January 2003 posts


Previous January 2003  

More January 2003

Angel as Bodhisattva -- lunasea, 09:46:09 01/27/03 Mon

There are enough Buddhist references when it comes to Angel that I think it is fairly safe to assume that they are there on purpose. Buddhists are all over Hollywood. It would take someone at least familiar with the religion to give him some of the epiphanies he has. Would a theist say there isn't a master plan and how to deal with that? Would a theist writer take such a Zen attitude about being a champion? Almost Taoist, but not quite. The clincher is where Angel goes to get over Buffy and where Angel decides to take his stand against Darla. He even lights a candle in front of a statue of the Buddha in "Judgment."

Buddhism seems to be something that helps Angel to center himself. When he comes back from Hell, he uses Tai Chi to help his recovery (and we get one of the most sensual scenes on BtVS) and he continues this on his own show. He goes to Tibet for his grief trip. I don't think that it is unlikely that after he leaves Darla in China that he goes to a monastary to find some sort of grounding. He learned Tai Chi somewhere. He doesn't go straight to the gutter, as we learn as his backstory is revealed.

I view Angel's journey as more than the typical Hero's journey that Campbell wrote about. He is on his way to being a Bodhisattva. It means "enlightened being." Here is a full defintion. A being who seeks buddhahood through the systematic practice of the perfect virtues (paramitas, which I will write about later, if anyone is interested) but renounces complete entry into nirvana until all beings are saved. The determing factor for his action is compassion, supported by highest insight and wisdom. A bodhisattva provides active help, is ready to take upon himself the suffering of other beings, and to transfer his own karmic merit to other beings.

We take a vow, but that is loaded with terminology and talks about the dharma, so to post it wouldn't say much. I would have to give a talk about the Dharma, and then I might sound preachy. If you are interested, I can recommend some web sites that offer brief intros.

Basically put, the core of the Bodhisattva Way is to generate compassion.

The definition of compassion is: wanting others to be free from suffering. So compassion is the definition of the highest scope of motivation. It is said that to generate genuine compassion, one needs to realise that oneself is suffering, that an end to suffering is possible, and that other beings similarly want to be free from suffering.

In "Reprise," Angel learns that life is suffering in that rather poignant moment when he learns where the Home Office is. Then with Darla in "Epiphany," he learns that an end to suffering is possile when he is saved. After that, he goes to Kate and helps her. Great progression.

Here are the three scopes:

To explain the different motivations of engaging in Buddhist practices, one can distinguish the three different scopes.

With the lowest scope of motivation, one realises the problems one can encounter in the next life, and is concerned about working to achieve a good rebirth. In fact, this is not even a spiritual goal, as it relates to worldly happiness for oneself.

With the medium scope of motivation, one realises that within cyclic existence there is no real happiness to be found, and one strives for personal liberation or Nirvana.

With the highest scope of motivation, one realises that all sentient beings are suffering within cyclic existence, and one strives to free all beings from suffering.

"Epiphany" leads Angel to this highest scope, which is what his epiphany is all about. At the end, Angel goes back to work for AI, which is symbolic of the change in scope he has made. He is now working not to be free or for himself, but for others. I love how they parallel what Kate is doing and with what Angel is doing. God I love that show. (pardon me if I say that a lot)

An aside, I love what they do with Kate. The theist that need to believe there is a higher power and a plan have an out with Angel not having to be invited in. What leads Angel to that highest scope strengthens Kate's faith. Great writing (and pardon me if I say that a lot, too)

That is the difference between a Buddha and a Bodhisattva, that highest scope. In Theravada Buddhism, the second is the highest scope (which may be where Spike is heading). Bodhisattva is a Mahayana addition (which Zen is a part of).

That is enough to start with. The classic work on the Bodhisattva Way is written by Shantideva and can be found on-line at http://www.buddhistinformation.com/a_guide_to_the_bodhisattva_way_o.htm

It is really long, so I really don't expect anyone to actually read the sucker.
[> Re: Angel as Bodhisattva -- Angela, 09:57:45 01/27/03 Mon

Thanks! And a belated welcome to the board :-)
[> Re: Angel as Bodhisattva - no! -- Caroline, 11:38:44 01/27/03 Mon

I'm not as up on Angel as I am on Buffy but from what I have seen, I doubt that the use of buddhist, tao or zen symbolism in Angel means that he has become a bodhisattva (enlightened being). The type of compassion or unlimited loving kindness (bodhicitta) that has to be developed is not the ordinary compassion that we have for those around us. Instead, it an an attitude or intent to remove suffering and increase happiness for all sentient beings. It is vast and limitless. I see Angel's compassion as the former. He certainly does try to help others. But he is not above harming sentient beings (didn't he lock up some lawyers at W&F with Darla and Drusilla?). If you look at the bodhisattva vows, you'll see many that Angel has transgressed with conscious intent. I'm not saying he's evil or a bad guy, he's just not a bodhisattva. In my view, both Angel and Spike are still sorting through the 84,000 attractions and repulsions that buddhism tells us there are to overcome (usually in many incarnations) before getting anywhere near to being enlightened beings. They are still living in the world of duality, they haven't yet transcended but they are trying to be mindful and aware.
[> [> Re: Angel as Bodhisattva--another angle -- luna (a different kind, but also welcoming lunasea), 12:13:19 01/27/03 Mon

Also it is my ignorant impression (and I really don't know much about this) that the Bodhisattva's compassion had to include wisdom, and the Bodhisattva had transcended ignorance, greed, and anger, but chose to remain in the cycle of rebirth until all other sentient beings are also enlightened. Looks like Angel is out of the rebirth loop right now...
[> [> [> The Paramitas -- lunasea, 12:43:20 01/27/03 Mon

Here is a full list of the Paramitas or Perfections of Character needed to attain full Buddhahood or Bodhisattva status:

Generosity
Virtue
Renunciation
Discernment
Energy/Persistance
Patience/Forbearanc
Truthfulness
Determination
Good Will
Equanimity

(Buddhism has lots of lists. It is designed to be easily remembered and transmitted orally)

The Jakarta Tales go into how the Buddha developed these in previous lives.

But in Zen, it isn't becoming a Buddha or Bodhisattva, it is realizing you already are one. Everyone has a Buddha-nature. Because of Ignorance we start the chain of dependent co-arising that leads to suffering.

I will elaborate on this when I do a post on what the First is a metaphor for.
[> [> Re: Angel as Bodhisattva - (spoilers 4.1)) -- lunasea, 12:27:30 01/27/03 Mon

If he was an actual Bodhisattva, the show would be pretty boring. Not sure how much fun Angel: The Legend Continues would be. It is in the same boat as BtVS. When either become fully enlightened beings, the show ends.

I said he is "on his way to becoming a Bodhisattva," not that he got there. Ephiphany got him to the right scope. That doesn't mean the work is done. I didn't even get into the paramitas and how the show has been taking him through them. He is a work in progress.

Here is Angel's mission statement, in a nutshell. From "Deep Down."

Nothing in the world is the way it ought to be. - It's harsh, and cruel. - But that's why there's us. Champions. It doesn't matter where we come from, what we've done or suffered, or even if we make a difference. We live as though the world was what it should be, to show it what it can be.

Now where does Angel fail? He doesn't quite understand Idappaccayata or this/that conditionality. He doesn't understand where Angelus comes from. This holds him back. He has to kill the demon within him in order to transcend to full Bodhisattva status.

(an aside, he locked up the lawyers, before "Epiphany.")

Won't even get into the platinum blond plot device on the other show. The only things that they have in common is that both are vampires, both love Buffy and both have souls.
[> [> [> But if he was a bodhisattva (or on his way there) -- Caroline, 12:39:47 01/27/03 Mon

he would realize that his perception of the world as harsh and cruel is an illusion - it is contingent on a whole bunch of things that are, at bottom, illusory. That means that Angel himself is not free from the bondage of illusion and therefore cannot free any other beings.

Perhaps a post on how they are taking Angel through the steps you mentioned would convince me otherwise. I am certainly willing to be proven wrong.
[> [> [> [> Re: But if he was a bodhisattva (or on his way there) -- lunasea, 12:59:05 01/27/03 Mon

but it isn't an illusion. It is the core of the Four Noble Truths, which are the core of Buddhism.

1. Duhkha: life sucks
2. How Duhkha arises: dependant co-arising
3. How to cease Duhkha: this/that conditionality
4. Path to cease Duhkha: Noble Eightfold Path

One thing that is hard to keep in mind with Buddhism is that you need a raft to cross the stream. It is so tempting to abandon that raft early, since you know you will eventually. Things like life is harsh and cruel are what makes up the raft.

Angel has seen that life sucks and that is it possible for it not to. He is at the very least attained "Stream Entry."

Another good one to compare Angel to is the 12 Steps of AA. He is modeled after a recovering alcoholic afterall. The 12th step is "Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to other alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs." Epiphany is that spiritual awakening.

He still has a way to go to understand himself though.
[> [> [> [> [> I think we need to get some terminology straight here.. -- Caroline, 14:25:22 01/27/03 Mon

because I think that we are talking at cross-purposes (And I'm not sure that I understand everything that you say). All strands of Buddhism acknowledge that the material plane (samsara) is a life of pleasure and pain. We wish to maximise the former and lessen the latter. However, if we continually try to minimize one part of this opposition and maximize the other, we are forever caught in a form of bondage. Pleasure and pain are inextricably mixed, two sides of one coin and thus if we continually seek happiness in samsara, we will always be disappointed because samsara if finite and transient and how can you find eternal happiness in something that if temporary? THis is the problem with dependent origination - everyone that we depend on for happiness and pleasure can pass away. What I am saying is that this material world is illusory, that a bodhisattva would recognize that this is so (and that the pain/pleasure associated with the material world are also illusory).

I also think that Angel needs to work on that non-attachment thing because so far this season, I'm seeing lots and lots of attachment.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think we need to get some terminology straight here.. -- shadowkat, 15:35:12 01/27/03 Mon

Know zip about Buddhism, except that I'm very confused by everything I've read so far, (not your fault - just dense) but I can comment on what has happened with Angel - both good and bad. To me Angel is like Sissyphus, constantly pushing the rock up the hill only to have it roll down again:

In Season 3 (way after epiphany: controversial acts of Angel which have been interpreted as evil, grey and/or forgivable by posters)

Angel tries to kill Weseley for stealing his son - Forgiving
Angel torture Linwood to get information, and gets it from the evil little totem at the top of W&F, to perform a spell to open a hell portal which unleashes evil parasites on the world
Angel lusts after Cordelia even if a moment of happiness could bring back Angelus
Angel cheats in Double or Nothing
Angel pushes aside helping others to find a relic to help Cordelia. He pushes aside helping others to find his son.
Angel only gets involved with Wes again to get info on Cordy
and the fact Wes helped him.
that's just a few...

OTOH

Angel helps Darla have Connor and tries to provide for him (even though providing - he gives into the temptation to give up his calling and do it for pay instead of for good, but his intention is for his son..still selfish)
Angel resists killing Holtz
Angel does allow Wes to help again
Angel doesn't kill Justine or Lilah or Linwood
Angel helps people he doesn't know but he also gets paid for it...so not sure this counts when compared to Buffy who doesn't get paid at all...hmmm maybe he isn't getting paid anymore? Confused.
Hmmm running out of selfless or good deeds.

It is only after 3 months at the bottom of the sea, having pretty nasty nightmares - that Angel comes to the realization quoted from Deep Down - a realization he seems to forget in later episodes, especially with Cordy and Connor and Wes. Angel is a bit of an either you're with me or against me type...and very much an absolutest - part of his problem - and what may lie behind the whole Angel/Angelus metaphor.

Angel is a very complex character. I don't see him as nearly as nice as lunasea seems to...even after Epiphany.
It is actually from my pov part of his appeal. Otherwise I'd be bored. But I don't see Buffy nearly as pure and bright and saintly as many posters do either - I see darkness in her character as well as light, so maybe we see what we want?

How this relates to the whole Buddhist journey thing? No clue. But if you're trying to figure out if Angel hasn't done some morally questionable things of late? He has. More than a few and some of the same calibre as he did before Epiphany.

