usually bigger,
longer and more portentous. I'm not a fan of grand narratives/metanarratives
either, at least when they overtake the story too much, to the
point when the characters become pawns. Angel is a pawn, or at
best he's a knight, but Buffy has always resisted being anyone's
pawn or being a slave to the grand narrative.
[> [> [> Yes exactly
-- Rahael, 06:25:05 12/17/02 Tue
And I agree too with your comments above - especially with regard
to economics and the wider scope of choices re politics.
And a big yes re your comment about BtVS being an individual show,
and yet not espousing any ideology about individualism. We have
that wonderful moment where Buffy tells Angelus that no matter
what he takes away from her, she'll still have 'me', and we have
that moment in Primeval where Buffy tells Adam that he'll never
know the source of her - which transcends history, which shows
Buffy being a unity of all her friends, and connected to every
single slayer in history.
I have to agree with Slain here, and say that the focus of Buffy,
which is rich, emotional and metaphoric eludes political classification.
(Apart from the negative sense, where I myself easily being able
to say "umm, no, Buffy is not a Nazi show. That would be
what I call a radical interpretation of the text" lol)
[> Wow, good thoughts
-- Tyreseus, 17:04:13 12/15/02 Sun
Thank you for your post. It's great that someone has taken a series-long
look at the economic-political themes of AtS. I'll avoid contributing
the the debate about BtVS's conservatism for now ... too many
conlficting thoughts.
However, I think that you can find additional support for your
theories within a few episodes you did not mention. I don't have
quite the knack of analyzing from this front, but I did want to
point them out.
Blood Money struck me, when I first viewed it, as being
inherently anti-Capitalist. Angel discovers that the charity project
that W&H is helping to fund is being shammed out of its money.
Angel becomes the Robin Hood of the episode. When W&H reveal that
after "Expenses and fees" the homeless teen shelter
will recieve about 5% of the monies raised in its name, it certainly
rails against the idea that unchecked capitalism will "trickle
down" through the benevolence of its leaders. W&H was going
to both profit from the fund raiser and receive postive PR (which
generally results in higher profit).
Are You Now or Have You Ever Been is a fantastic critique
of McCarthy-era conservatism and social restriction. While the
demon feeding on the paranoia of the hotel guests might not be
"thoroughly socialised," he certainly is "capable
of practicing [his] evil from within the dominant culture."
One could argue that theThesulac Demon who has been tormenting
the residents of the Hyperion Hotel is a symptom of the
dominant culture - which was oppressive of sexual orientation,
racial interbreeding and forced the character of Judy to steal
money from a bank to have financial means of supporting herself.
Although, I'd guess that AYNOHYEB is more about the evils of social
conservatism than economic.
Anyway, just some thoughts I'd add to your thoughtful and provocative
post. Thanks again.
[> Angel as Cult of Personality
-- cjl, 19:55:01 12/15/02 Sun
Excellent post, KdS! Naturally, I have to add my own perverse
twist...
One of my favorite parts of the Dark!Angel/Noir!Angel period of
AtS S2 was the firing of Wesley, Cordelia, and Gunn, and following
their path from drunken, discouraged and disorganized detectives
into a fairly competent and perhaps even solvent demon-fighting
organization. Angel may have done them a favor: by freeing them
from following his nocturnal schedule and romantic obsessions,
he allowed them to develop their strengths independent of his
personal "mission."
The Chase/Gunn/Pryce Agency was, in many ways, an anarchist collective--no
real leader, the decisions made by all three partners. Each partner
had his or her area of expertise, none impinging on the others:
Cordelia was Vision Girl and Business Whiz, Wes was Big Brain
and Mr. Deduction, and Gunn was Street Smarts and Big Muscle.
It was all working so beautifully--then Broody Boy came back and
ruined everything. The C/G/P agency was subsumed to Angel's private
agenda in S3, and the helping the helpless part has sort of gotten
sidetracked ever since. I was silently cheering for Groo in late
S3 when he snarked that everybody has to be sensitive to Angel's
wishes because "he is our leader." Groo may be a bit
naive, but he knows a cult of personality when he sees one.
Okay, maybe I'm being a bit too harsh on Angel and the gang. But
if Angel stopped his Mr. Control Freak routine and simply joined
the collective (and if the boys and girls of A.I. put him in his
place more often), maybe they'd get a lot more done.
[> [> Re: Angel as Cult
of Personality -- shadowkat, 20:28:05 12/15/02 Sun
The Chase/Gunn/Pryce Agency was, in many ways, an anarchist
collective--no real leader, the decisions made by all three partners.
Each partner had his or her area of expertise, none impinging
on the others: Cordelia was Vision Girl and Business Whiz, Wes
was Big Brain and Mr. Deduction, and Gunn was Street Smarts and
Big Muscle. It was all working so beautifully--then Broody Boy
came back and ruined everything. The C/G/P agency was subsumed
to Angel's private agenda in S3, and the helping the helpless
part has sort of gotten sidetracked ever since. I was silently
cheering for Groo in late S3 when he snarked that everybody has
to be sensitive to Angel's wishes because "he is our leader."
Groo may be a bit naive, but he knows a cult of personality when
he sees one.
Interesting. (This oddly enough may link to a discussion between,
me, slain and Finn below on Nietzche, power and objective weakness.
It's hidden in the Jbone thread. Not to mention earlier discussions
regarding power on other threads.)
We think powerful leaders are people like Angel, when actually
Wes/Gunn/Cordy had more power when they formed their trio agency
- the power of three as opposed to one on the outside. Wes has
less power on his own with his team of hired guns. Just as Angel
had less power on his own - his actions often hurting others as
much as helping them. And Angel's leadership in Season 3 eventually
cost him Wes, Cordelia, Groo, and Connor. He put his own desires
first and as a result made it impossible for anyone to confide
in him. Would Wes have stolen Connor if Angel hadn't been running
the show? Would Groo, a powerful ally and warrior, had left if
it hadn't become clear to him that everyone had to be sensitive
to Angel?
Would Cordy be living with Connor? Would Connor have ended up
in that dimension - would Connor even be born?
Oddly enough Angel was better off when he was an employee and
the others ran the show. When he took over the leadership? Everything
fell apart. Angel's fatal flaw has always been to some extent
his ego - his vanity and pride - his desire to be the leader,
when maybe he would be better served by letting the others - a
committe if you will take leadership?
[> [> [> Re: Angel
as Cult of Personality -- yabyumpan, 00:23:15 12/16/02
Mon
"And Angel's leadership in Season 3 eventually cost him Wes,
Cordelia, Groo, and Connor. He put his own desires first and as
a result made it impossible for anyone to confide in him. Would
Wes have stolen Connor if Angel hadn't been running the show?"
But Angel wasn't the 'Leader' in S3, Wesley was, Angel defered
to him in matters of business. I was always under the impression
that one of the reasons that Wesley ended up taking Connor was
because he was in charge, leading to him feeling under enourmous
pressure and not being able to confide in anyone. Under pressure,
Wesley is even more stoic and unable to confide in others than
Angel.
As to Angel putting his own desires first, in the middle of the
season he suddenly became a single parent with all that that entails.
I fail to see how he can be held to be at fault for wanting to
look after his child, it's not as if he stopped helping people
or responding to Cordy's visions. Angel only took control again
after Wesley took Connor and abandoned the group, when Lorne read
him he said that he wasn't planning on comming back, ever!
The Angel-less AI may have been doing well without him but they
made the decision to take him back and use his supervamp skills.
He came back as an employee consuming a truck load of humble pie.
They were also once again able to use his home as base for operations
saving on rent etc.
There may be ego, vanity and pride with Angel and leadership but
there is also nurturing and respect. If you look back at S1, he
took on Cordelia in part because she was lost and needed help,
gave her a salery even though as he says at one point "she
can't type or file, I had held out hope about her answering the
phone though". The same with Wesley, he offered him a job
when he realised he couldn't even afford to feed himself and helped
give him the self respect back that he'd lost after being fired
by the Watcher's Council. Angel took him on, had faith in him
and showed him respect even though his only only previous experience
had been of Wesley was him screwing up in Sunnydale. That Wesley
was able to take over the mantel of leader ship in S2 was in part
due to the confidence he'd gained by working with Angel. Angel
may have an autocratic streak to him but he does value, listen
to and respect the opinions of those around him.
I think the 'fatel flaw' with Angel is that what ever he does,
he usually ends up getting screwed and what ever happens 'it's
always Angel's fault' Grrr Argh
[> [> [> [> Re:
Angel as Cult of Personality -- shadowkat, 07:29:41 12/16/02
Mon
Hmmm...Wes was in charge? It felt to me that Angel was for some
reason. That Angel deferred occassionally out of politness to
Wes, but most of the time? He ignored him and did his own thing.
Wes never felt really in charge of the group.