But i think Masq's essays on this site probably do a better job of evaluating this than I have here. Check them out. ;-)

Final note - for dense people like myself who getting confused - what is meant by these words:

Boddhistva (sp? - can never remember how to spell it)
Buddha
Selfless - in Buddhist terms
chakras

Wondering particularly about selfish and selfless because I'm beginning to wonder if I'm interpreting these terms differently. To me a selfish act is one that is motivated by providing the actor with something they want. That can be money, love, respect, redemption, forgiveness, good will of others, peace, etc. While a selfless one doesn't give you anything you want - you get zip in return. This is different than giving someone a gift and having them say thanks - b/c hey you got something. But if you leave a gift on someone's doorstep, they never see you, never know you did it, you don't declare it on tax refunds, and don't get any rewards for it nor want any - selfless. By this definition - uhm, no one in either show has ever done a truly selfless act, because without exception they all got something in return that they wanted. Buffy - got heaven, peace, Dawn's life - by dying in the Gift, actually killing Dawn would have been harder i think. Dawn got a little less telling everyone that Amanda was the potential but...they did respect her for being honest - so not really selfless.
Is my definition too harsh?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> A Little Buddhism and Buffy. Spoilers BS3,5-6; AS2. -- Age, 23:31:45 01/27/03 Mon

A truly selfless act is one done by an agent who is no longer attached to the idea of having a self. The Buddha developed in a religious tradition that posited the existence of a separate abiding soul, the atman, which the Buddha came to see as an illusion, a belief, an idea.

The problem is language. It cuts the world up into pieces in order for symbolic representation, but if we take those pieces to be real, then we are under an illusion. In the zen tradition this insight is expressed by hitting the floor instead of trying to verbalize a truth about the world. In other words, if I say that a ball exists separate from me then I give the ball an illusory name and separate form; but if I deny the existence of the ball, then I fall into an equally opposite illusion of nothingness. In the case of the ball, bouncing it would be a sufficient recognition of it because I would neither deny its existence and nor be attached to the idea that it is a separate form. Everything is empty of self nature, but that doesn't mean that everything is nothing. It just means that there are no things. I am not a thing. But the idea of 'I' is based on the illusion that I am a thing.

In actual fact we can never act selfishly or unselfishly because there isn't and never will be a self. This is simply an idea to which we are attached because we think in terms of separate things. It is attachment to the illusion of a self which is the basis for suffering, and the reduction of suffering is the Buddha's aim.

This is all very well, but there's a heck of a lot of people attached to the idea of self and a heck of a lot of suffering. It's all very well to just dismiss the 'I' as an illusory attachment, but it's not terribly practical. For people who still think of themselves and the world as separate one needs a practical code of conduct, a morality to express what an enlightened person would do by virtue of not being attached to an 'I.' This is the eightfold path and the precepts, the means by which one modifies ones behaviour before having the insight which renders this code of conduct redundant. Practical too are the ideals of the Bodhisattvas who act as examples and encouragement. Whether the legendary bodhisattvas like Kwan Yin, the bodhisattva of compassion, truly exist or not, is a matter of religious debate, but they certainly serve a practical use for the fledgling practitioner who faces much personal work in the practice of zazen meditation.

As for Angel, back when he was on 'Buffy' there was, if I'm not mistaken, a statue of bodhisattva Kwan Yin in his apartment as a semi-permanent symbol of his journey. Also, in one of the season openers(S2?) of 'Angel' Angel killed a noble demon warrior who was a buddhist. This season opener illustrated how Angel's motivation for helping people had deteriorated into killing demons(as a way of trying to kill the demon aspect inside himself of which he was ashamed, as Buffy in her fifth season opener was hunting down and killing vampires not to help humanity but to try and assuage her fear of her own mortality ['Buffy' and 'Angel' are connected and have been on a weekly and arc level from the start.] Angel's killing demons was a way to rack up points(good deeds), and like Wolfram and Hart's practices, he was keeping business charts of his kills, in order to receive his shanshu. In that season opener Angel had to literally take the place of the noble demon buddhist in order to champion the cause of a pregnant woman and her unborn child. I believe it is towards the end of this season that Angel had his epiphany about just helping others without reward. (Note that Buffy had her epiphany at season's end in the same year when she and Dawn were one, and then Buffy becomes one with the world by saving it; note also that a semi-permanent symbol throughout the 'Buffy' fifth season is the prominent Buddha figure on the counter of the Magic Shop. Note also that when Dawn finds out she's the key, a Buddha figure is highlighted by Spike in the Magic Shop; not only this, but the Buddha figure is moved in season six, and is replaced by a figure of a Bodhisattva on a table that illustrates the main imagery of that season.)

But does this mean that Buddhism is being highlighted or is Whedon simply using the concepts like impermanence associated with this religion to further his themes about how life is hard and how we must grow and evolve? I would say that just like any imagery used, it is to further Whedon's thesis about each generation having the difficult task of growing up, shedding its infant ego, in order for the human race to continue to flourish and remain human. He acknowledges that we are human animals and that our power is rooted in aggression(which has become demonized as his metaphors suggest), but it's also rooted in nurturing. By using allusions to art and religion Whedon is making the very point that, even if we are simply animals destined to die like Joyce or April(whose death symbolically represented Joyce's death and therefore the question, is this all we are, just biological robots?) we have a consciousness and an awareness that sets us apart. If we don't acknowledge this, then we throw away a huge aspect of our birthright; we remain children or worse, animals, preying off those who still haven't given up on the difficult task of remaining human.

I think that Whedon is using this imagery to illustrate the point that at the very least, and this does NOT in any way exclude a religious interpretation, no matter what the truth about selflessness(Buddhism) or the virtue of selflessness(Christianity), the very practical and simple human truth is that we have to shed our infant ego and take on the task of keeping the human race going, or it won't continue(Buffy's two deaths mark the change first from child to teenager, and then teenager to young adult). The link, as in season five, in the human chain must not be severed. What anyone makes of human life after that in religious terms is up to them; I would think that Whedon has included the religious imagery in order to make that point. To exclude religious imagery would be to excise the very questions we all have about ourselves. Whedon's goal, I think, is for us to live up to our potential as human beings, and part of that is the wonderment and questioning that is the basis of religion and science. 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' is Whedon's example of living up to his potential; it is his human act, his hard work of remaining human.

Are Angel and Buffy bodhisattvas? Well, I don't know. I don't see either one of them practising zazen on a daily basis(although Buffy's nightly patrols could be interpreted metaphorically as a daily practice); nor have they been talking about dependent origination or dukkha or the illusion of the self(although the series tend to cut through oppositional thinking as does buddhism; still, the movement from strict oppositional thinking, the black and white world view, doesn't necessarily have to be religious, but can be explained within the context of growing up). But their attitudes, at times, as champions or heroes are bodhisattva-like in their desire to help others, especially as their callings involve so much danger and personal sacrifice.

Anyway, just a few thoughts to add to the discussion.

One last illustration of zen buddhist thought:

A poetry competition was held to see who would become the successor to one of the zen patriarchs. One monk wrote the following poem on the monastery wall symbolically representing the need to have a daily practice to not let the dust of illusion settle on ones mind:

The body is the Bodhi-tree,
The mind, a mirror bright,
Take care to wipe them always clean,
Lest dust on them alight.

Now, there was an illiterate monk who was the kitchen boy and when he heard of the competition, asked to be read the poem. On hearing it, he asked that his own be written up there for him next to the first. His poem was as follows:

The body is no Bodhi-tree,
The mind no mirror bright,
Since nothing at the root exists,
On what should dust alight?



Age.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> S2 Angel opener 'Judgement' with the Prio Motu demon. -- Rufus, 03:42:20 01/28/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> nice post -- manwitch, 03:44:24 01/28/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A Little bit zen a little bit... -- Angela, 04:51:45 01/28/03 Tue

Thank you for these thoughts, Age.
My only regret is the rarity of your visits.

The problem is language. It cuts the world up into pieces in order for symbolic representation, but if we take those pieces to be real, then we are under an illusion.

Do we create the language or does it create us? Given our medium here...I have some curiosity about the nature of the workings of our minds in terms of the breaking things into smaller and smaller pieces...

In the zen tradition this insight is expressed by hitting the floor instead of trying to verbalize a truth about the world.

I like this. :-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A Little bit zen a little bit... -- lunasea, 05:22:06 01/28/03 Tue

Doe we create the language or does it create us? Given our medium here... I have some curiosity about the nature of the workings of our minds in terms of the breaking things into smaller and smaller pieces...

I will attempt to describe the transition from Big Mind to Little Mind. When I meditate (and any action can be a meditation), I reach a state that is beyond all the illusions. The only way I have been able to describe it is I am a swinging door through which awareness passes through. If I start to observe things, I loose this state. There is no observer to observe things. If I try to get to this state, I cannot. There is no one to try to do things. That is "Big Mind."

This is a difficult state to maintain. Life tends to call me back to me. This is called our First Creation. Before we can create anything, we first have to create ourselves (I will elaborate on this when I talk about what the First represents). With this creation, I go back to "Little Mind." Little Mind is what cuts things into pieces.

What causes suffering is when we forget about First Creation. When I leave Big Mind, I remind myself of this. When I find myself attaching to something, I remind myself of this. When I find myself craving, I remind myself of this. When I find myself suffering, I remind myself of this. Then I am able to detatch, to not desire and I cease suffering.

We create that First Creation and from that language flows.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A Little Buddhism and Buffy. Spoilers BS3,5-6; AS2. -- lunasea, 05:05:14 01/28/03 Tue

Glad I didn't have to say that. You did a wonderful idea of explaining some pretty difficult concepts. I just like to bounce the ball. It is hard to talk to people who like to describe it sometimes.

The thing with the Buddhist symbols throughout the show, how many people even pick up on it? I love to see where Kwan-Yin appears in a scene. It isn't just that she is in Angel's apartment (actually that statue was one of the first things that made me wonder about the Buddhist roots of the show), but in S3 Sarah and David are blocked so that their placement around her says something about Buffy's compassion. Compare her placement in Angel's apartment S2 and in the mansion S3 and it says even more about Angel's journey.

How many people would even realize this is being done? We aren't talking a well-known figure. In S6 when Tara is showing Buffy the art book and it opens to a picture of Bernini's "Ecstacy of St. Teresa," that is a more common reference. Even the Buddha on the counter at the Magic Box is pretty common. Kwan Yin is gaining in popularity, amoungst Western Buddhists. It is a pretty obscure symbol to choose.

I am glad that we are all having this discussion. It has helped me crystalize something I have been working out. Gotta love that Transcendent Function.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think we need to get some terminology straight here.. -- lunasea, 19:00:54 01/27/03 Mon

Miracles starts in 2 minutes, so I will have to respond more later.

Samsara and Nirvana are the same.

Actually, I see Angel being true to his feelings. You can be sad if you are a Buddhist. You feel it, note it and move on.

I will write more tomorrow.
[> [> [> Re: Angel as Bodhisattva - (spoilers 4.1)) -- Rufus, 16:36:52 01/27/03 Mon

Won't even get into the platinum blond plot device on the other show. The only things that they have in common is that both are vampires, both love Buffy and both have souls.

Hmmmm, that comment made me think that you are picky about who becomes enlightened and who does not. Only proving to me that people have preferences in how they see that journey. One character isn't better than the other, they are just on a similar journey. Both could be considered plot devices as both have served the function of reflecting Buffy's journey. Both can become Bodhisattvas, when they are ready.
[> [> [> [> Re: Angel as Bodhisattva - (spoilers 4.1)) -- lunasea, 18:55:28 01/27/03 Mon

Until "I Only Have Eyes for You" Angel pretty much was a plot device. It was at that point that Joss started thinking that David could handle his own spin-off and Angel starts developing independently of Buffy. Now that he has his own show, he is definitely more than a plot device. Now he is the thing the plot devices revolve around.

Spike doesn't have a journey. He is form following function. Anything read into him wasn't put there by the writers.

How to write Spike:
1. Want a really cool villain ala Sid and Nancy
2. Bring back said cool villain and neutralize him somehow so he can interact with the gang, hence we get the chip.
3. Marti jokes that Spike likes Buffy because she can abuse him and hit him the hardest. Hey it works. Go for it
4. Sarah and James have great chemistry and look really hot together. Lots of sex scenes.
5. What is left? Hey lets give him a soul

Not remotely what Angel or Buffy is. Just a great plot device to bring things out of Buffy and damn entertaining to watch.