While Angel should place his son first - he often did things that
put everyone at risk including his son, such as in Provider. In
that episode - it is Angel's idea to turn the life-saving business
into a profit making one in order to build a college fund for
his kid. (This happened btw when Wes was still allegedly in charge
of AI). A seemingly harmless endeavor on the surface - except
he almost gets everyone killed. To get his son back from the hell
dimension - Angel does a powerful and dangerous spell which brings
into his world a group of parasitic creatures that almost kill
Fred.
He refuses to consider the consequences of his actions or discuss
them with anyone. He just does.
Do I think Angel should be blamed for everything? No. Wesely also
makes some bad decisions by not confiding in others - by taking
the lead without consulting anyone.
Same bad decisions that Angel made in Season 2 Ats. Which in a
way is very ironic. Wes and Angel are more a like than I think
either of them would like to admit. Like Angel, Wes has a father
who disapproves and abuses him. Like Angel, Wes came to LA to
redeem himself. Like Angel, Wes wanted the best for Connor and
only hurt him horribly by trusting the wrong person. Both Angel
and Wes make the mistake of trusting Holtz and falling into Holtz's
trap - Wes in Sleep Tight, and Angel in Benediction. Both Wes
and Angel would like to be leaders yet both are actually weaker
leaders than Gunn was when he was in charge of his street gang.
The difficulty Wes and Angel have is they don't trust other people
very much - they don't share their problems, they don't share
concerns. Wes' mistake in Loyalty-Sleep Tight was never confiding
what he discovered to anyone. Angel's mistake in Season 2 Ats
and in The Price is doing the same thing - not discussing it.
[> [> [> [> [>
Angel as Cult of Personality II: Larger than Life -- cjl,
08:54:25 12/16/02 Mon
Okay, boys and girls, cjl is going to speak from personal experience
here. Pay attention.
I have a good friend, a playwright and director I've known for
about twenty-five years, whose personality fits this discussion
perfectly. He's a tremendously charismatic individual, a superb
raconteur, and a relentless rhetorician. He's especially adept
at getting what he wants, even when what he wants is almost impossible.
(In fact, ESPECIALLY when what he wants is impossible.) He hates
compromise and refuses to accept the status quo when the status
quo affronts his sense of morality. Where most people choose to
"pick their fights," he charges in, confident that the
moral purity of his cause and his force of personality will carry
the day. He's championed a number of worthy causes, and it's a
privilege to watch him work.
Watching is one thing. Actually working for him, though, is another
story.
On the one hand, I love him like a brother and believe in the
worthiness of his various projects; but on the other hand, whenever
I actively participate, he drives me crazy. Even though his vision
for theater is brilliant, his personality invariably creates enemies
and resistance--often unnecessarily. His inability to comprise
reflects a black and white view of the universe; anyone (i.e.,
bureaucrats) who threatens the project is painted as evil or corrupt.
He is a ruthless perfectionist and a micromanager and doesn't
like dissent in the ranks. He has a peculiar take on the concept
of "collaboration": as long as you're going along with
his view of things, he'll listen to your suggestions. But if you
imply his vision for the project is flawed and should be changed
at a fundamental level--you're out. (Peculiarly enough, he made
his reputation with improvisational theater. Go figure.) Also,
there are times when his solipsism is infuriating. He demands
personal loyalty, but seems incapable of recognizing his employees
as anything more than extensions of his own vision.
He is a man of Olympian dreams and ideals, and naturally, he gathers
acolytes. But invariably, the acolytes grow disillusioned and
exhausted. If they want to stay in the glow of the original vision
of the project, they have to cater to the whims of its leader;
but those whims seem directed only to fulfilling his own dreams--any
personal sense of satisfaction derived by the rest of the group
is of incidental concern. Let me make this clear: my friend has
a good heart, he is NEVER deliberately mean or selfish, and never
goes out of his way to hurt people. But his obsessional nature
tends to produce those results anyway.
I think this is the case with Angel. He's the guiding vision of
the enterprise (Wes said so in "Couplet"), but along
with that guiding vision, that rallying cause, the group gets
Angel's demons and romantic obsessions as a gift with purchase.
Wesley was supposedly the man in charge in late S2/early S3, but
after Angel returned, Wes never felt he had any real authority.
Angel and his quest for redemption has always been epic and larger
than life, and Wes' quotidian management techniques couldn't compete
against the grand melodrama Angel brings to the table. But again,
if you submit to Angel's grand melodrama, you invite the unpleasant
stuff as well. Does Angel intend for any of the unpleasant stuff
to rain down on his colleagues? No, of course not. But like my
friend, he sometimes wonders why he's alone on top of Olympus
at the end of the day.
I'd like to tell him, but I'm afraid it would be the last words
we'd say to each other.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Angel as Cult of Personality II: Larger than Life
-- JM, 18:09:15 12/16/02 Mon
Cool post. I think I recognize the type. With just about every
one, the unique strengths seem indelibly tied to the weakness.
Hmm. . . Not sure of the Wes dynamic, seemed a little more complex
to me. End of season two he was definitely having trouble finding
the right tact and the necessary confidence after Angel rejoined
AI, especially after the phone call home, which dredged up every
fear of failure and inadequacy. By ìOver the Rainbow,î
Angelís not even making the pretense of not being the decision
maker. The dynamic starts shifting again in NPLPG, with Wes the
one character detached enough to make rational, calculated decisions.
(And finally seeming to comprehend just how fallible and conflicted
Angel often is in reality. Despite the appearance of passionate
certainty.)
During the first minor arc of season three, ìHeartthrobî
through ìBilly,î Wes seems completely in charge of
AI. Not surprising since Angel's been basically AWOL for three
months. Angel's not particularly good at remembering he's a subordinate,
but Wes seems to be neither threatened nor particularly concerned
about it. It's not as if he can fire Angel from his own mission,
but he seems to do fairly well at reining Angel in or redirecting
him. None of the other members seem to have any difficultly identifying
who the boss is. Not as if Angel could pull a coup either, even
if he wanted to, heís basically still on probation. Even
his closest friend Cordy still remembers how well the cult of
personality thing worked out last time.
ìBilly,î I think, marks a decided shift in Wesís
behavior. After Billy heís less outgoing, definitely less
directed, giving few orders, and interacting somewhat less with
the rest of the team. Between ìOffspringî and ìWaiting
in the Wings,î the bulk of the second arc, Angel is the
clear motivator. At the same time that Angelís personal
concerns are becoming larger-than-life enough to almost totally
overshadowing the more abstract ìmission,î Wesley
seems to be consciously avoiding overt attempts to express his
authority. To me it seems a pretty different dynamic than the
post-ìEpiphanyî episodes of season two though. Then
he was in the middle of a wobbly transition, trying to take possession
of an authority he didnít thing he was capable of maintaining.
Post ìBillyî he seems to have stepped back into an
administrative role, more a consigliore than a boss. But he really
doesnít seem threatened or intimidated by Angelís
leadership or in the middle of a power struggle. It appears to
me, in retrospect, that after the events of ìBilly,î
he doesnít trust his own ability to use power and authority
appropriately, hiw own worthiness to wield them. It seems quite
a different concern than his doubting his effectiveness and capabilities,
much more internalized.
This comes crashing to an end in ìWaiting in the Wings,î
from the moment he discovers Gunn and Fredís tryst. From
that point on heís far too angry to be guiltily introspecting
over whether he can be trusted with power. It may be irrational,
but he feels betrayed and misused no matter how much he knows
he was not. Itís a bright enough passion to snap him out
of the passivity of the last few months. From the attack of the
clowns in ìWaiting in the Wingsî through ìSleep
Tightî the uninvolved administrator is very little in evidence.
He organizes the resistance to the minions and orders Angel to
find the count. In ìCoupletî he finally challenges
Angelís desire to simply enjoy Connorís existence
and avoid the hard questions. Throughout the episode he is giving
orders, and initiates the difficult conversation with Gunn about
what his relationship with Fred means. And does it with some uncomfortable
overtones of authority. In ìLoyaltyî and ìSleep
Tightî despite the panic about Connor that is pushing him
toward a breakdown, he still retains enough focus and command
to send the team off on two jobs. The only time his grasp on authority
seems to waver is when interacting with Angel concerning Connor.
When heís planning on abrogating a parentís rightful
authority over his child with what he feels he has to do.
This isnít me trying to argue that Wes has had a steady
hand on the reins between when he took over and his alienation
with the group. Itís unlikely that a change of command,
with a former, almost-worshipped superior as subordinate, wouldnít
have many complications. And I think that Angelís ìcult
of personality,î which was strong enough to have almost
toxic effects in S2, has a huge weight. I just think the factors
were far more complex than Wes simply be overshadowed by the charismatic
vampire.
PS Just re-read shadowkat's post, and I think it's a good argument
that if Wes had ever felt really in charge of Angel, he may never
have felt the need to take unilateral action. Angel was the one
he wanted to protect above all, but he saw him as as much a threat
as a target. More layers.
PPS. Disillusionment of acolytes. Is that what is happening with
Cordy? Lorne and Groo notice that she's practically the priestess
of all things Angel. In RoF she not only rejects him, while yearning
for him, but also deals the most profound betrayal imaginable,
possibly rivally what Wes did to him.
PPPS yabyapnum, (I really tried with the spelling this time) none
of my points are meant to be a disparagement of Angel. He is clearly
an amazing, if dangerous to know, individual. The vampire with
a soul he has become, to me clearly indicates that there was a
lot of great worth in Liam. If he hadn't caught the wrong woman's
eye he very probably would have weathered his prolonged adolenscence
and become a passionate, strong, and principled man. And yes ultimatley
his biggest problem is not his sense of self, but a really maliscious
universe.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Individualists, the whole lot of them? (or, It's
not just Angel) -- oceloty, 20:23:27 12/16/02 Mon
I'm delurking because all your posts have been fascinating and
provoked a couple of thoughts. Thanks!
I'd add one more dimension to JM's analysis of Wes as a leader:
that in early season 3, Wes succeeded in channeling Angel's impulsiveness
not because his perceived authority but because, like a good leader,
he knew how to find the right motivation to apply people's talents
productively. The best example I can think of is That Vision Thing,
when Cordelia's being hit by the killer visions and Angel's about
to go into crisis mode. Wes gets Angel to do something productive
(go after the key) as a means to help Cordy, while Wes himself
also pursues other means (getting Lorne to help). It works because
Wes finds the right lever to move Angel, and because Angel trusts
Wes's judgment enough to be moved.
I'd also add that it's not just Angel who needs to be reined in.
I think all the members of AI have demonstrated a willingness
to pursue what they believe is right, over what other people think.
Wes concealed information and took Connor. Cordelia hid the fact
that she was dying from her visions. Fred went after the professor
who sent her to Pylea. Gunn didn't tell his friends that his old
gang was killing demons. Even Lorne wasn't forthcoming when monsters
from his home dimension started appearing in LA. I'd say Wes,
Cordy, Fred, Gunn, and Lorne didn't do these things (entirely)
for selfish reasons, but because they felt this was the best way
to deal with these situations.
Based on this, AI is a pretty disparate group of people but they
all seem to embrace the same philosophy, that each person must
do what he or she thinks is right. They're all individualists,
or in D&D terms, they're all chaotic good. (Even Wes, I think;
he's defied the Watcher's Council a couple of times and not just
out of loyalty to Angel.) They don't believe in order or authority
for its own sake but that moral judgments must be made individually.
They are tied together (or were) by a common cause and by friendship,
but very often their beliefs on the right thing to do will be
very different, and they will all want to act, individualistically,
on their own beliefs.
So I think leadership of AI is a particularly tricky business;
directing all these different personalities, every one willing
to sacrifice a great deal for his personal notion of right, is
probably like trying to herd cats. I don't think either Wes or
Angel led solely on the basis of personality or charisma but because
their friends believed in them, and they believed in their friends.
Ultimately, Wes' and Angel's falls from grace came because they
lost trust of those they led. Wes and Angel's friends deferred
to them because they trusted their leader's judgment, but when
that judgment proved terribly flawed, that trust was withdrawn.
yabyumpan wrote, "I think the 'fatal flaw' with Angel is
that what ever he does, he usually ends up getting screwed."
I completely agree, and would add that, unfortunately for Wesley
and Angel and everyone else, getting screwed by fate seems to
be contagious.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Does the fault lie in our stars, or in ourselves?
(Spoilers for Oedipus Rex, Julius Caesar) -- cjl, 22:05:15
12/16/02 Mon
Just a quick note here to thank everbody for their responses.
I got more mileage out of the cult of personality concept than
I ever thought I would. (I got to unload some personal baggage
as well. Fun!)
But getting back to the idea of malicious fate: If we take Sophocles
and the Greek model of drama as the blueprint for Angel (and let's
face it, S4 is practically Oedipus Rex in vampire's clothing),
we see that distinguishing between a hero's character flaws and
a predestined fate isn't quite so easy. Greek drama generally
doesn't present a virtuous man who is inexorably led to his downfall
by the capriciousness of the gods; he is, more often than not,
brought down by his own character flaws, which ASSUME the appearance
of "destiny." Think about it: even in modern times,
when we hear about the downfall of a charismatic and powerful
individual in the public eye, we often say to ourselves, "well,
you could see it coming." (Choose your own examples.)
Similarly, in Julius Caesar, the title character isn't laid low
by the forecast of doom for the Ides of March; he's stabbed in
the back (and everywhere else) by his subordinates, who feel he's
become a danger to the future of Rome. The supernatural trappings
add a heightened level of drama to the personal and political
drama, much in the same way the supernatural trappings add an
extra dimension to the bildungsroman that is Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Yes! Yes! Yes! AtS is Greek Tragedy!
I knew it! -- Sara, doing the happy dance, 08:00:29 12/17/02
Tue
[> Right Wing Elements in
BtVS -- bl, 04:54:09 12/16/02 Mon
I'm troubled by elements in the Buffyverse that I consider right
wing. Since I have watched little of Angel, most of my observations
are about BtVS. I don't have the background or training to do
the kind of social analysis that the commies and socialists are
so good at but for those that like that kind of thing I recommend
The World Socialist Web Site.
It rocks.
Here are some elements of the BtVS that I identify with the right
wing:
1) On BtVS there seems to be a love/hate relationship with government.
Government is shown as bad. The evil mayor. Doris the social worker,
interfering with the family. Even the local police are useless
idiots. Any regulatory or police function is shown as corrupt
or ineffective. But there's a love for power and militarism. The
police are idiots but the mindless obedience of the army is shown
as good. Not like government with all that messy democracy getting
in the way. Even the Initiative was shown as good until after
Walsh tries to kill Buffy. Torturing demons and cutting them up
alive was okay.
2) Morality, especially for Buffy is a black and white thing.
Only Giles seems to have any conception of gray. Even now.
3) There is/was a shortage of minority characters in major roles
despite there being plenty of minorities as extras or in minor
roles. (Janice anyone?) This might say more about the nature of
TV than the Buffyverse. Just as "urban comedies", aka
black sitcoms, rarely have major white characters, so white sitcoms
like Roseanne or Home Improvement rarely had black major characters.
4) Self-reliance is shown as a necessity. In the Buffyverse there
seems to be no effective police, no government programs to help
people, no mention of even Social Security Benefits for Dawn after
Joyce dies. Buffy must be self-reliant. She must take responsibility
for Dawn rather than getting any government help. She doesn't
even try to get Child Support from Hank. The right wing lesson
being that you can only count on yourself, your family and maybe
your friends for help. TBTB forbid that Buffy should get a government
grant to go to college while Dawn gets SS benefits.
5) Except for the brief reign of the Initiative, which seemed
to be more about controlling and using demons, there seems to
be no government program to fight vampires and demons on the Hellmouth.
So a private citizen must give up her life and future to protect
others or they will have no protection. Another message about
how it's not the government's role to help anyone.
6) On Angel Billy is being burned alive forever and this is "okay."
7) The attitude toward gay people is superficially accepting but
Tara is killed and Andrew is shown as gay, a clown and bad. And
even Willow has hardly been a role model since she became gay.
8) Women are the weaker sex. Even if they have superpowers. The
"girls" have to be rescued, supported, and cared for
by the men.
When she returns from the dead Buffy finds that the money Joyce
left is gone and Giles must give her money to help her out.
When Buffy needs a job it is the men who give it to her. Xander
on his construction project. Giles at the Magic Box. Without the
men the best she can find is a minimum wage fast food job. Even
Spike has to take her to the demon bars while the male trio disrupts
her life.
When her life goes wrong it is men she turns to to fix it just
as it is only males who are generally powerful enough to harm
her. The Master. Angelus. Adam. The Mayor. The Trio. (Did Glory
really even have a sex? Wasn't the female body a sort of aesthetic
choice rather than the Beast's inherent nature? And even Glory
had her male human side.)
Buffy and Willow and Anya are strong but they still have to be
rescued by the guys cause they just don't have what it takes.
Only Giles has the stomach to kill the (comparatively) innocent
and human Ben. (And showing the murder of an innocent human as
a necessity is a right wing thing. Like the Yemenis along with
an American citizen blown up in their car at Bush's order because
they were "suspected terrorists." Easy to compare to
Giles' murder of Ben, who, as his dangerous Glory side, might
be "suspected" of being a danger in the future.) A soft
impractical girl like Buffy couldn't do it. A man like Giles could.
In Two to Go Giles must come teleporting in from England to save
the day. In Grave only construction worker Xander could save the
world when Willow runs amuck. In Grave all the girls (and the
world) have to be rescued by the guys.
Despite the female empowerment theme of BtVS, the subtext is that
it is men who have the power and money and it is women who must
depend on them.
9) In Season Six magic and Wicca were shown to be evil and bad.
The right wing considers the occult and witchcraft to be very
very bad things.