Anyone can do anything (well there is that whole dust in eyes thing, but I won't go there), but on a show that has 45 minutes of screen time, that time is alotted carefully. Spike doesn't get enough time to be on a journey independent of Buffy.

Angel gets 45 minutes a week to do it and has been doing it longer.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as Bodhisattva - (spoilers 4.1)) -- Rufus, 21:21:55 01/27/03 Mon

We are talking about time....and some people need less and some more. The destinations can end up the same independant of time spent on the journey. Anything that happens on the show be it Lorne's talking head in Pylea, Angel having a photographic memory.....Spike not seeming to care that much about Clem in Potential.....all plot devices. It just depends upon which plot device speaks to you in that personal way that makes the difference and that will vary with each person depending upon personal preference.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Very well said -- thank you -- shadowkat, 22:18:43 01/27/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> spike's function -- manwitch, 04:02:58 01/28/03 Tue

"Spike doesn't have a journey. He is form following function. Anything read into him wasn't put there by the writers."

This thread is convincing me to do some Angel study. In a way that's a good thing, but it means more time!!! There's just not enough. And people expect me to actually work the hours I'm contracted to. Ugh.

Anyways, as far as Spike goes, he has had a purpose from the get go. Just as Angel was aligned with the Western philosphy of Immanuel Kant, so Spike was aligned with the Western philosophy of Nietzsche. He was vamped during Nietzsche's time, just as Angel was vamped during Kant's, and the arguments between them tend to reflect Nietzsche's hammering of Kant. Spike seeks out slayers. He wants his city to be built on the slopes of Vesuvius. He wants to do things "his way." He overcomes himself a lot.

He did however get this chip put in him, and the chip seems to be a nod to Foucault and the panopticon. Foucault, I would describe in this sense, as an extension of Nietzsche (my apologies to Frisby). The minute the chip is placed in Spike's head and we see what its doing, we are led to think of the panopticon, and even of Foucault's elaboration of Nietzsche's Geneaology of Morals. In it, foucault makes an argument for how the "modern soul" is created. This soul is NOT the soul that Kant is so enamored of. Its a nasty, petty, reductive soul that gives us our narrowing and limiting sense of individuality and self. And Foucault's argument, a la Nietzsche, is that we must overcome that soul.

So Angel's soul is an a priori requirement of his moral mission. Spike's soul is a necessary consequence of his modernity. My hunch is, that one way or another, Spike will overcome that soul this season. In a sense he is already doing it. He may still have what they call a soul, at the end, but it won't be THAT soul.

Nietzsche has a wonderulf little line, what does he call them, aphorisms? Anyway, "That which is done out of love takes place already beyond good and evil."

That's where we are right now. Whether we want to focus on the West or on the East, Spike is the symbol that will take us beyond the pairs of opposites. And I think, from his Nietzschean and Foudauldian associations, it is likely that it was always thus. Of course, the journey is Buffy's.

Anyways, my apologies. Not trying to hijack the thread.

Angel, yeah. Angel.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: spike's function -- lunasea, 04:41:44 01/28/03 Tue

I used to read all sorts of things into Spike. The character really made me think about various things. For example, Spike was a soulless vampire, incapable of real love and acting unselfish. The same time that his story is really being broken, so is the Darla storyline, by the same people. A vampire is a vampire. All questions about Spike are met by the writers with the same answer "Spike is a vampire!"

Spike seems to do all sorts of "good" things. Spike made me think more about motives and subtler forms of evil. When I hug my children, do I do it for them or for me?

For me, Spike is Buffy's shadow. I found it interesting that the chip works on the same principle that keeps Buffy in check, namely that we don't harm humans. S5, when Buffy is questioning her darkness, Spike almost gets the chip out. S6 when the chip allows Spike to only hurt Buffy, Buffy's exploration of her own darkness only allows her to hurt herself. S7 the chip again will reflect Buffy's stance.

But that is me reading too much into this. Events are created to develop Angel and Buffy. Wesley tends to develop from these events. Willow both has events created and developes from Buffy's events. Giles they are saving for Ripper.

Spike, as interesting as he is, and as much as we want to read into things, is just a plot device and nothing I read into him was actually put there by anyone other than myself.
Since my purpose in analyzing the show is to see how the characters are constructed so that I can construct my own, Spike is just form following function. Nothing philosophical lies behind his creation. We are the ones putting it there.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: spike's function -- Doriander, 05:45:28 01/28/03 Tue

But that is me reading too much into this. Events are created to develop Angel and Buffy. Wesley tends to develop from these events. Willow both has events created and developes from Buffy's events. Giles they are saving for Ripper.

Spike, as interesting as he is, and as much as we want to read into things, is just a plot device and nothing I read into him was actually put there by anyone other than myself.
Since my purpose in analyzing the show is to see how the characters are constructed so that I can construct my own, Spike is just form following function. Nothing philosophical lies behind his creation. We are the ones putting it there.

You know we've switched viewpoints. When the Redemptionist camp kept insisting on it, I remain a staunch believer in All Purpose Spike. I'm an evilista, afterall. Then the souling happened, and now I have to concede.

There's not one way to how the writers develop character arcs or contruct their journeys. Sometimes they have it mapped out (Angel and Buffy), sometimes at midpoint something jumps at them and makes them think hey, I could work with these! And they did, infusing meaning into the established aspects of the character. I'm not a writer, but I'm in the creative field and this happens to me alll the time. I do believe that when the writers brought him in they didn't intend for Spike to have this 'journey'. But beginning with S5, and stamped by FFL it's clear they came to decide to give him one and worked with what they had, build on it in a way that made sense. Just like one-note Anya, whose perpetual one-noteness was acknowledged in a way that made her now posited journey all the more poignant. This does not preclude significance from their 'journeys', though it may not resonate with everyone.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree with manwitch and Doriander here -- shadowkat, 08:08:30 01/28/03 Tue

First off, I am a writer who writes fiction. And Spike does have a function, a very important one - he in some ways took Angel's place in Btvs and manwitch does an amazing job of showing the differences.

Spike is NOT just a plot device. Plot devices are the potential slayers, Principal Wood, Trick from Season 3,
Justine in Angel, that's character as plot device - one who turns the plot and is developed to the extent that is necessary to move the plot forward. The ubervamp works also in this way. Cassie is an excellent example of a plot device and thematic character. Angel in Season 1 Btvs in many ways operated in this manner - it took a while for them to figure out what to do with him, he did not become more until Season 2. Annoited One same thing - a clear plot device and very thematic at the same time. If you can do both - that works wonderfully. Spike started out as both a thematic and plot device - representing lust and taboo as the big bad, as the seasons moved forward, his character began to represent more and more - becoming Buffy's id, showing the struggle against dark impulses, and the journey from one state of being to another.

You can tell Spike isn't a plot device by how many stories are generated by his actions. His actions aren't out of character nor are they done just push forward plot. They are a natural development of his character. He fulfills the function of the fatal in the story. In Season 4 - his character was often juxtaposed with Riley's showing how both were being excluded from the world's they knew. And his behavior, which was completely in character - moved the plot forward and caused the writers to find themselves in a corner they had to get out of - if he were meant as a plot device this would not have happened.

When writing - I will often find a character I didn't previously think much about has suddenly taken over the story, there's something about them that moves it forward.
So instead of resisting it - I go with it. My stories are character driven not plot driven. Actually of the two series, Angel at times has been the more plot driven, the characters often serving the plot as opposed to Buffy which is more character driven - where the characters acts often push the plot forward. The character of Cordelia could be described as becoming more and more of a plot device which is causing several viewers to get frustrated with the show. This has not happened in Buffy. Same with Fred who tends to serve function of plot. Spike's getting a soul did make sense character wise, read the archives for some amazing arguements about why it did. In fact it was so foreshadowed, the writers felt they had to go overboard to mislead us and the actor to think he'd lose the chip instead. Which is fascinating in a way - manwitch mentions spike as a reaction to Kant and the chip being Foucault's soul - mechanical - so instead of getting rid of the false soul - the one forced on him by organized society, he gets a real one - one that allows him to choose. That isn't just a plot device. Plot twist yes, but it is also more than that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree with manwitch and Doriander here -- lunasea, 09:23:21 01/28/03 Tue

Disagreement is good.

The reason Spike's development seems natural is that the writers are THAT good. In order to give him the motivation for his actions S5, they wrote FFL. S5 doesn't flow from FFL. It is the other way around. They made what would have seemed like actions that were out of character seem like they were in character.

The purpose of those actions was to propel Buffy and contrast to her. Spike only exists in relationship to Buffy. His job is to be pathetic. He does it rather well.

The only real characters are Angel and Buffy. Next comes Wesley and Willow. Those two have developed because of the events that were designed for Angel and Buffy. After them comes Spike and Cordelia. Those two were developed solely to do/say something to/about Buffy and Angel. I like the simplicity of the show. Everything does revolve around those two.

Why does Spike have a soul? Simple, to cause conflict in Buffy. That is a plot device.

A logical choice? It is that way because the writers made it so. They could make anything appear logical. They could send him back to Dru. They could cause him to seek out the Mage and have his soul removed. They could cause him to be evil with a soul. Anything. They get to set it up. That is the fun part of writing the arc.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree with manwitch and Doriander here -- Doriander, 09:47:43 01/28/03 Tue

Disagreement is good.

Bears repeating. Interesting how the thing we agree on reinforces what we disagree on. Or something. Ah well, YMMV. Keep at it! I tend to gravitate to posts like yours ;)
Some Stand Alone - with Allen Ginsberg???? -- prometheus, 11:24:47 01/27/03 Mon

While these themes and ongoing plots are good fun and help make the show special, it would get soap-opera boring if not broken up by 'stand-alone' episodes. Not all of these necessarily relate to the theme being generally explored. Where do they come from??

I recently saw an old episode i must have missed before - about Moloch the corruptor being scanned into the net.

Moloch?? i know Moloch!! Allen Ginsberg's "HOWL" ptII:

"What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?...

"Moloch! Moloch! Nightmare of Moloch! Moloch the loveless! ..Moloch the incomprehensible prison!......Moloch whose mind is pure machinery! Moloch whose bloood is running money!...Moloch whose breast is a cannibal dynamo!...Moloch whose eyes are a thousand blind windows!...Moloch whose soul is electricity and banks!...Moloch whose fate is a cloud of sexless hydrogen!...

..."Moloch in whom I sit lonely...Crazy in Moloch!... lacklove and manless in Moloch!...Moloch who entered my soul early! Moloch in whom I am a consciousness without a body! Moloch who frightened me out of my natural ecstasy! Moloch whom I abandon! Wake up in Moloch!...Robot apartments!...skeleton treasuries!...demonic industries!...

"...Visions! Omens! Hallucinations! miracles! ecstacies! gone down the American river!
Dreams! adddorations! religions! the whole boatload of sensitive bullshit!...flips and crucifixions!...Highs! Epiphanies! Despairs! Ten years' animal screams and suicides!...Mad generation!....."



'whose mind is pure machinery'???!!!'
'whose eyes are a thousand blind WINDOWS'!!!!?????

How the hell did Ginsberg know that our interface with computers was going to be "WINDOWS"??!!!

And how the hell did he know that Willow was 'lacklove and manless'??? (I left out the line about fellacio...but are we to assume.....???)
[> Go to Rob's 'Annotated Buffy' site and check out 'I Robot, You Jane' -- cjl, 11:44:53 01/27/03 Mon

Plenty of Moloch discussion there (yes, I contributed a lot of it). But Rob might want to think about adding some of your observations, too...
[> Gingerbread sticker -- darrenK, 16:34:44 01/27/03 Mon

Nice catch on the Moloch.

A promotional sticker for Allen Ginsburg's 1989 spoken word album, the Lion for Real, can be seen on Willow's locker during the locker search segment of Gingerbread.

Someone is obviously a fan.

dK
answer to anom's (archived) bleach question -- leslie, 11:57:18 01/27/03 Mon

"So, as I asked before, How much time went by before Buffy came & cut him down, & still no dark roots showing? (On the one hand, it may have been only several days, but it didn't feel like it; on the other, he may not have bleached it since he showed up "in costume" in Beneath You.)"

Ah, now I get it. Obviously, we have to assume that the FE has been playing First Evil Hairdresser and giving Spike the Evil Spa treatment, including incessant bleaching and perhaps a little fun with the hot curling tongs. See--this explains that whole "why were they trying to drown a non-breathing vampire?" line of inquiry--they weren't drowning him, they were rinsing! I mean, can you blame a Neanderthal vampire, Uber as it may be, for not realizing that you're supposed to rinse with the client's face upward? This may, in fact, also answer the question of why the Neanderthals died (or dyed) out--a series of tragic salon fatalities.
[> You're so right! And the FE can do wonders with a crimping iron! -- ponygoyle (the goyle with the coil), 14:07:01 01/27/03 Mon

Don't blame Ubie, a little over-eagerness at the washing stations can often lead to big tips. At least he didn't skip the all-important rinse and repeat. Too bad Buffy was so eager to leave the Spa of Evil, they have a lovely First Slayer package -- moisturing mud mask, body wrap, and ancient sands exfoliation.
[> [> But can the FE get out mustard stains? -- Sophomorica, sucking on a lollipop, 14:21:23 01/27/03 Mon

[> [> How do you think I keep my fabulous self up? -- Honorificus (Who Knows It Ain't Easy Being This Gorgeous), 14:52:08 01/27/03 Mon

Sure, they're a little rough, but beauty and pain should go together (as I always say). You mortals complain far too much. Why, if you got the treatments I do, some of you could almost be worth looking at. Then again, you could be dead, but where are your priorities?
[> Thanks for the laugh...I certainly needed it! -- Caroline, 14:29:15 01/27/03 Mon

[> LMAO!!! FE as hairdresser -- shadowkat, 15:55:36 01/27/03 Mon

FE and ubervamp as hairdressers...oh that is great.
Thanks leslie...my brain was beginning to hurt from the deep posts below...I really needed the laugh. Just the image of it.

FE instructing the harbingers in the proper alottment of bleach, Spike argueing, and getting dunked and punched.
Actually that could work - bleach apparently causes painful sores on the scalp and burns - so what better torture technique? Plus straightening tongs? Then the rinsing?
Of course would have been more effective in reverse, backwards as opposed to head first...but ubervamps are so difficult to train.
[> of course! why didn't i see it before? -- anom, 20:49:39 01/27/03 Mon

Thanks, Leslie. It's so simple & obvious now that you point it out!

"I mean, can you blame a Neanderthal vampire, Uber as it may be, for not realizing that you're supposed to rinse with the client's face upward?"

Especially considering that the übervamp itself had no hair--how could the poor thing be expected to understand how to treat it properly?

Or maybe it really had only been a few days--& it felt longer because we had to wait so long for the new episode!
More queries....re Angel, LDJ (warning, contains incoherent rambling) -- Anne, 18:51:53 01/27/03 Mon

Newly come to Angel, I confess I have been drawn in by the scale of the apocalypse in season 4, tempting me to download and chew up my precious bandwith...

Most of the holes in my plot knowledge has been filled by the three episodes I have watched thus far, but like most of us I guess, a lot more have arisen from these last three, notably with the arrival of the "Beast".

While I find the possibility of Angel secretly under the control of the Beast (at least partially) as believable - there's a lot unanswered in those holes in Angel's history that could account for it - it seems somewhat of an obvious cliche, especially given some of the Spike-centric plot turns in Buffy, though as some have pointed out, a parallel could be drawn.

My main question therefore is not how the Beast/Angelus know each other, but *why* the Beast wants Angelus on his side. Correct me if I speak in ignorance, but as far as I know, Angel is an ordinary vampire, albeit a powerful one.

Even given the 100 odd-years when he was a professional psychopath, from the history I have gathered he was more of a sociopathic killer, picking his victims with care, tormenting them with thoughtful gestures, before making the kill - "A good kill takes pure artistry, without that, we're just animals" (FFL, S5, Buffy). Yet in Cordelia's vision, and Angel's memory? he stood with the Beast over a field of bodies. I make the assumption that the Angel was at least partly, if not wholly, responsible for the carnage - from the demon's words to him at the end of LDJ, perhaps there was some massacre and Angel beat the demon to the punch?

Anyway, I ramble...again. My point is, Angel never struck me as the mass-murdering type. The Beast, on the other hand, romps merrily through fields of people to accomplish its goals. In terms of physical strength, Angel seemed to come somewhat close to a match in their first encounter, the stake an inch or so from the demon's eye, but after that, seemed to accept the notion the Beast was unkillable. I guess that the "sleeper" notion points to him being physically unable to take the Beast's life, if he *is* able to do it. Additionally, in terms of body count, barring that field of bodies, I can't figure Angel's MDK ratio as coming anywhere close to what the Beast has/will rack up.

Therefore: Why does the Beast need Angelus? He said something akin to "our strength is useless divided". Given the arguments presented, why does he even care? Angelus was no more powerful, physically, than Angel, though the fact that he was a raving loony gave him an edge. There has to be something that Angelus can aid him in that the demon cannot accomplish himself. Why does the Beast need Angelus?

One more question for Angel-history buffs. I noticed that in the vision/memory, Angel wore garb very similar to that which he wore in his earliest days, when he was in Ireland? (re: Amends, Becoming). Was there further history revealed in AtS where he wore similar clothing? What was he doing around that time? Soulless or soulfull?

And why did Angelus refuse then? Pride? Fear? Or is this a plan that was set in motion 100 years ago? If the Beast was planning an apocalypse and needed Angelus, I can only guess that what Angel/us would subsequently do were part of the demon's ultimate plan. But then I think of Acathla and I can't get that idea to fit; after all, the Beast wiped out Wolfram and Hart supposedly because this is a my-apocalyse-or-no-apocalypse kind of universe.

One last thing - his hair (Angels, not the Beast's); from my Buffy-knowledge I recall he only wore his hair long and down like that in the period following the restoration of his soul, and the clothes still fit into that time period. Some people call "good Angel" Angelus - Darla for e.g. - is it really the evil Angel that the Beast knows? (ps. I know that people can wear their hair differently on different days, but sometimes writers like to add little jokes and details like that to play with your mind...)

As you can see, I like to rack my brains with minor and trivial details even when it seems I come no closer to the answer. It is also entirely possible that this entire post makes no sense at all, and that I'm simply typing out my stream of consciousness. On the plus side, a whole bunch of questions for people to answer for me!
Tara as the embodiment of womenhood/feminism -- Alison, 19:21:46 01/27/03 Mon

Bear with me here...this thought is kind of scattered, and I'm open to any comments, opinions, or pointing out of obvious holes in my logic....
What got me thinking on this track originally is Amber Bensons looks...compared with other stick figure like actress on Buffy, she can be seen as--overweight..but when seen realistically shes simply vuluptous....how a woman is supposed to look to fufill her BASIC purpose...giving birth.
In Tara's developement as a character, we see feminist traits...she begins as shy, submissive, and humble....and as she slowly begins to assert herself it is only as a part of Willow (the oppressive male?)...it is not until she seperates herself from the relationship as an equally important entity, different from Willow, that she becomes helpful to others...she becomes a role model to Dawn, and an (adult,responsible) friend to Buffy. Only once she has developed herself outside of the relationship can she enter back into it, as an equal partner.
I also have a vague idea about Taras emphasis on control and balance of power...perhaps the need for responsibility in sexual freedom?
Then there is her obviously nuturing and wise nature...while the rest of the scoobies fall apart, she takes control of her life, and gives Dawn the support and reassurance she desperatly needs.
A couple of questions this brings up for me is how if she does represent womenhood, how that relates to her being the voice of the first slayer...buffy comes from the first slayer, and is seen as a feminist hero...i think theres a connection, but am not quite sure what...
And also the idea that the embodiment of womenhood would be attracted to other women...kind of interesting, makes me think of The Hours, and how each women kinds comfort in some form of lesbianism...again, I'm unsure about this entire idea...anyone have anything to add?
[> Re: Tara as the embodiment of womenhood/feminism -- Sophist, 20:11:48 01/27/03 Mon

Sorry, but I can't say I find much to agree with here. Personally, I think of Buffy as the embodiment of feminism.

One point in particular seems to me to need clarification:

how a woman is supposed to look to fufill her BASIC purpose...giving birth.

This implies a fairly narrow evolutionary outlook on the issue. However, evolution does not have purposes; it's not sentient. People can find purpose(s) in many different roles, but I doubt there'd be universal agreement that childbirth is the basic purpose of womanhood.
[> Giving birth does not depend on body shape. -- oboemaboe, 22:27:42 01/27/03 Mon

I'll respond just to the first part of your post.

"...Amber Bensons looks...compared with other stick figure like actress on Buffy, she can be seen as--overweight..but when seen realistically shes simply vuluptous....how a woman is supposed to look to fufill her BASIC purpose...giving birth."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but while a certain percentage (about 19-25%) of body fat is neccesary to ovulate, neither breast nor hip size has any bearing on the success of pregnancy/motherhood. Large breasts contain more fatty tissue, but any size breast will contain enough milk-producing glandular tissue. In fact, large breasts may be more difficult to position/support during nursing.
Whether a baby can pass through the birth canal is determined by the internal width of the pelvic inlet, not the externally visible size of the hips (this picture shows the difference.).
Plus, hormones released during pregnancy soften the pelvic joints to allow the pelvis to more easily accomodate the size of the baby's head. Finally, if the baby's head is still too big (cephalopelvic disproportion), this is one reason to have a c-section, which, while not ideal, will still result in a healthy baby.

True anorexia certainly has a negative impact on pregnancy (lower birth weight, increased risk of miscarriage, premature birth, etc.); merely being skinny (or perceived as skinny) does not.


(I am not a half-hellgod, half-doctor, but I play one on TV.)


p.s.: Is it necessary to use insults like "stick figure"? I find that just as tacky as its opposite -- "tub o' lard" or "fatass" -- would be. The whole point of Gunn calling Fred a stick figure (e.g.) was that he was *supposed* to be acting like a complete jerk in that scene.
[> Tara's an archetypal Earth Mother -- HonorH, 23:54:11 01/27/03 Mon

Consider: Tara was a Wiccan, a worshiper of the Goddess. She was curvaceous, womanly. She was never really a fighter, not in the physical way, but she stood strong behind those she loved. She mothered Dawn--when we see the Summers-Maclay-Rosenberg house, it's Tara doing the cooking, Tara inquiring into Dawn's welfare, Tara comforting. Buffy speaks a confession to her and then falls to her knees in supplication, feeling somehow that Tara has the ability to forgive her. Tara also took the more passive yin role in her relationship with Willow. Willow led, and Tara followed. Tara was loving, gentle, wise, sensitive; she spoke with a quiet voice, she sang; and she constantly observed those around her.

Subversively, that "womanly" stereotype was turned on its head when Tara came to realize Willow had gone too far. (And might I also add that Tara being a lesbian was also part of the subversiveness of her character--the classic Earth Mother engages in sex only to beget children.) She left, still maintaining her relationships with Dawn and Buffy, but grew into her own identity. Then, when Tara felt they were ready, *she* took the initiative, went to Willow, and they resumed their sexual relationship.

What BtVS is saying is that femininity cannot be reduced to one role. Buffy is the Slayer, stronger than any man. She's the leader, the warrior. Her sexuality is forceful. But Tara is no less strong, though she embodies a more "typical" woman's body and woman's role. She, like Buffy, refuses to be locked into a stereotype.

G'night, all!
[> Re: Tara as the embodiment of womenhood/feminism -- Arethusa, 04:59:46 01/28/03 Tue

I think Tara served as contrast to the Scoobies during S6, an adult who accepted responsibility, just as the Troika were adults trying to never grow up. As a mature adult, she refused to accept Willow's selfish and immature behavior, and left until Will changed her behavior. Body type wouldn't have much to do with her actions. Whedon's women characters are very individualistic; I don't think we can say any represent womanhood. His metaphors aren't that unspecific. Even Riley, Captain American, doesn't represent masculinity; just a certain pov that has more to do with his inflexible mind and type of training.
Thank God for Miracles...or Maybe Not. (Spoilers for Miracles 1.1) -- Buffyboy, 01:17:12 01/28/03 Tue

I, for one, am really quite surprised. The little I had read about Miracles lead me to believe that it was going to be a lot like Signs: another crude apologia for the ways of God, in other words a theodicy masquerading as fictional narrative-in case I'm not being clear enough, Signs: hated it! Miracles, happily, is quite different.