10) The Buffyverse is shot through with the view that evil doers(TM
George Bush) cannot be reformed therefore it is not necessary
to treat them fairly or try to change them. Demons and those demonized
can be tortured or killed without any moral breach. Riley is a
torturer and that's okay. When he tortures Spike in Into the Woods
there is nothing to indicate his actions are morally wrong. Even
Spike doesn't seem to hold them against him. After all the Initiative
tortured various "animals" like Spike so this is nothing
new for Riley. So it's okay. Like it's okay for the Bush administration
to send various captured
terrorists to be tortured . Terrorists are evil so torturing
them is okay. Vampires are evil so torturing them is okay. Even
Buffy has tortured them. When Riley kills Sandy, the girl Vamp!Willow
turned and who was apparently getting blood by acting as a vamp!ho
instead of killing, there is nothing that shows that he was wrong
to murder her. His moral lapse was going with her in the first
place. Certain classes of creatures have no rights and can be
killed out of hand, even after they have been used for personal
gratification.
11) The good (as defined by those in power) can do anything and
it still be moral. Buffy is an arsonist...and that's okay. Those
on the side of "right" are allowed to do things that
would be evil if done by the other side.
12) Buffy never objects to the Initiative and its huge Dachau
for Demons until they endanger a friend of her, Oz. She seems
to think that cutting demons up alive is okay, even when she knows
they are sentient, like Spike.
13) The most important role a woman can have is as a mother. Despite
being "The Chosen One", Buffy's most important role
is as Dawn's mother.
14) Sex is bad.
Sex with Angel causes him to turn bad and become a danger to Buffy.
It is implied that this is one of the typical dangers of having
sex.
Sex with Spike is bad and leads to Buffy's further degradation,
to her indulging in bad sexual activities which lead to Spike
trying to rape her. It is implied that she "asked for it"
by even having sex with him in the first place. If she had never
had sex with Spike he never would have tried to rape her.
Sex with Parker reveals Parker is bad with the implication that
Buffy deserves it since she was easy.
Sex with Teutonic Nazi Riley is okay. If she had just been more
submissive and dependent he wouldn't have gone to vamp!hos and
they would still be together. Riley sex was the only sex that
Buffy has ever had that was okay. But boring as hell cause Riley
has to be the strong one, the one on top. Depraved Spike is willing
to lead Buffy down the path to alternative sexual positions and
activities. This was bad and led him to try to force himself on
her.
15) Vampires cannot be changed or saved. This right wing view
is more and more prevalent in our present criminal justice system.
Rehabilitation is no longer the goal for criminals. Punishment
is. Or permanent imprisonment. Or death. The idea that people
commit crimes because of socialital or family factors is rejected,
as is the idea that social programs reduce the likelihood people
will be compelled or driven to lives of crime. Instead, like Evilistas
everywhere, the right wing seems to believe that bad people, evil
people are evil because it's innate and therefore trying to prevent
the conditions that lead people to crime is futile. They see severe
punishment as the only way to limit crime. In the Buffyverse staking
is seen as the only way to control evil.
The entire thrust of the show is that once a group is defined
as "evil" then anything can be done to them. This is
about as Nazi a view as you can find. So vampires and demons are
evil just because they are evil. No one questions if they could
have valid goals or self-interests. They are evil. Just because.
The entire Buffyverse canon is based around the idea that certain
sentient creatures deserve to die. It's quite a contrast to say,
Star Trek, where many dangerous "others" were changed
into friends.
[> [> OK... (long)
-- KdS, 06:26:27 12/16/02 Mon
Some of what you're saying here strikes me as so off base I wonder
if you're just trying to be provocative. On the other hand, some
seem of your issues are genuinely problematic and some strike
genuine weaknesses in the series.
Point by point:
1) This question raises the problem of the heterogenous opinions
included in conventional definitions of "left" and "right".
BtVS is not so much anti-government as anti-authority. Any authority
is shown as either malevolent or misguided - not just the overt
local and national governmental agents but also the Watchers'
Council. This is an individualist position rather than a conservative
one - the confusion here comes because we often lump together
both authoritarian conservatives who respect authority and anti-government
libertarians as "right-wing". The libertarian orientation
can be found on both the traditional left and the traditional
right - both Ayn Rand individualists on the right and anarchist
elements on the left. We also need to note that BtVS in many ways
seeks to replicate the experience of adolescence which stereotypically
tends towards suspicion and hostility to authority. Regarding
the portrayal of the Initiative in early-S4 - I think that we
were meant to be uneasy about them from the beginning. If the
Initiative had been shown as blatantly evil to start with the
subsequent revelation of their attitudes and objectives would
be much less thought-provoking. The later part of S4 shows us
where such attitudes lead - with the Initiative vivisecting Oz
because they can't see the human part of him.
2) Absolute rubbish. Season Six was all about every member of
the Scooby Gang being brought face to face with the evil inside
themselves. If they were that black-and-white - why wouldn't Spike
have been dead in mid-S4?
3) A good point, but as you suggest probably more to do with American
TV than BtVS specifically. Have a look in the archives for a topic
"Has Joss walked down his local street lately?" or words
to that effect for the most recent extended discussion.
4) Again a genuine plot problem with S6 which has been commented
on on the board before. I suspect that the key factor was that
ME wanted to see Buffy at rock bottom for psychological reasons
rather than any political objective. If they'd had the individualist
political objectives you read into it, I'd have thought we'd have
seen a happily entrepeneurial Buffy starting a craft business
of some kind, or doing freelance work that didn't have a regular
timetable to interfere with slaying, or giving martial arts lessons.
And no real right-winger would have come up with a portrayal of
menial McJobs as vicious as Doublemeat Palace.
5) This is an issue with the assumptions of the core narrative.
The hero tale in general is oriented against collective action
- if it wasn't it would turn into the military drama. The ideology
is built deep beneath the surface of the story - we need to be
aware of it but we can't specifically blame the authors for it.
Michael Moorcock has done some interesting fictional stuff with
this problem.
6) Yes, this disturbed me as well. Why not just kill him if he
isn't redeemable? Is this an implication that the Buffyverse does
have an eternal Hell for those judged irredeemable? How is this
morally acvceptable when all human beings are portrayed as potentially
redeemable? Probably best to view this as just a plot device because
otherwise you open up too big a religious can of worms for one
post.
7) Look in multiple archive topics at the end of S6 last summer
for very lengthy and heated discussions of this issue. I really
don't think anything can be added and any discussion will probably
blow up the board again. People already have their positions which
aren't going to shift. Hit the archives if you really aren't aware
of what the positions are.
8) Way, way off. The only way this argument works is if you take
some caricatured separatist feminist position that demands women
never take comfort from male friends and never have any interaction
with men whatsoever. Xander and Giles have had to be rescued by
Buffy more times than I can count. When Buffy lost her powers
- she still managed to kill a vampire by cunning. When Riley lost
his powers - he couldn't deal with it and went into a psychological
tailspin. You completely misread "Life Serial" - it's
essentially Buffy's problems that stop her from managing the jobs.
Remember that at the end she says she was already bored stiff
at the magic box before Jonathan's spell. The guys can offer her
jobs but no job can fix what's really wrong with her - she needs
something much deeper than that and none of her friends male or
female can provide her with it. You similarly completely miss
Giles's point in The Gift. The reason why Buffy can't kill
Ben isn't because she's a weak impractical girl but because she's
the hero. She can't be tainted with such an action because it
robs her of her moral authority, and because she's so powerful
that if she became morally corroded she'd become such a threat
to the world. And you spectacularly miss the point in Two to
go/Grave that Giles and Xander save the world in a way that
is traditionally coded as feminine - not by kicking Willow's ass
but by reviving her connection to humanity - using their physical
weakness to appeal to her better side.
9) A genuine misstep in S6 which a great many people have a problem
with. The concept of magic as physically addictive did pathologise
it in a way that came across as reactionary and as punishing feminine
power. My personal theory is that it was seen as an excuse not
to make Willow so morally dark as to lose fan sympathy, but ME
seem to have seen the problems in S7 and to be retconning the
issue as Willow's problem rather than a general problem with magic
- which they should have made clear right from the start.
10) Vampires and demons, as I see it, are killed simply because
there is no alternative - mundane justice refuses to recognise
their existence and Buffy simply doesn't have the resources to
start an Alcatraz for vamps. Even though BtVS is more cut-and-dried
than AtS about demons being evil Buffy still only kills demons
if they seem to be actively threatening people - she isn't hunting
down every last one of them. The protrayal of Faith makes it clear
that hunting evil for the sake of the hunt is to be seen as wrong
and morally corrosive to the hunter. In many ways you make the
same point at (15) in a way that is rather more fruitful to discuss.
11) This is a problem inherent to the action genre. Yes, killing,
arson, violence in general are morally wrong, but if characters
in the Buffyverse took pacifism to an extreme they'd all be seriously
anaemic. The vast majority of people consider violence in self-defense
to be acceptable. And the specific incident that I suspect you're
talking about - the torching of the vamp brothel in Into the
Woods - was explicitly framed to suugest that Buffy was dangerously
out of control. Just because there's no explicit punishment for
a character's actions doesn't neccessarily mean the audience should
approve of them.
12) Yes, that's Buffy's failure. And the torture of Oz in New
Moon Rising hammers it home to her, and the audience's, edification.
13) Yes, Dawn is important to Buffy. But that's because they have
no other family left to turn to. And the other Scoobies are in
it with them as well. I don't think you can generalise that situation
to a general argument that childbearing is all a woman's good
for.
14) There are two key issues here - one specific and one general.
Buffy's relationship with Riley in the first half of S5 is a satiric,
role-reversal attack on male sexism. Buffy treats Riley in exactly
the same way that the stereotypical male action hero treats his
girlfriend - as the uncritical provider of nurturing and sex who
shouldn't worry his pretty head about the important stuff. Riley
isn't happy about it, but no human being should be. Does it mean
she should have become the submissive little housewife? No, it
means she should have tried to have an equal relationship with
him instead of apeing the worst stereotypical aspects of the male
sex.
As far as the general issue goes - BtVS does have a heightened
tendency to angst, but as I think SK has recently strongly reminded
us, it's a horror show. BtVS does take sex seriously, casual sex
is always shown as destructive, but the key speech here is Angel(us)'s
speech in Passion. Sex can be dangerous, wounding and destructive,
but it can also be the thing that makes us most human and most
connected to others. You still have to take the risk.
15) Yes, most vampires and demons can't be redeemed. But on the
other hand it's often stressed that you shouldn't kill humans
out of hand because they have to be seen as potentially redeemable.
Creating demons and vampires who are inherently evil is a storyteller's
manouevre to allow you to explore all sorts of metaphors about
the inner demons of humanity - but the redeemability of humans
is always stressed to argue that you shouldn't apply such attitudes
to human deviants in the real world.
Typical, I write an essay to get more AtS stuff on the board so
Masq and yab don't die of boredom and end up writing a massive
screed on BtVS. Guess we really are all doomed :-)
[> [> [> Angel and
economics - Cities and Corruption -- Rahael, 06:55:54 12/16/02
Mon
An excellent response KdS - I was tempted simply to invoke Godwin's
Law and move on!
I think you are right that money is shown as a corrupting influence
in Angel in a way that it isn't in Buffy, and here, I'm going
to answer that question purely focussing on Angel.
I think it's important that Angel is set in an urban setting,
and explores a very traditional theme, that of urban life and
corruption. This is a concern in Western literature ever since
cities became populous enough to throw up new and frightening
social problems.
So I think Angel has a unique perspective on the issue of money
because of its form, that of the sophisticated noir thriller.
One theme that was supposedly to be explored by Angel Season 1
and wasn't, was a theme of Vampirism and drug addiction, that
Angel's craving for blood would become total, and addictive. Angel
is no innocent like 'Tom Jones' (I'm not referring to the singer!!),
but he too faces the tempations of the big bad city - the girls,
the drugs, the money. The people he hangs out with are in the
outer fringes of LA's economic society, and it is clear in City
Of, that people are disposable. It reminds me of that wonderful
scene in The Great Gatsby, where the empty orange rinds are a
metaphor for all the beautiful people sucked dry. Of the wasteland
in Gatsby (I will show you fear in a handful of dust).
So I think there are frequent reminders that innocence is being
corrupted in LA in a way which is foreign to Sunnydale - evil
has taken on new forms. Vampires can hide themselves among the
powerful, because in this setting, it is acceptable to view human
beings as nothing more than bodies to be used, whether they are
drunk dry, or made penniless, or made to sleep with you for advancement.
More on this later, - this is a very rich topic that you've started.
[> [> [> Re: OK...
(long) -- bl, 07:45:29 12/16/02 Mon
True that left and right seem to be more and more ambiguous but
these are attitudes common among right wing people I know...like:
Government Bad but Military Good.
Government helping people bad. Family helping people bad but necessary.
"Life Serial" - it's essentially Buffy's problems
that stop her from managing the jobs. Remember that at the end
she says she was already bored stiff at the magic box before Jonathan's
spell. The guys can offer her jobs but no job can fix what's really
wrong with her
Very true but it is the guys who offer her jobs and money,
practical help for the real world. Buffy is the hero when it comes
to vampires and demons but not when it comes to money and plumbers.
There she's almost totally defeated.
You similarly completely miss Giles's point in The Gift. The
reason why Buffy can't kill Ben isn't because she's a weak impractical
girl but because she's the hero.
I agree that's the text. But from a right wing point of view I
see the subtext as girls can't do the nasty, morally difficult
jobs. (Which I don't think should be done.)
you spectacularly miss the point in Two to go/Grave that Giles
and Xander save the world in a way that is traditionally coded
as feminine - not by kicking Willow's ass but by reviving her
connection to humanity - using their physical weakness to appeal
to her better side.
Yes I see that is the text. But Buffy coudln't save the world
this time. This time the guys saved the world while she's fighting
down in some hole. And they save it by what? The force of their
personalities?
This is a problem inherent to the action genre. Yes, killing,
arson, violence in general are morally wrong, but if characters
in the Buffyverse took pacifism to an extreme they'd all be seriously
anaemic.
Yet Star Trek had a lot of action but still managed for the heroes
to remain true to ...well, I guess, a kind of generic liberalism.
Off hand I can't remember them doing anything shameful or wrong
despite the action. Take them captive, make them slaves, and instead
of killing everyone they change the society. Buffy changes nothing.
She kills. One villain at time. (Damn, I miss Star Trek and that
whole mindset.)
Yes, most vampires and demons can't be redeemed. ... Creating
demons and vampires who are inherently evil is a storyteller's
manouevre to allow you to explore all sorts of metaphors about
the inner demons of humanity .
This is the element I am most troubled by in the Buffyverse. That
Joss created a group of sentient creatures that cannot be redeemed
and therefore anything can be done to them. It reminds me too
much of the demonization of various ethnic or religious groups
throughout history who were viewed pretty much as vampires are
presented in the Buffyverse. I find this metaphor very disturbing.
As a leftie, abet an ignorant one. I want to believe that everyone
can be helped, can be changed, everyone can be saved. That no
group and very few individuals are evil. But in the Buffyverse
they are and that is what I find most troubling about it. As much
as I love it, and I do, I hate that.
[> [> [> [> Re:
OK... (long) -- Sophist, 10:27:22 12/16/02 Mon
KdS made great points in response to your first post. I agree
that you're reading the wrong messages into many of the scenes
you mention.
Government Bad but Military Good
I can't imagine drawing this lesson from S4; the whole point of
that storyline was to criticize the military approach. You might
see this view in AYW, but even that's ambiguous, and in any event
it's only one episode.
Government helping people bad. Family helping people bad but
necessary.
I'm not sure what episodes you have in mind here. Nor is it entirely
consistent with your first point (if the military helps people,
is that good or bad, liberal or conservative?). Buffy does have
an anti-authoritarian view. That doesn't make it conservative;
lots of left-wing philosophies share that attitude.
Buffy is the hero when it comes to vampires and demons but
not when it comes to money and plumbers. There she's almost totally
defeated.
The only way to avoid this is to make Buffy perfect at everything.
That would hardly work. What we see instead is that the group
provides for each member's needs by cooperating according to their
abilities (is that a clear enough left-wing reference?). Buffy
stands out as the hero; giving her Xander's job would not add
to that.
Buffy changes nothing. She kills. One villain at time.
This is wrong in 2 ways. First, Buffy does something more important
than changing "things". She changes people. She changed
Willow, Xander, Cordy, Angel, and Spike (at least). Second, she
changes the world by saving it. She preserves the possibilities
for everyone.
This is the element I am most troubled by in the Buffyverse.
That Joss created a group of sentient creatures that cannot be
redeemed and therefore anything can be done to them. It reminds
me too much of the demonization of various ethnic or religious
groups throughout history who were viewed pretty much as vampires
are presented in the Buffyverse.
As I mentioned above in this thread, it is a huge mistake
to see the vampires and demons as societal "others"
in the same way that minority groups are. Rahael has posted on
this several times, and I urge you to find those in the archives.
In addition, remember that demons and vamps are metaphors for
individual, psychological issues faced by the characters. I don't
think it's very helpful to force a political reading onto this.
Stick with the psychology and you won't have that uncomfortable
feeling.
[> [> [> [> [>
Great points, Sophist and great post KdS. -- Caroline,
08:15:07 12/17/02 Tue
[> [> [> Re: OK...
(long) -- yabyumpan,
12:51:47 12/16/02 Mon
"Typical, I write an essay to get more AtS stuff on the board
so Masq and yab don't die of boredom and end up writing a massive
screed on BtVS. Guess we really are all doomed :-)"
Thanks KdS, appreciate it :-). Sorry I haven't responded to your
first post but i couldn't find anything to say apart from 'I agree'!