Miracles is about a man named Paul Callan who works for the church and when all is said and done, he is a debunker of alleged miracles. Paul has however grown increasingly weary of his task, one too may times has he demonstrated someone's absolutely indubitable proof of faith to be only so much theological swamp gas. Paul himself has fallen into his own crisis of faith and is beginning to take seriously the possibility that: "maybe we're on our own down here." This is when Paul encounters the young boy, Tommy, who allegedly can heal the sick. A young blind woman can now see, a liver cancer victim is now cancer free and a sick premature infant has been restored to health. Paul is impressed by these cases, by the fact that he and Tommy seem to be sharing dreams and besides, he so desperately wants to believe. But there's just one little catch to Tommy's use of his powers: their use seems to be killing him. Eventually Tommy ends up saving Paul from a horrific train accident and probable death but in doing so he forfeits his own life.

I was sure that at this point that in good M. Knight Shyamalan fashion, Paul would now be convinced that the miracles performed by Tommy were unambiguous proof of the divine providence that rules us all. But nothing could be further from the truth. Paul is now deeply troubled by his new belief in miracles. Near the end of the episode while sitting in a coffee shop Paul is visited by a man named Alva Keel, who is like himself is a former miracle debunker for the church. When Paul asks the perfectly reasonable question as to why God would ever create a child able to perform the miracle of healing but only at the cost of his own life, we get no trite "God works in mysterious ways" speech but a suggestion from Alva (who is now a member of some mysterious organization that inquires into the reality of miracles) that perhaps what Paul has experience isn't the work of God, but in reality is the work of "a very dark power." (No he didn't really use this exact phrase.) When I heard this conversation I could only cheer. There may well be hope for Miracles after all. So if you're looking for something to watch on Monday night a 10:00 PM take a look at Miracles, let CSI: Miami rot in the late afternoon sunshine--a fate it supremely deserves, and head for a darker and much more interesting place.
[> Re: Thank God for Miracles...or Maybe Not. (Spoilers for Miracles 1.1) -- Darby, 05:01:53 01/28/03 Tue

My problem with the show is that it tromped to a very, very predictable climax that didn't need to be - it was obvious that the heavily-injured Paul was going to be approached by the kid, but I'd rather have seen them follow through it as a test of faith, with his absolutely refusing the miraculous help, knowing that it might mean his death, but waking up one day during his convalescence to be told that the kid had died anyway. That still could have gotten them to the set-up (the act structure would have had to be twisted a bit) they needed, but would have been a little more interesting and gotten choices and free will more play.

I kinda like that the vision that Paul saw as "God is now here" others have seen as "God is nowhere." Supposedly the series is not going to push any particular religious worldview but will be respectful of those that exist. I'd like to see Greenwalt succeed, but there was nothing in this first episode to suggest anything beyond run-of-the-mill X Files (which he used to work for).
[> [> Re: Thank God for Miracles...or Maybe Not. (Spoilers for Miracles 1.1) -- Peggin, 06:22:34 01/28/03 Tue

My problem with the show is that it tromped to a very, very predictable climax that didn't need to be - it was obvious that the heavily-injured Paul was going to be approached by the kid, but I'd rather have seen them follow through it as a test of faith, with his absolutely refusing the miraculous help, knowing that it might mean his death, but waking up one day during his convalescence to be told that the kid had died anyway.

The entire point of the story was to ask the question: how God could give this child the power to heal, but make the price of using that power the child's death?

How would having the kid *not* use his powers address that question even a little? How would the kid dying from any cause other than using his powers address that question even a little?
[> [> [> Re: Thank God for Miracles...or Maybe Not. (Spoilers for Miracles 1.1) -- Darby, 11:22:10 01/28/03 Tue

But the implication was that there were more players than just God involved, and Paul had already figured out that the healing gift is where the blood disease had come from - the gift was killing the kid anyway, the question was already out there, his death was part of somebody's plan, my suggestion just changes the timing and complicates the issue a bit. As the story played out, it seemed a fairly straightforward test of faith. It worked, but it could have been more.

I was just looking for a more sophisticated story into the choices we make and how they do or don't affect the course of events. That figuring out what's going on and being noble won't necessarily be enough, that there are Dark forces sometimes at work in miraculous events, and that they did a very poor job of showing - they talked about it, and there were suggestive hallucinatory flashes, but it could have cut much deeper, aimed a bit higher. I'm hoping for more in the future.
[> [> (In vino?) Veritas -- Cactus Watcher, 06:44:05 01/28/03 Tue

It was interesting that ABC has chosen to add not just one, but two "hunt for the secret truth" shows to its lineup at the same time. It is even more interesting that they chose not to run them consecutively, where one's popularity might easily feed off the other, but to place the old stand-by The Practice, as a kind of jarring non-sequitur, in the middle.

Buffyboy pretty well covered Miracles, but I think the earlier show also deserves at least the curtesy of a brief look. It's no wonder that I kept confusing Veritas and Miracles when ABC was running the promos for them. While the appraoch is quite different the premise is almost identical.

In Miracles the secret truth is about the existence of a superior being, either god or devil and her/his relationship with human beings through miraculous events. Pretty heavy stuff. In Veritas: The Quest, the search is for the truth about an alternate human history. Both shows deplay considerable X-Files ancestry. Veritas owes much to Indiana Jones as well. And to a large extent Veritas looks like a high budget Relic Hunter.

Miracles apparently will use the mystery and miracles themselves to keep up viewer interest. Veritas is not aiming quite that high. In Veritas there will be a lot of action, fights with bad guys and close escapes. The central character is Nico the son of the lead scientist, a kid who doesn't play by the rules, hates school, resents his father's neglect, and nevertheless is a genius. As lame and overworked as this sounds, it does give the show a certain twist to elevate it above its Relic Hunter roots. For Buffy fans one of the staff scientists is our old buddy Jesse from Buffy(Eric Balfour). Calvin, as he is called on Veritas does not manage to get himself turned into a vampire in the first hour of Veritas. So we may assume he'll last a little longer on this show. Calvin has done quite well for himself, considering 7 years ago Jesse was a high school sophomore. Calvin has 'advanced degrees' in several subjects including archaeology and astronomy. Veritas doesn't have the beatiful Relic Hunter Sydney. It does have Nico's private tutor a hot looking doctoral candidate working under Nico's father. Despite the fact that she must be six or seven years older than Nico according to the story, Nico has already kissed her (and got his face slapped). There are assorted other women scientists, and the other male on the show is the group's muscle/ security. He, too, seems to have a good deal of smarts although it's not clear yet what his background is exactly.

Veritas relies a good deal on action and on techinical gimicry. The techincal stuff was perhaps the weakest part of the show. The writer of the ep made a couple unimportant gaffs in writing the techno babble. Veritas has already fallen into the trap that Buffy barely avoided years ago. It is already presenting the Internet as a profoundly deep source of information, instead of the spotty, cheaply done encyclopedia of random quality it actually has developed into. A real laugh was that the great scientist father uses an old-fashioned sextant to find the location of a hidden entrance. I can not imagine an archaeological team funded one tenth as well as these guys without modern surveying equipment, GPS, the works.

The first Veritas was entertaining enough. If you're in the mood to spend the evening watching TV, it's not a bad choice. Certaintly it had to be better than Bridezillas!
[> [> [> Re: (In vino?) Veritas -- MaeveRigan, 10:13:56 01/28/03 Tue

Although almost anything other than WWE or Fear Factor would be better than Bridezillas, the spouse and I also got a kick out of Veritas. ABC usually puts "family" entertainment in the 8-9 hour, so I wasn't surprised that Veritas leaned more towards the action-adventure/"Young Indiana Jones" approach, leaving out the really creepy life-and-death philosophical/spiritual issues of Miracles, as well as the nailed hands, closeups of gruesome, glass-encrusted accident victim, and other things that, for my money, certainly warranted the viewer advisory.

Nevertheless, I found the casting sufficiently intriguing for both shows, and no compelling competition in the same timeslots, so I'm willing to give them a chance.
[> [> [> [> Veritas DOA -- darrenK, 11:17:41 01/28/03 Tue

I too watched Veritas, but with less generous feelings afterwords.

I found the plotting of the episode incoherent, the fight scenes boring, and all of the relationships lacking in emotional credibility.

Worse, it just wasn't fun.

The Nikko scenes, which should be the fun ones because he's the rebel with the floppy hair and the leather jacket seem completely unimportant, shoehorned in to give him something to do. It's obvious that week-after-week he'll be underestimated, but will come up with the brilliant clue at the right moment. The relationship with the tutor is so predictable that they might as well have slept together already.

The father is completely without charisma and his entire role seems to be to look vaguely guilty about hiding his life from both his son and the audience. The effort to make him mysterious is too forced. He just seems like a character without lines, trapped into reacting with implausible silence in a failed attempt to intrigue the viewer.

But what really signals this show's imminent cancellation is the tracking-down-the-lost-civilization premise. Anyone who ever watched the X- files, unfortunately Veritas's entire prospective audience, already knows that young Johnny Quest, er, I mean, Nikko and his dad, have as much chance of unravelling the truth about this ancient civilization and finding out what happend to Nikko's Mom as Gilligan and the Skipper had of being rescued by the Love Boat. The producers Every potential fan is going to realize that the show is all about week-after-week of pointless relic hunting for as long as the show is allowed to exist, which should be about 4 episodes.
[> [> [> [> [> I meant afterwards. Oops... -- darrenK, 11:19:13 01/28/03 Tue

[> [> [> Re: Veritas gaff -- Robert, 11:20:41 01/28/03 Tue

>>> A real laugh was that the great scientist father uses an old-fashioned sextant to find the location of a hidden entrance. I can not imagine an archaeological team funded one tenth as well as these guys without modern surveying equipment, GPS, the works.



I actually did not much like Veritas and may not continue watching, but I did not consider this a gaff for the following reason. The position of the vessel referenced known stars, not the GPS network and not our latitude/longitude system (with 0 longitude passing through Greenwich, England). With suitable tables and coordinate transformations, presumably the scientist guy could cast the position in terms of the latitude and longitude, but that would be a lot of time and effort. An old-fashion sextant will get them to their destination more quickly, assuming that the proper motion of the reference stars is small enough in the span of time since the stone was carved.



Sometimes older cruder tools will get you to an acceptible solution faster than the modern high-tech tools. If I need to hang a picture in my living room, I am not going to bring out my pneumatic nail gun. A tack hammer is sufficient.



My main complaint with this show is that they are portraying an advanced civilization with binary math (therefore computer technology) and laser beam technology, but are still keeping their records on stone tablets. A counter-argument might be that stone tablets will last many millenia, but I bet that etched stainless-steel plates would last even longer. Plus, just how small a micro-carving can you put on a rough stone tablet?
[> [> [> [> You're forgetting one little thing -- CW, 12:08:58 01/28/03 Tue

He was using the sextant in daylight. Which means he was taking a reading off the sun (or less likely the moon). What he was really interested in, I presume, was the stellar background. Day or night, to adjust for the earth's rotation around the sun plus the time of day, he'd need he'd need a significant journey into those tables and calculations, anyway. Using celestial orientation for places on the earth's surface really was a gaff in itself. Just something that sounded cool to a writer without much experience in either astrononmy or navigation.

The are plenty of other problems with the method including the fact you brought up, that the references stars, the ancients used may have had signifcant proper motion with respect to the rest of the sky over a period of two thousand plus years.
[> [> [> Re: Veritas worth a shot....Miracles immediately drew me in. -- curious, 11:30:59 01/28/03 Tue

I agree with you. I think Veritas is worth a shot. If nothing else the fast pace of the premier was a good contrast to the intimacy of Miracles, which by the way I LOVED. You're also right obout the obvious pitfalls of Veritas, but in all honesty, I don't mind the frivolous fun. There were a few touching moments between Niko's yearning to be involved in his fathers life and his obvious distress over the death of his mother. If the show could could touch on this heart felt premise and integrate it into the Tomb Raider/Xfiles aspects, then it has my vote.