Not feeling too doomed, just getting myself ready for Jan 23rd.
Would you like to come round and watch BtVS and AtS on Sky with
myself and Rah? email me. (BtVS starts on 9th Jan)
[> [> [> [> I'll
miss the Angel season Premiere! -- Rahael, 05:37:11 12/17/02
Tue
If it's on Jan 23. I shall be packing. Yay!
[> [> Great response,
KdS -- slain, 15:22:41 12/16/02 Mon
Everyone has their issues which get them irate - mine is making
political or sociological analogies with BtVS (AtS is a very different
matter, however). I do not like this absurd (and it is
absurd) idea that the show is a political allegory of America,
and that forces of good and evil in the show are representations
of socio-politcal forces in America. That's not the point. The
show is not about America - if it was, believe me, I'd have never
watched it in the first place. It's a universal story;
it's about the battle within ourselves between our good and bad
sides.
The show could be set anywhere, not just America; China, India,
any country in Africa. Don't get distracted by the surface; that's
the gloss. The depth of BtVS is not a crude allegory of race relations
in America, the way American government operates, capitalism,
or anything else specific to that country, and in an earlier post
I was wrong to suggest the the big bads are represenations of
any of these things (specifcally capitalism, the military, government).
They're not. The evils that Buffy fights, personal and literal
demons, are universal.
Feminism is the only single thread which runs through the show;
Buffy fights patriarchy as well as the fears of everyone, not
the battle of liberal socialism. Politics and BtVS do not go
together. Liberalism does not work with BtVS, because vampires
are not sentient beings, they're metaphorical representations
(and when they are more than metaphors, as with Angel, Spike,
Harmony and Dru, they aren't treated with the same broad moral
stokes). Good and evil, while not clearly defined, are literal
forces. In the real world someone cannot be born bad, but in the
Buffyverse they can. I'm sorry for people who can't see the metaphor
in the show, and can only see a white girl killing a man who looks
different to her. That's not what the show is about.
Okay, so I diverged there a little.
[> [> [> Bring your
own subtext -- Rahael, 06:08:00 12/17/02 Tue
I completely agree Slain, just one minor point
Are people born bad in BtVS?
We've seen people become better human beings (Jonathan, Giles,
Anya etc) and we've seen people fail (Willow, Buffy, Amy etc),
but is anyone literally born bad? Was Warren? Professor Walsh?
I think that in this case, BtVS and AtS are at one - evil lives
in the human heart. So does the impulse to do better. If darkness
does not reside within all of us, and if we are not all capable
of it, what do the demons represent? Those demons are not exclusively
those of Buffy Summers. They are the demons that haunt Sunnydale.
Look like members of Sunnydale. Used to be citizens of Sunnydale
.
Anyway, Buffy works so well because it is about the personal,
the psychological, the universal. Though it is context specific,
because so many of the references are based on Western cultural
traditions, that's only its vocabulary. What it expresses using
that vocabulary, that speaks to many of us.
The idea of demons that haunt our imagination, that are coded
to represent violence and subversion - you know, it's not the
preserve of Western society!! Why does every society have stories
about malevolent and sentient creatures which threaten destruction?
During certain historical moments, there are flashpoints when
certain groups get this fear laid upon them. But the unease isn't
sparked by them. The unease lies within us, but that's too scary,
too painful. So we take it outside ourselves, and we project.
BtVS points out to us that we have these fears. They point us
toward a way of thinking about and resolving them. I keep going
back to Normal Again. The girl who attempts to deal with all that
stuff inside her by creating this rich world. Since Sunnydale
is literally inside Buffy Anne Summers, everyone who lives there
is a part of her.
Sometimes there's a danger of assuming that whiteness and the
Western world is the default normality, and that's not true for
everyone on this board!!! Sometimes I want to point out that while
I feel 'other' in Western society, most of the time I feel pretty
normal, and the whole of Western society feels strange, and other
and not normal. One of the reasons Buffy works so so well for
me.
[> [> [> [> Great
post -- Sophist, 08:43:24 12/17/02 Tue
I especially love this:
Buffy works so well because it is about the personal, the psychological,
the universal. Though it is context specific, because so many
of the references are based on Western cultural traditions, that's
only its vocabulary. What it expresses using that vocabulary,
that speaks to many of us.
[> Re: i always thought
that angel was pretty conservative -- 110v3w1110w, 09:54:24
12/16/02 Mon
in so far as you have lawyers using the legal system to protect
bad people who would use that protection to destroy the very society
that gives it to them if you replaced vampire with terrorist you
would have liberal "human rights" lawyers. even is angel
is leftist as a conservative (although i have been called a neo
conservative but i don't know what that is supposed to mean) i
don't mind better then put it in TV shows than in government and
seeing as fantasy is the only place socialism works its the best
place for it
[> Fantastic! -- Haecceity,
22:05:25 12/16/02 Mon
I wish I could respond in a suitable manner, but having seen Angel
only over this season (confused by everything, yep) and knowing
little to nothing about Dialectic Materialism (Dialectic Montage,
I can do) I'd hate to shoot off my big mouth. Just wanted to thank
you for the lovely LAT post and for providing a huge heaping helping
of food for thought.
---Haecceity
Off to order AtS Season 1 and read more books
Something
important Wesley told us (spoilers BtVS 7.9, AtS 4.1) -- Ixchel,
14:45:02 12/16/02 Mon
This has probably been thoroughly discussed and I missed it, but...
I'm one of those who believe that the ubervamp that the FE released
in NLM is the first vampire (the first human "infected"
by the demon).
So it has probably been under that seal for a very long time.
(Side question, who put it there? Powerful shamans/witches? Whoever
created the first Slayer?)
So does the information that Wesley provides in DD give us hints
regarding this vampire?
Wesley: "A vampire can exist indefinitely without feeding,
but the damage to the higher brain functions from prolonged starvation
can be catastrophic." (Psyche's Transcripts)
So, I'm guessing that the ubervamp will be incredibly powerful
(once it has fed), but probably have have very little in the way
of intelligence?
I've been thinking about this since NLM and I was wondering if
anyone else thought the same. I would have posted sooner, only
I haven't had time for more than lurking for quite awhile.
Ixchel
[> Ixchel, it's great to
see you. We miss you. -- Sophist, 16:25:28 12/16/02 Mon
Sounds plausible to me. But answer me this: what was the First
Slayer doing if not staking the first vamp?
[> [> Re: Ixchel, it's
great to see you. We miss you. -- slain, 16:35:34 12/16/02
Mon
My understanding was that the Slayer was created after the vampire
plague got up momentum - so she probably never met the First Vampire,
and only slayed his descendants. But that's conjecture - maybe
the First Vampire was slain by the First Slayer but, like the
Master almost was, it could have been resurrected. So maybe the
creature hasn't been down there all along, but rather has recently
been remade. I think I like the first theory better - the vampire
is the First Slayer's nemesis who she never faced - or, perhaps,
who killed her?
Or maybe it's just the Master with a bit of a skin problem.
[> [> [> Re: Ixchel,
it's great to see you. We miss you. -- Juliet, 17:37:29
12/16/02 Mon
All that time in the depths of hell can't be good for your complexion.
[> We did miss you! I kept
looking out for your name. WB -- Rahael, 05:38:30 12/17/02
Tue
[> Sophist, slain, Juliet
and Rahael -- Ixchel, 15:48:47 12/17/02 Tue
Sophist and Rahael, you're both very kind. I've been lurking heavily,
but any comment I want to make seems like a nebulous mess in my
brain that I'm sure wouldn't make much sense. I've also been watching
S2 on DVD with my recent convert BtVS/AtS watching companion in
every spare moment. (This is _so_ much fun and in fact, I think
I should post about the merits of the much maligned Bad Eggs,
which my friend greatly enjoyed.) Thanks so much for remembering
me. :)
Sophist and slain, I believe my ideas were along the lines of
slain's. That the First Slayer was created some time after the
First Vampire had been contained beneath the seal by shamans/witches/proto-watchers,
maybe because it was impossible to kill? Or, perhaps, the FV was
so powerful (through direct contact with the vampire-demon or
age?) that it inevitably killed any Slayer that tried to kill
it, starting with the FS? slain's second theory is interesting
though, who would have resurrected the FV only to cage it beneath
a seal and why (the First Evil, perhaps)? Maybe as a reserve weapon
(assuming that's how the FE will use it)?
slain and Juliet, hmmm, a new profession might be in the works
here, vampire dermatologist? ;)
Thanks to everyone for responding.
Ixchel
[> [> Nebulous messes
-- Rahael, 16:36:31 12/18/02 Wed
But that never stopped me from posting! hehe
Oh, and Bad Eggs has that wonderful moment when we find out that
Xander has boiled his egg, just to make sure it won't break.