As for Miracles, I can't say one thing bad about its series premier. The most striking thing I found about the show was the compelling acting right from the start. This cast is very watchable and risking getting stoned from this board, I think David Greenwalt did the right leaving to produced what appears to be a most promising show. Though it really is too early to tell. Now I have to add Monday night as must see T.V to Tuesday.
[> [> [> What I didn't understand -- Alvin, 15:06:53 01/28/03 Tue

I liked Veritas, but it was a sort of guilty pleasure, sort of like when I watch Charmed. It's entertaining while it's on, but it doesn't stay with you.
Besides the fact that the reference stars would have moved due to the earth's wobble on its axis, I just have to ask: What kind of advanced civilization hides the location of the "vessel" using algorithmic numbers referencing star positions when the "vessel" is only about a mile away. Wouldn't a big arrow pointing in the right direction have worked?
What's really bad is that I've become so used to picking out deeper meanings in Buffy that I kept trying to do it here. When I first saw it, I thought the French professor tapping the fish tank was going to be some kind of methaphor about Niko tapping into his subconsious. I was so disappointed when it became the secret code to unlock a drawer.
I'll watch Veritas, but it's Miracles I'll be obsessively watching. It had some flaws, but it was much better. The characters in Miracles had substance to them, even minor ones like the doctor, while in Veritas it was like they had signs on them like "Rebellious Teen" and "Work Obsessed Father".
Angel spreads its wings- with help (Angel Odyssey 1.17-1.18) -- Tchaikovsky, 04:11:15 01/28/03 Tue

I'm fascinated by the debate going on further down the board in Darby's 'A Tale of Two Series' thread. Clearly, being where I am, coming towards the end of the first Season, I don't have the appropriate vision to discuss it in the terms in which it is being discussed. To make a few points on what I've seen so far.

-I have real problems with the portrayals of the characters. Angel is to me a fascinating character, but still doesn't work leading a series. His best episodes are where he's reacting to somebody else. I suppose in a sense, his characteristic desire to 'help the helpless' actually highlights what a reactionary character he is. He helps out in other people's stories, rather than having a thrusting, developing story of his own. Also, Wesley and Cordelia haven't quite found a consistent voice. I know when I hear Xander, Willow or Buffy that it is those characters. Cordelia seems to swing too wildly from insensitive, flighty girl to understanding, mature woman. I'm happy to understand that both are in her character, but I seem to be shown only one side on an episode by episode basis. Similarly, Wesley yoyos back and forth a little.
-The actual number of characters is not large enough for me. It doesn't work with three in the middle. I would like at least four, (and I realise I will soon get it). Although it allows minor characters to have their stories developed, (and I'm a big fan of Kate's story), it just makes it harder to make the dialogue zippy and funny at the same time.
- The show is also at least slightly based on an amalgam of the detective genre and the action show. While I enjoy ME periodically subverting this genre's cliches, I'm not interested in the genre in general, so when it slips back into stock episodes, I get a little bored.

However... 19 episodes into Buffy we were at 'Lie to Me', and the show was about to take off with episodes such as 'The Dark Age', 'Innocence' and 'Passion'. So I'm more than happy to give Angel some more time to develop.

To the reviews:

1.17 Eternity

This is the best attempt I've seen in Angel, (except perhaps Rm w/a Vu) of an episode which is fundamentally light hearted, but twists to a visceral sense of terror towards the end. I found Cordelia slightly too cringeworthily subservient in her scenes with the actor, but I really did enjoy David Boreanaz's acting, which is something I've rarely had cause to say before. He's wonderful as Angelus, for some reason. I think it might be the way he understands how to play a character void of emotions, with a really blank face.

Of course, the weekly theme of the episode was acting. Cordelia can't act, and really couldn't care less about her play. The fact that it's 'The Doll's House' has some significance to me at least. A play focussing on a house, with a claustrophobic woman playing the role of a contented housewife to her sexist, boring husband. I imagine we are supposed to contrast the actress, enclosed in her 'Raven' character, expected to do the obvious things, but deep down needing a sense of freedom. Of course, while Nora Helmer asserts her female individuality, in one of the first truly feminist plays ever, (Buffy maybe owes a little to Ibsen), the actress denies hers, preferring to sacrifice her entire life for the intangible ideal of fame).

1.18 Five by Five

The essential parallel running through this episode is again subtle and beautiful. On one hand we have Angel, realising through the involuntary return of his soul that he was wrong to kill, and that the pain he has visited upon Europe can never be fully atoned for. He goes on attempting to live as a normal vampire with Darla, but comes to the realisation that the only way to continue living is the painful path of acceptance and pennance. In parallel, Faith is still in the middle of her uncontrolled rage at the cruel, loveless world. But Angel sees her soul in her, and knows that, in this universe at least, the soul is a guarantee of the possibility of redemption.

Angel in this episode has the most wonderfully understanding and beautiful role to play. To be attacked by a homicidal Slayer, to have your Girl Friday knocked out and your best friend (I suppose?) tortured to within an inch of his life, and yet to refuse to give up on the cause of the misery, is an acievement of emotional resonance which possibly, as Buffy contends sarcastically, is only possible from somebody who has had an experience of feeling apparently totally evil and coming back from it.

The final scene, crashing out the window, is probably the most powerful scene I had seen on Angel to date, (before 'Sanctuary' though!) The way Faith's fighting is destroyed, and her face melts in resignation, is again fabulous acting from Eliza Dushku. The way she asks to be killed, in a rather parallel way to the way Buffy asks not to be forgiven at the end of 'Dead Things' is really beautiful. In extraordinary lives, extraordinary wishes manifest themselves, and the usually best option, (staying alive, being forgiven by a friend), can seem the hardest. Also, the last scene was beautifully shot, pulling back on the final shot to see Faith and Angel, small Hitchcockian figures in a big, dangerous world, with only the beautiful, sonorous noise of the sky crying to disrupt her breakdown and his strength.

I was planning to write about 'Sanctuary' now, but have a lecture. I will return soon.
NB It will include a fan-boy rave which may seem a little out of character. But 'Sanctuary' really was that good.

TCH
[> Re: Angel spreads its wings- with help (Angel Odyssey 1.19) -- Tchaikovsky, 06:09:37 01/28/03 Tue

NB Basically a continuation from above post

1.19 Sanctuary

It's funny- I've been spoiled on the Buffy plot for quite a while, and I really didn't see it affecting my enjoyment that much. f anything, the fact that in the UK and without Sky I have to wait a ridiculous length of time to see Season Seven, means that Voy has inifinitely increased my enjoyment of the show, and that it is entirely necessary that I am a bit spoiled in order to be able to read anything on the board. But I'm not quite so sure after 'Sanctuary'.

As a result of discussions, I knew that Faith would end up in prison and I knew Buffy was in the episode from the title sequence. But there were a couple of moments that I really wasn't prepared for, and which, as a result of this, had as big an effect on me as anything I saw of Buffy Season Six. Wesley, despite his torture, trusting Angel to find the best way to deal with Faith. Angel's reaction to Faith revealing Riley to Angel. And of course the scenes generally between Angel, Faith and Buffy. Because I didn't know the specifics, they were more powerful, I think.

However, this is definitely the best episode of Angel yet, and not just from this subjective point of view. The writing really crackles, in the way that only a script with Joss can ever really do. There are some marvellous one-liners: (Wesley's 'One hundred and eighty!', Angel's 'For a taciturn guy, I have a big mouth'), but also some of the emotionally honest and painful scenes that the interactions between Cordelia, Wesley and Angel have largely been lacking.

Everyone in this episode has their own individual motive, which is what Joss does really well. A similar thing could be said of 'Becoming', with Spike, Joyce and Snyder having excellent reasons for their aid or obstruction of Buffy. Here, Wesley has his own emotional decisions to make. Buffy still finds it impossible to handle the idea of an image of her, (Faith=Buffy), murdering and being forgiven. She cannot accept that Faith's actions could be her own, and therefore compensates by being entirely unemotional. It should be noted that Buffy has the right not to forgive Faith, and often people in the series' don't forgive for less reason, (cf 'The Prodigal'), but for Buffy, a Hero, not to forgive, requires more motives than simple vengeance. Her real reasons are her being afraid of Faith as a mirror to herself, and her desperation in once being victimised.

Angel continues to do a noble thing throughout the episode in aiding Faith's rehabilitation. The eventual message, for those not so hung up on the Buffy/Angel war of words at the end, is a very hopeful one. Even Faith, cared for by no-one except Buffy in her whole life, can be shown the path to redemption by someone willing and able to be truly empathetic. As the light falls on her face, we see Hope and a willingness to travel Angel's long road to healing.

I loved this episode's writing and acting, the directing and editing. It reminded me why I don't just like this Universe that Joss Whedon has created, but I love it. Fast-paced plot is interwoven effortlessly with snappy dialogue and logical, powewrful emotional sentiments, as well as the action backing them up.

Ultimately, we see again how Buffy the character doesn't fit into Angel the series. Angel's line 'It wasn't about you. It was about saving a soul', is highly important. In BtVS, it IS all about Buffy. In Angel, she so far has come across as remarkably self-absorbed and uncaring, in both I Will Remember You and Sanctuary. It's believable and logical, and she does little wrong, but it emphasises how these shows are two different shows, and AtS is NOT a simple extension of BtVS.

Ultimately, despite being one of the best episodes I've seen on EITHER series, it still needed both characters from Buffy and Buffy-esque dialogue and intrigue from Joss Whedon to make this episode what it is. For this reason, I would claim that 'Sanctuary' is only a qualified triumph for the series. It will take an episode which I enjoy this much without a crossover before I will truly believe that Angel can fly.

TCH
Angel is not a Hero -- Mr. Man, 09:53:28 01/28/03 Tue

What is Buffy the Vampire Slayer? It is a journey, the Hero's Journey. This fact is obvious. The mythological underpinnings are there. In "The Gift", Giles puts it simple: "She's a hero. She's not like us."

What is Angel, the series? One would be quick and rash to label it a journey. Angel, the vampire with a soul (for now, anyway) has had a goal in mind of finding redemption for his sins as Angelus. Redemption is a tricky thing, however. As long as we are acting within the world, we will, as fallible beings, make the same mistakes for which we seek to atone. Angel is like all of us.

Angel's story is not a journey in the heroic sense that Buffy's tale is. The nature of Angel's story is more cyclical. His actions have consequences for which he tries to pay by performing other actions, but those lead to yet more consequences. His obstacles to overcome are the very means by which he strives.

Angel keeps himself within his "mission" by the very act of it. Were Angel to stop and contemplate his life, he would be able to find a balance and peace with himself. That is one thing that a soul is good for: evaluating your existance. Angel, however, chooses to impose the world's view of good v. evil on his own situation. Angel is not responsible for the crimes of Angelus in any sense other than that responsibility to which he holds himself.

"It was my body. My soul abandoned it when Darla sired me. I should have been strong enough to be the one being in history to resist the metaphysical certainty that becoming a vampire releases the soul. And now, with my soul returned to me, obviously I must spend my time repaying a world that - by and large - has moved on, gotten beyond my crimes, because I sense a higher order that compels me to do it through misdirection or cryptic messages. They offer no shelter or aid. No, I would rather put my faith in a nameless, faceless force of good and order in the univers rather than attempt to reconcile with the one person still holding on to the tragedy inflicted by this parasite in my body over which I had no control at the time."

In "Long Day's Journey", we see what is possibly the first real indication that Angel may be able to move on. The Beast has had a connection with Angelus - not Angel. Angel, with his soul, has no recollection of this portion of Angelus' past, because, most likely, it was so horrific that the soul could find no way to feel responsible for it.

Wesley, realizing what must be done, does not advocate finding a way to restore Angel's memory of the event in which he did not take place; rather they must find a way to access Angelus, who would remember the event of his own past.

This episode distances Angel in a way that hasn't really been touched on before. Before, it was easy, and simply assumed, that Angel is Angelus, which is obviously false. Angel is the combination of Liam of Galway with the vampire Angelus, but he is more than the sum of his parts and is accountable for none of the actions of either.

In short, Angel is the anti-hero, acting on his own skewed sense of righteousness, paying for the sins of another man. And slowly, even painfully so, he - along with his friends - is beginning to realize that.

If this has been a little incoherent, I apologize.
[> Re: Angel is not a Hero (spoilers) -- lunasea, 10:06:38 01/28/03 Tue

I'm curious why you think the writers are bringing back Angelus and what this will do to Angel's development? His heart beat in "Ground State." What is this foreshadowing?

Buffy isn't a hero. End of S5 she became a saint.

Angel is going to join her.
[> Re: Angel is not a Hero---Spoilers for AtS Season 4 incl. teaser for this week, above and below -- Arethusa, 10:25:55 01/28/03 Tue

I think Angel can't move on because he realizes that although he was not responsible for what Angelus did, Angelus' actions were based on Liam's weakness, fears and wants. Angelus' first act was killing Angel's family and friends. And Angel must deal with the consequences of Angelus' actions-with Dara and Holtz, and then with Connor.

Angel knows he can't repay the world for what he's done-he said so to Holtz. He is trying to do what we all do as twentysomethings-figure out how to live in this world (not beyond or above it, disconnected-that's how he lived as a vampire). He's trying to create something he lost very long ago-home, love, family. His journey is not one of maturation, it's building a framework on which to form his life-a mission (which he has had ever since he met Whistler), a family, a home. And because he is a noir existentialist anti-hero, he often fails.

Of course, this is just my own interpretation-influenced greatly by the journey I'm going through.
[> [> Suspicion I've had for a while - ties in to both this topic and lunasea's above -- KdS, 10:36:38 01/28/03 Tue

I wonder if Angel is already shanshuing - his developing understanding of himself, his developing relationships. Through Connor, Cordelia and all the rest of the crew he's experiencing all the positive and negative things about having a social life and caring about other people instead of being a self-centred vampire or self-pitying pariah. Maybe when the final end of the series comes, it'll be with a second big epiphany - that he already has become human in every way that really matters and the heartbeat and ability to sunbathe are just pointless surface things.
[> [> [> And something else I worked out just as I hit 'confirm' - *#*#! -- KdS, 10:38:57 01/28/03 Tue

Maybe the "happiness clause" thing is a red herring - after all bliss of the intensity that seems to be required for him to lose his soul might be considered an essentially selfish experience that isn't related to a true connection to others?
[> [> [> [> 'cept the sex . . . -- WickedBuffy, 10:49:00 01/28/03 Tue

"....that isn't related to a true connection to others?"


.... but, but, but Buffy sure looked like SHE was sharing in the intensely blissful experience she shared with Angel when they ummm "celebrated" being caught in the rain. It looked like a pretty true connection. And then he turned into good ol' Angelus.
[> [> [> [> Which would bring us back to The Wizard of Oz (movie version) -- Arethusa, 10:57:23 01/28/03 Tue

Everything they want is inside themselves all along-everything they are searching for is already there, if they can SEE it. Cordy keeps looking outward for something to make her feel as important as she was in high school. Wes wants confidence and courage. Gunn needs to feel needed. Angel wants to know he can still be loved despite who he is. Connor wants to know who he is. Fred is trying to find out where she belongs. But everything they need and long for can be found inside themselves, and in each other.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Which would bring us back to The Wizard of Oz (movie version) -- Mr. Man, 11:49:07 01/28/03 Tue

But everything they need and long for can be found inside themselves, and in each other.

I couldn't agree with this statement more.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Which would bring us back to The Wizard of Oz (movie version) -- lunasea, 12:01:24 01/28/03 Tue

Great message.

Thing is I doubt they will all make it out of this season. Everyone made it out of Oz.
[> [> [> [> Re: And something else I worked out just as I hit 'confirm' - *#*#! -- lunasea, 11:56:03 01/28/03 Tue

For me the strongest most dramatic moment would be Angel and Buffy being able to make love, while the curse was still there. It would say that that sort of love is stronger than the curse. That the dark arts and vengeance cannot touch it. When Angel is with Buffy, he transcends happiness. I even have it worked out how they would find out what is going on.

Buffy comes to LA after she beats the Big Bad (and this one is the perfect one for this message) and she and Angel decide to give it another try. They realize that they cannot do certain things, but Buffy doesn't care. They wake up in each others' arms and Buffy says how happy she is. Angel says something like "I have never been so happy in all my life" a beat later a look of sheer terror crosses his face. He runs out of the room. The camera stays with Buffy and it takes a moment for her to realize what just happened and I am sure the SMG could pull of the range of emotions that would be necessary.

Cut to Angel pounding on Lorne's door. Angel comes in singing something like "If you're happy and you know it" and here is the scene:

Lorne: "Whoa big guy. I could feel you and your little cupcake all the way back at your room. No need to put me through the agony of hearing you attempt to sing."

Angel (frantic): So, what is going on?

Lorne: You're in love.

Angel: I KNOW that. Why didn't I loose my soul.

Lorne: Because you weren't happy.

Angel: It sure felt like happiness.

Lorne: It wasn't.

Angel: Then what was it.

Lorne: You were in love.

Angel: You said that and I know that. This has happened before. What were we thinking. This is never going to work.

Lorne laughs

Angel: What is so funny?

Lorne: You.

Angel: I'm glad that you find this amusing.

Lorne: Look. As entertaining as watching you freak out is, you aren't going to loose your soul, so just relax.

Angel: Why?

Lorne: If you relax you can go back and enjoy that little cupcake you got in there.

Angel gives him a look.

Lorne: Fine. Don't let me have any fun. You aren't going to loose your soul because you are in love.

Angel: We've been through this already.

Lorne: Not in love, but IN ... love.

Angel looks puzzled.

Lorne: Think of it this way, love is like this big ocean. Most people go to the edge and dip their toes in it. They call this being in love. It is candy hearts and love ballads and warm fuzzy feelings that cause people to give candy hearts and write love ballads. It makes people happy. But you and Buffy aren't just dipping your toes. You took a boat ride to the center and jumped off. You are swimming in the stuff.

Angel still looks puzzled.

Lorne: And the curse cannot touch that.

Angel: It did once.

Lorne: No it didn't. You were both kids.

Angel looks at him funny.

Lorne: One of you was a 243 year old kid, but you were both still kids. You may have even waded out a bit, but what you both have been through, what you both have become, that is what puts you doing backstrokes.

Angel starts to relax

Lorne: I could feel it coming off you both the second you saw her. You aren't happy when you are around her, you transcend happiness.

What Lorne says starts to sink in and Angel runs back to his room.

Lorne: What not even a thank you.

Cut to Angel back in his room. He explains what Lorne said to Buffy and the two of them make love, the kind of love that makes people go Spike who
[> [> Re: Angel is not a Hero---Spoilers for AtS Season 4 incl. teaser for this week, above and below -- WickedBuffy, 10:41:57 01/28/03 Tue

I don't think Angel is a hero. He has super powers, sure, and fights evil (usually) for a paycheck. He'd probably do it without the paycheck, but then he couldn't create a "family" like he has made up of the ACTUAL heros - Fred, pre-power Cordelia and the rest of the regular people.

They are the heroes to me - they fight just as hard as he does, are just as brave and DON'T have the super strength or other abilities. They get real scared and still go thru with it. Does Angel ever act scared? Angel can die just a few ways, his gang can die a million of different ways. Angel has already lived many lifetimes, the rest just this one short one.

WickedBuffy ;>

"True courage is being afraid and doing it anyway." What inner fears does Angel have to fight to face monsters that the others face? The true heroes are the humans around him, imho.
[> [> [> Another idea just burst out of my head... -- KdS, 10:48:45 01/28/03 Tue

Sorry to hog the topic, but it all keeps it on the board ;-)

Does Angel actually want to live or is it all still a case of "I'd really rather be dead, but might as well keep busy"? Maybe it's actually wanting to exist that'll mark his redemption (all the Buddhists will froth at this, but Dylan Thomas would approve).
[> [> [> [> ~ all you need is love, love ~ -- WickedBuffy, 10:54:45 01/28/03 Tue

(my apologies to the Fab Four)

Angel seems most focused and "alive" when he's in love. He tasted it with Buffy and found out he "could" love. Then, again, with Cordelia. Just the possibility that it could happen (again) is a nice motivation to stay alive.

And even with Connor, his off-n-on relationship on the surface doesn't change the fact that he loves him.
[> [> [> [> Re: Another idea just burst out of my head... -- Caroline, 11:40:48 01/28/03 Tue

That is a really fascinating point.

Maybe it's not so irreconcilable with eastern philosophy. Maybe you have to know what existence really is before you have to want to let it go. Angel is still full of desire. He needs to achieve his desires before becoming desireless.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Another idea just burst out of my head... -- lunasea, 12:23:55 01/28/03 Tue

Maybe you have to know what existence really is before you have to want to let it go. Angel is still full of desire. He needs to achieve his desires before becoming desireless.

If you want something, you cannot let it go. The analogy we often use in Zen is that desires are like a coat that we discard when we no longer need it.


What you need is not to achieve or meet desires, but to realize you don't need them. If you do achieve them, that will lead to more clinging, as you want that desire continually met.

Angel will follow his pattern: desire, renuciation, reward. If he is going for the reward, he won't get it. He transcends desire and aversion (another form of desire). When he does this he is always rewarded.

Not your typical journey where the hero attains things. Angel gets things by not wanting them.
[> [> [> Re: Angel is not a Hero---Spoilers for AtS Season 4 incl. teaser for this week, above and below -- lunasea, 12:12:48 01/28/03 Tue

This is one thing I don't understand about interpretations of the show. Angel (and Buffy) is put down because he has superpowers. He is put down for being exceptional.

Is Angel scared? David plays him well and that fears shows through the brooding. When Cordy and the humans are facing monsters they may be scared, but when they aren't, they don't have to be. Angel has to face a demon every minute of every day, waking or sleeping. He is scared of that demon.

On Pylea he was terrified when he had to fight Groo. He wasn't scared of loosing to Groo or dying. He was scared the demon would take over forever. That is real fear.

Same thing on Long Day's Journey. How do you think he feels about loosing his soul?

Joss didn't create two superheroes so that the humans around them would look better in comparision. They may not be as vulnerable physically, but Angel (and Buffy) is more vulnerable emotionally than any character on his show. That is where his fear comes from.
[> [> [> [> I sure don't think.... -- WickedBuffy, 14:39:31 01/28/03 Tue

... they should be put down because they are superheros - they are in a slightly separate catagory than "heroes". Angel faces a demon everyday. Humans face their own demons everyday,too. For instance, Xander's genetically set up to be an alcoholic - he's got that demon in him - he's the only one without "powers", so he fights inadequacy demons and "am I good enough to even be with these people".

Everyone has their own demons and those demons can sometimes be as huge and scary to them, as any Angel faces. It's all a matter of personal perspective. So, we have everyone facing two kinds of demons - the ones always inside them they carry around and the other ones that jump out of a portals or explode out of the ground.

But, I was wondering - is someone saying that Angel and Buffy aren't superheros? Or that the Scoobies or the AI's aren't heros?
[> Re: Angel is not a Hero -- Mr. Man, 12:20:24 01/28/03 Tue

I should probably clarify my position.

I don't condemn Angel. In many ways, I find his story more compelling. True, Buffy is an epic Hero, and her story is the stuff of myth, but Angel is a personal tale. Angel is what we all are.

We are all hounded by what we would call demons, those shadows from our past that hang over us and darken our days, give life to the night. But there are many of us, and Angel is the personification of this, that hold on too hard to things beyond our control. We choose to allow these things to shape us. This is why Angel can strike a painful chord.

I love Angel. I think it was Joss who said in an interview that he was glad that Angel went widescreen while Buffy stayed in the "box". Buffy is really a story we watch from the outside and marvel and the trials of a Hero. Angel is more of a story that we can step into, because he is familiar.

All I'm saying is that he could work his issues out if he just let himself.
No Mythos on Angel (spoilers and specfor S4) -- lunasea, 10:00:38 01/28/03 Tue

I am working on a post about what I see as the Sacred hearts of Buffy and Angel, but I had to diverge for a minute. The Buffy side was easy to write, but Angel is harder to put into words.