Angelus -
self-destructive? -- yabyumpan, 23:59:17 12/16/02 Mon
This was partly set off by Erin's post below about Warren and
how the Judge couldn't burn Angelus because he was truely evil.
Ok, this is something that's actually been bugging me since 'Becoming
1/2' first aired. (was it really nearly 5 years ago?!) Angelus
wanted to summon Acathla (sp) to suck the whole world into the
demon dimension, if I remember correctly. One of the reasons Spike
said he wanted to help Buffy defeat Angelus was because he liked
world full of
'happy meals on legs' i.e. humans. I would presume that if Angelus
had succeded then all of humanity would have died so no more 'happy
meals'. Wouldn't that mean that Vampires, including Angelus would
eventually starve to death, seeing as how their food source had
dried up? I've always been under the impression that Vampires
can't/don't feed off other demons.
I got the immpresion in 'Becomming' that Angelus was so disgusted
at being made to feel love and remembering that feeling that the
whole thing with Acathla was sort of like a Kamakzie mission.
He was going to make them all pay even if it meant destroying
himself. From what we've seen of Angelus since, before he got
his soul he was never one for the whole destroying the world thing,
infact, he seemed to enjoy living among humans and interacting
with them, as well as torturing and eating them of course.
So was Angelus's sucking the world into hell via Acathla less
about actually being evil and more about self-loathing for the
Vamp he'd become with a soul and the love that he'd felt? I'm
not suggesting that the act itself wasn't evil rather that the
motivation may have been something more human.
Ya me! after 41/2 years, I actually get to discuss this! (well
if anyone feels like joining in of course) ;-)
[> or just a plot device..
-- Helen, 02:59:06 12/17/02 Tue
to finally give the Buffster the push she needed to "kill"
him. You can't push an apocalypse under the emotional carpet -
she had to try and stop it no matter who was trying to cause it,
even if she harboured hopes that that person could be redeemed
(pretty much the situation with Willow in 6.22).
But to be less of a TV watcher and enter into the spirit of the
thing, I think its Spike that is the unusual one. Giles said in
a very early episode that the vampires were waiting, biding their
time until the old ones return. End of the world would pretty
much be Homecoming for most vamops and demons (since it would
be the end of our human world, not the end of all worlds), but
Spike retains too many human traits to be interested in that.
Some time ago someone posted that Spike's otherness from most
demons and vamps could be attributed to the fact that he was vamped
by a crazy, someone who Angelus probably shouldn't have vamped.
Makes sense to me.
[> Angelus - not necessarily
seeing the big picture -- Sara, 07:41:09 12/17/02 Tue
I really like the idea that Angelus decided to destroy the world
because he was motivated by self-loathing. That makes alot of
sense. (Why am I so fascinated by self-loathing, hmmm, best not
to go there...) It really rings true that underneath the in-control,
nothing every bothers me 'cause I'm so evil, facade that
there would be real anger, even fury at his fighting for the good
guys, and falling in love. Angelus isn't the most analytical person
in the best of times, I expect he wasn't really considering all
the ramifications of an apocolypse. Even angry, I think Angelus
likes being undead, enjoys his unlife and would not purposefully
end it. My picture of what the success of waking Acathla up would
look like this: "Isn't this cool! Look at all the people
sucked into the hell dimension! Uh, look at all the people
sucked into the hell dimension...maybe I didn't think things through."
Makes me wonder just how pissed off the demon became after Angel
got his soul back the second time. Could that rage resulting from
the demon getting repressed a second time be part of the reason
Darla was able to drive Angel to the dark side even while he retained
his soul? Is staying good harder for Angel now?
[> [> Re: Angelus - not
necessarily seeing the big picture -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:15:06
12/17/02 Tue
Actually, Acathla was supposed to torture humanity for all eternity.
For a sadist like Angel, that's heaven.
[> [> I love your ideas
about this, Sara! -- Rob, 10:58:16 12/17/02 Tue
Buffy the
Vampire. -- Sara, 08:19:17 12/17/02 Tue
Vacation day, such a lovely thing! I should be doing laundry,
or perhaps dishes, or even making cookies, but here I am lounging
by the computer, immersing myself in the board. Nothing like a
day off, yea! Anyway, (stretch, yawn) enough happy digression,
I actually have something I've been rolling around in my head
this morning. What kind of vampire would Buffy make?
My theory is that she would be a very businesslike vamp, less
about the evil and more about getting the job done, which by the
way, would be the evil. I think she would vamp Willow and Xander
as quick as she could, because even as a vampire I think she would
be very connected to her friends. I'm not so sure whether she
would vamp Giles or just kill him, I'm kind of going back and
forth on that. I also think she would be happier as a vamp, not
missing all the greys and subtleties of her world, liking the
clarity of the vampire perspective, and able to relax and not
feel the weight of the world on her shoulders. I do find the vamp
lifestyle to have some attractive features. So how do the rest
of you imagine Buffy the Vampire?
-Sara, wondering if she wants cookies for lunch or chocolate,
or how about chocolate cookies...
[> Hey, doesn't anyone want
to come out and play? -- Sara, all alone in the sandbox! (Not
talking about Spike), 10:42:38 12/17/02 Tue
[> Re: Buffy the Vampire.
-- Rob, 10:54:12 12/17/02 Tue
I think she'd finally be able to fully enjoy herself, as you said,
without that pesky world-weight on her shoulders. I could picture
her with frizzy hair, red lipstick, and some black, tight outfit
that accentuates her breasts, going out for a night on the town,
the happiest, carefreest vamp in the world. I think she'd probably
vamp all of her friends, Giles included, I think. Her evil vampiness
would enjoy the irony that a Vamped Slayer had sired her Watcher.
And how cool would Giles the Vampire be?!?
Rob
[> Buffet, the Vampire
-- LittleBit, sure I'll come and play!, 12:10:08 12/17/02 Tue
Buffy, as Buffet the Vampire, might well make one of the most
formidable vamps in many, many millenia. She's honed her hunting
skills; they'd just be turned to finding fast food, which we all
know she could catch. ;-) She would also have a better understanding
of the training and skills of the Slayer than any other vamp in
history, all the while bringing that training and skill with her.
I agree that she would as quickly as possible sire the Scooby
Gang; as a vamp she'd still want her loyal minions, errr... friends,
around her. I think she would sire Giles because she understands
the value of wisdom and knowledge. Who better to help her be the
one to fulfill or forestall prophecies? I also think this includes
vamping Dawn, which opens lots of possibilities regarding a vamped
Key.
Buffet would also set about, in a very business-like manner establishing
that at least in her town vamps are not at the bottom of the demonic
food chain. I see the campaign against the other demons as continuing
... only not to fight their evil, but to establish the new pecking
order. I think she would be selective in choosing who is sired
and who is simply killed (personally thinking that Wood would
make a great vamp with the panache of Trick, and with a sense
of humor). It's possible she may even be able to bring Ethan into
the group, since he would be sure to want to see Giles as a vamp
with his own eyes. [oooo... chills!]
Not exactly sure where ... ummmmm ... souled vamps would fit into
this scenario, except to note that the irony of the reversal would
not be lost on either Buffet or ... ahh ... any souled vamps who
may be around.
Besides, the confrontation of slayer-vampire (Buffy) and vampire-slayer
(Faith) would just be too cool for words.
[> What about Dawn?
-- Tchaikovsky, 12:17:55 12/17/02 Tue
He-who-shall-not-be-named has shown that there are occasions upon
which vampires, under certain conditioning, can make decisions
not entirely motivated by evil.
Buffy's true, biggest and most eternal love is for her sister,
[OK, yes that is baiting]. So were Buffy to become a vampire,
would she have enough of a vestige of interest in her former motives
to leave Dawn to lead a normal life? I certainly think she would
be extremely dangerous as a vampire, as (unlike in 'Helpless',
with muscle relaxants) she would still have all the years of 'physical
memories' of fighting, even if the Slayer Power invested in her
was somehow torn away. Of course, many people on this board and
beyond have argued that this essence of Slayerdom dissipated after
Buffy was killed by the Master. In which case, she would keep
all her superstrength, and would hypothetically also be strengthened
by the demon infection. It really would be interesting to consider
just how dangerous a vamped Slayer could be. Puzzlingly, although
the mythos contains plenty of examples of Slayers killed by vampires,
none have been referenced as being turned. This would be an interesting
facet to explore.
Buffy the Vampire would be ruthless, powerful, tactically aware
and startlingly good at getting people to help her. A dangerous
proposition.
Incidentally, I was watching television with my 8-year-old brother
today, and stumbled across the quite benign 'Mona the Vampire'.
Funny what different interpretations of legend can do. I kept
calling out to all her friends to stake her, much to Paul's bemusement.
It appears she's a good guy. 'A vampire with a soul? How lame'.
TCH- dipping toes in the murky waters of speculation
[> [> I'm thinking Gunn
and Alonna. -- HonorH, 15:08:15 12/17/02 Tue
Alonna didn't lose her love for her brother upon becoming a vampire--she
saw her desire to vamp him as a continuation of it. Vamping him
would make him stronger. It would make him the predator, not the
prey. They wouldn't have to worry about eating or getting killed
anymore.
I think Buffy would be the same with Dawn, were she vamped. Remove
the conscience, and what do you have? Someone strong, immortal,
not easy to hurt *or* kill, and the sisters would be together
forever--literally. Buffy the vampire wouldn't just sit back and
watch her sister age and die. Nope. Dawn would become a vampire
as soon as Buffy could swing it, IMHO.
(Totally agree with you on Dawn being Buffy's greatest love, btw.)
wondering about Anya...(some spoilers) --
Mystery, 11:57:03 12/17/02 Tue
Im "Him" we see Buffy fighting off a demon that D'Hoffryn
has sent after Anya. My wondering begins with this: Has Anya had
any problems with hit demons since she was pulled back into the
Scooby Gang?
If she hasn't, it leads me to believe in this theory: D'Hoffyrn
doesn't want Anya dead.
I know that when all is said and done: D'Hoffryn is a big bad
vengence demon. But Vengence Demons, while they do take great
pride in the grusome parts of their job, they do believe that
they are bringers of justice, set to avenge/balance wrongs. Sending
Hit Demons after Anya is petty, it doesn't balance anything, and
it especially doesn't make sense when you remember that he had
gone for the pain instead of the kill with Anya.
D'Hoffryn has always taken a fatherly route with Anya. When she
first lost her powers, he refused to return them, made her live
as a teenager. He was at her wedding
(quote from Psyche)
D'HOFFRYN: I'm worried about Anya.
HALFREK: (bitterly) Oh, sure. Of course you are.
D'HOFFRYN: Oh, Halfrek. (leans forward and puts hands on her shoulder)
You know I love all my demons equally.
this shows he does still feel concern about Anya, he even considers
her one of his demons still. At the end of "Hell's Bells"
he offers to bring her back into the fold, something she begged
of him before, but she refused. In "Selfless," he's
the only one who actually wonders what Anya wanted. I'll have
to watch the episode again to see how he reacted to her request.
It would have been easiest to kill her then, instead he took Hallie.
he went for the pain. He then warns them all "From Beneath
You, it devours" before fading off.
And then he sends hit-demons after her. Rather easy to defeat
hit-demons it seems...
So why?
I think that D'Hoffryn staged the assassination attempts to push
Anya back in with the Scoobies. If he had wanted her dead he could
have killed her instead of Hallie. But he didn't. I think that
of all his vengence demons, Anya was his little girl, his protogee,
his pride and joy. Maybe I'm romantising him a bit, BUT perhaps
he saw how Anya was taking being a vengence demon too seriously.
All the other Vengence demons had vacations, took breaks, still
enjoyed life, still enjoyed the new parts of the world they had
access too. D'Hoffryn also knew when to take breaks, as shown
when he admonishes Hallie for trying to work at the wedding. So
when Anya lost her power, he could have easily returned it: he
did in Hell's Bells. There certainly didn't seem to be any rule
stopping him then, but why before? Perhaps this was the only way
he could get Anya to take a break. Kind of like a forced Sabbatical.
Perhaps he planned to let her stew for a few years, maybe enjoy
the second chance at childhood/teenagedom, then after she was
"rested" he'd let her back. I don't think he counted
on her falling for Xander. Even so, I think he was pleasantly
surprised. The biggest proponant of "Men are Evil" found
a mate that wasn't a knob like Olaf, her first love. D'Hoffryn
seemed happy to be at the wedding, even though he was still a
touch "realistic" he still gave a blessing of Hymen.
Even in "Selfless" he seemed to have an approval-respect
of Xander's love for Anya.
I think ultimately, D'Hoffryn wants to see Anya have a happy life.
He offered the Vengence demon position back to her as a way to
comfort her, after all it helped her with Olaf. He could have
killed her in "Selfless," but he didn't. D'Hoffryn wants
Anya to LIVE. But with the First Evil rising, and an Apocalypse
pending, Anya wouldn't be safe, once again human plus now alone.
He saw how Xander would risk him life for Anya, he saw how Willow
cared for Anya, he saw how Buffy would defend those who needed.
He wanted Anya back in with the Scoobies, so she was safer than
most humans (because despite the fact that they always seem to
be the ones fighting against apocalypses, they always make it
through alive and are less likely to be random casualities of
demons and vampires). So that's why he sent the hit-demons, so
Buffy would bring Anya back in the fold and defend her against
"That horrible ex-boss, D'Hoffyrn."
I know that's kind of a rosy picture of D'Hoffryn, but I like
the character. I don't see him as Evil, just someone who enjoys
his job. :-D
"Oh, breathtaking. Itís like somebody slaughtered
an Abercrombie and Fitch catalog." -D'Hoffryn, "Selfless"
(quote from Psyche)
[> Anya as high-class hooker
(Selfless spoilers) -- Darby, 13:59:19 12/17/02 Tue
It seemed like the writers were throwing some fairly stereotypical
pimp references around D'Hoffryn - the late 70's - early 80's
independent-movie-pimps, who were flawed but who showed affection
to their "girls," who seemed to care about them but
could become violent when challenged. The pimp as Bad Boyfriend
/ Entrepreneur.
But D'Hoffryn is pimping the very Best and the Brightest, from
a large pool of potentials, so much that he can be choosy (or
be okay being turned down, as he was with Willow). I don't know
that the imagery works, really, but it's definitely there.
[> Re: wondering about Anya...(some
spoilers) -- Sara, voting against the hubby on this one, 14:07:27
12/17/02 Tue
I really like your interpretation better than Darbys' but I can't
work D'Hoffryn's killing of Hallie in with the theory. But it
does make the demon assination attempt make more sense, so unfortunately
(I really like the character too, and refuse to acknowledge the
obvious pimp references that do seem to be there - putting fingers
in my ears singing "LA LA LA" now) D'Hoffryn may be
playing a deeper game than just protecting Anya. I don't know
what his ultimate goal will show up as, but I really like the
manipulating Anya and the Scoobies idea.
winston would be proud (7.10 spoilers)
-- 110v3w1110w, 17:31:43 12/17/02 Tue
the situation they are in and buffys speech reminded me of the
situation britain was in on may 13st 1940 and the speech churchill
gave to the house of commons especialy the part i am posting.
we had been battered and beaten there was little hope and we were
not even sure we could win and yet the responsibility rested with
us and we could not reject it there was every probablity we would
lose but there was no option but to fight because that is what
good people do. well here is the speech:-
I say to the House as I said to ministers who have joined this
government, I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and
sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind.
We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering.
You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land,
sea, and air. War with all our might and with all the strength
God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny
never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human
crime. That is our policy.
You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory.
Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terrors - Victory,
however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there
is no survival.
Let that be realized. No survival for the British Empire, no survival
for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for
the urge, the impulse of the ages, that mankind shall move forward
toward his goal.
I take up my task in buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause
will not be suffered to fail among men. I feel entitled at this
juncture, at this time, to claim the aid of all and to say, "Come
then, let us go forward together with our united strength."
[> Re: winston would be
proud (7.10 spoilers) -- luna, 18:03:55 12/17/02 Tue
Or, as He Who Cannot Be Named said recently, "Once more into
the breach."
[> winston was realistic
(6.4.40 WSC spoilers) -- Fred the obvious pseudonym, 18:41:31
12/17/02 Tue
And, on June 4, 1940, Churchill delivered his famous ". .
. whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we
shall fight on the landing grounds,we shall fight in the fields
and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never
surrender . . ."
According to House of Commons legend, when he sat down after those
stirring words, he muttered, "And we'll fight them with broken
bottles, because that's all we have."
[> [> Re: winston was
realistic (6.4.40 WSC spoilers) -- 110v3w1110w, 18:53:04
12/17/02 Tue
i think there was also a french opt out clause
[> [> Something funny
I noticed in the AI Office - a picture of Churchill -- Rahael,
02:02:26 12/18/02 Wed
Am I delusional? I've been devouring AtS season 3 (Billy, Fredless,
what freaking great eps!), and isn't there a photo of Winston
Churchill behind the desk? What's all that about? Was this discussed
first time around?
[> [> [> Re: Something
funny I noticed in the AI Office - a picture of Churchill
-- yabyumpan, 07:24:44 12/18/02 Wed
Not delusional! It's particualy noticable in 'Offspring', behind
Wesley when he's decifering the prophecy. Maybe it's supposed
to correspond with 'stiff upper lip' wesley. Also, Churchill was
a war time leader. I guess in a war you need a leader who can
do unpalatable things. We also got rid of him when the war was
over, In peace times you need different things from your leaders.
Not quite sure how this corresponds to Wesley but I've just got
up and now have to scoot out the door, so this is just a drive-by
posting with my brain not fully in gear. ;-)
Current board
| More December 2002