I came to the board and all the comments about Angel made me stop what I was doing so I could defend my Champion and his amazing show.

How can the people that write the amazing essays I have been devouring not see the mythos? Does it get any more mythic than a souled vamp?

That is what drew me to the BtVS in the first place. My early analysis was all about what a vampire was and what made Angel into the Uber-Champion. I wrote about what is our humanity (what the soul contains). I wrote lots about heart and love. I still have those essays.

Buffy is obvious. She is easy to do. The layers and complexity of a souled vamp, that is a great story. BtVS without Angel would have been the movie again. The addition of that one character really took the story somewhere amazing. He makes Buffy mythic.

Angel doesn't need all the stuff Buffy has. HE is the mythos. Inside of him is everything. This season he doesn't even need the Big Bad representing judgment, Wolfram and Hart.

Here is another look at AtS.

Could these show be running more parallel? The only thing that isn't parallel is the actual plot.

First what originally got me thinking about this. Angel (of course). No character has captured my heart, mind and soul like he has. He isn't a plot device. He is a wonderful character that the PTB have been shaping for a while now. Just as we get to see what that has been leading to with Buffy this season, same with Angel. Spike gets to come along for the ride.

Angel isn't Buffy. The AI team isn't the Scoobies. Buffy tries to kill all the Scoobies and she is immediately forgiven. The bonds at AI aren't quite that tight. As much as Buffy felt betrayed by being ripped from heaven, she tried her hardest not to show this. Angel feels betrayed by several key members of his team AND he has let them know that he isn't happy with them. He tried to kill Wesley in a fit of rage. He let Cordy know somewhat how he feels about her and Hell Spawn. He isn't exactly thrilled with said Hell Spawn.

Angel is a big enough hero that he will work with these people and will help them, but he doesn't want bitch and Hell Spawn in his house. That is Angel. He tries desperately to keep a lid on his demon. Wonder how Angelus will feel, or better yet, what Angelus will do.

Act 1: set up conflict. Angel, being the all-around good guy, tries to shove conflict aside.
Act 2: Angelus returns. Soulless, all that conflict now becomes fodder for fun times.
Act 3: Angel resouled.

That is one thing that AtS does well. Look at S2. Everything to Reunion is Act 1. It sets up why Angel has a dark night. Then from end of Reunion (when he fires the gang) until Reprise (when he tries to loose his soul) is Act 2. Everything after that is Act 3, with final "redemption" happening in Pylea when he defeats the full strength of his demon.

So what will happen this season? Back to S2. The Trials that Angel faces play out in Act 2 and lead to his Epiphany. My prediction, pay close attention to "Awakening." Whatever happens there will play out in what Angelus will do Act 2 and possibly what will lead to him being resoulled. The show is like a Mandelbrot series. I could be wrong though.

That is the background for what follows. What is actually important is Act 3 (probably post Orpheus). That is where BOTH our souled vampires are heading.

Angel was set up with Cordy. I really love you, but I can't deal with your past, specifically how much you enjoyed what you did. How do you think that Angel feels? His biggest concern is that he wants to do certain things. He learned S2 that he is stronger than these desires, but he still hasn't forgiven himself for having them. He just rises above them.

Time to revisit them. Act 2 will take care of that. Then what? How will Angel come to grips with what he did. It will be horrifying and intensely personal. As angry as he is with the AI team, he really does love them. He never seriously hurt Buffy, Willow or Xander. There was a purpose behind what he did to Giles.

The writers have to come up with a way for him to deal with all that. Making amends isn't going to cut it this time around. Angel will have to understand how Act 1 leads to Act 2. He will have to figure out what informs his vampire. Then and only then will redemption be possible. (and if Cordy is the one that tells him this, I will barf. Let's hear it for maternity leave)

It is something that applies to people. We don't just have random demons in us. Our demons are very specific. Unless we deal with the causes of those demons, those demons can control us.

Passion. It lies in all of us. Sleeping...waiting... And though unwanted...unbidden... it will stir...open its jaws, and howl. It speaks to us...guides us... Passion rules us all. And we obey. What other choice do we have?

Hopefully everyone knows who said that. Back to S2. That is what ASH said they were doing on BtVS.

I think the reason people fell in love with Spike is that he is "love's bitch." People like vampires because they don't try to control passion. They live life large and don't make excuses. People feel like vampires allow passion to rule. They are voluntarily "love's bitch." But is it voluntarily? "What other choice do we have?"

I think in one toss-away humorous line in "Potential" the key to Angel's redemption lies. Angel has to realize where all those actions he does as Angelus comes from and deal with that. Running away from Cordy isn't going to help. It is just going to feed Angelus. Throwing Connor out or "We're okay again" with Wesley isn't going to cut it.

They key to Angel's redemption will lie with actually dealing with problems rather than brooding and avoiding them. He will kill the demon from within. The demon needs that conflict. It feeds on it. Angel will starve it.

That Angel will be the one that faces the First and shows Buffy how to defeat it. He may have one remaining issue that he hasn't dealt with (namely Buffy), that the First manages to tweak. By dealing with that, thus adverting the apocalypse with Buffy, Angel will kill the demon within him. That is how I would end this season. It is perfect timing with what is going on in both series (not to mention the ratings).


So AtS isn't mythic, like BtVS? You can dress up what I said above with whatever philosophical terms you want. How much more mythic does it get than literally killing the demon within you? Shanshu. That was the word. That was what they set up S1. Then they had to move him to a point where this could happen. It isn't some reward to be granted to him by some higher power. It is symbolic of what Angel himself will have done.

That trumps anything I have seen on BtVS, even Becoming, The Gift, Grave or whatever Joss can come up with to symbolize this season.
[> Go lunasea! -- Masq, 10:47:44 01/28/03 Tue

Glad to see there's another champion of Angel on this board. He is and always has been my favorite character because of the depths and contrasts I've found in him. I've written a lot on this in my episode analyses of the show(s).

And I prefer AtS to BtVS, and have every season since AtS started. I prefer the first three seasons of BtVS to the subsequent four. I know there are plenty of people who prefer BtVS, and that's fine, but what I don't get is why they feel the need to disparage AtS. It's a different show, but equally complex.

There are Angel fans on this board, so welcome! And please stay and join us!
[> [> Love for Angel -- mackrowe, 11:04:24 01/28/03 Tue

I also find myself drawn much more to Ats over BtVS. I can in no way put it so intelligently as the previous posters but I seem to "feel" Angel and the AI struggles. I felt that way about seasons 1-4 of BtVS but don't really any more. I don't relate to BtVS like I used to. I don't want to sound negative about BtVS. I think what they are doing with the show is important.
[> [> [> Re: Love for Angel -- WickedBuffy, 11:14:58 01/28/03 Tue

I love both the shows and characters, for different reasons. Buffy and the Scoobies will try to kill each other, then in a couple episodes it's all "five by five", and skips showing an important process that Ats DOES show. Forgiveness, and how hard it actually is. It doesn't just "go away", it takes time and work and there's many facets involved - resentment, anger, pain, fear... we see the characters of Ats actually wrestling those. It's not a quick, automatic jump, it's a long process. It's more like reality. It makes sense and it's something similar to what we all go thru at times.

BtVS (though I love it more) is like mind candy when compared to Ats. At times their angsts are like spoiled kids while Ats are the grownup kind.

...ow my head hurts now from thinkin' so hard without any java...
[> [> Re: Go lunasea! (spoiler) -- lunasea, 11:41:28 01/28/03 Tue

I am beyond a fan of my Champion. Angel in a nutshell: that which we want, we push away. This isn't some twisted psychology of thinking that we don't deserve things so we sabotage ourselves. It is a hard to understand Buddhist concept.

The show has taken Angel on a path of wanting things, only to have him wanting those push them away. It starts with "City of" and goes all the way up to "Awakening."

The key to analyzing Angel is to see what is really Angel's desire and then see WHY he doesn't get it fulfilled. Then when he moves past that desire, and no longer has it, it is fulfilled. AMAZING.

People look at the arcs of BtVS and are enthralled. AtS episodes can stand more on their own, so the over all theme of the seasons are missed. Just like with BtVS if you pay attention to the "filler" episodes, this theme screams.

For those who doubt me:

City of: Angel's desire is to save lives. As Doyle tells him, if that is all he wants, he will start snacking again. Just working on saving lives will ultimately cause him to take them again. Angel has to move beyond this desire so that he can really save lives.

In that first exchange with Doyle, the mythos for Buddhist thought is laid down.

"Left you with a bit of a craving, didn't it? Let me tell you something, pal, that craving is going to grow and one day soon one of those helpless victims that you don't really care about is going to look way too appetizing to turn down. And you'll figure hey! what's one against all I've saved? Might as well eat them. I'm still ahead by the numbers!"

If Angel was still brooding in the gutter, not wanting to help, he never would have reached a point where he was suppressing things and the craving wouldn't grow.

That sets up the show. That is why I love it. The craving keeps changing, but the process is the same. Not the typical hero's journey where the hero's flaw is hubris.

S2 was amazing. It took him through his Dark Night when he realized he was never going to get his reward or be able to triumph over evil. Then it got him to a point of acceptance. It ends with bringing him to another dimension where he has to face the pure form of his demon. Angel finally triumphs over evil. Not because he wants to, but because he does.

Which brings us to "Long Day's Journey." The way David plays Angel is amazing. The look on his face when they say they need to bring back Angelus, I almost lost it. (he needs a hug) He wants not to have to loose his soul. He has been trying so hard not to be Angelus. That what he wants, he pushes away. Per the formula of the show, Angel now has to be Angelus again.

BUT the fun part is that after he is that way for a few episodes, he will get resouled and will transcend that desire. After he does this, he will get it. It is S2 all over again. Everyone is focusing on will this be BtVS last season, with her battling the First and all. If Angelus is surfacing, with this be AtS last season? The First is what AtS spins off on. What an appropriate villain to bring these two shows back together?

Forgot the curse, but that is an obvious one. It was a great plot device on BtVS, but it really started this whole thing. The more Angel wants Buffy, the more it pushes her away. From "Lover's Walk"

Angel: There's gotta be some way we can still see each other.

Buffy: There is: tell me that you don't love me.

That forms the core of Angel's character. On AtS they ran with it. Put all the 20-something stuff on top of it. Make it palatable to the masses.
[> [> [> lunasea--a favor?? -- Masq, 12:18:34 01/28/03 Tue

Would you care to write a short essay on Angel for my site? I have a few existential and Buddhist interpretations of Angel from board posters already there (Happy Anniversary and Reprise), but they deal with his struggles in Season 2.

Something that looks at him in terms of the changes in his life since then would be great. I especially like your thoughts on the following:

"The key to analyzing Angel is to see what is really Angel's desire and then see WHY he doesn't get it fulfilled. Then when he moves past that desire, and no longer has it, it is fulfilled."

and

"Not the typical hero's journey where the hero's flaw is hubris. "

It wouldn't have to be long. And the more episode examples, the better.
[> [> [> [> I would be honored. -- lunasea, 12:32:34 01/28/03 Tue

I would be happy to tackle S3 & 4 for you.

In December I did an episode-by-episode analysis of BtVS S6 in regards to Buffy's Dark Night (I could pass it on, but it is realllly long) and AtS S3 goes with that well.

Epiphany takes Angel to the threshold, since he has a pretty good understanding of things, but S3 life and craving keeps getting in the way of acting on this. It is fitting that that season ends with Angel in his watery grave in a metal coffin. Tomorrow and Deep Down belong together, but we have to have Angel down there for a while and it gave us a nice summer cliff hanger.
[> [> [> [> [> This is something you could email me or post to the board -- Masq, 13:13:47 01/28/03 Tue

Just let me know when you have something to share!
[> Again, personal preferences. -- Rufus, 11:14:19 01/28/03 Tue

I will buy a certain amount of what you say but the constant belittling of BTVS isn't making points with me. If ATS in your opinion is so great fine.....I would feel a bit more inclined to agree with some of what you have said if it weren't for the subtle put downs of characters on BTVS, down to the personalities themselves. I love both shows....I have problems with both shows. I don't feel that I have to put ATS down to make BTVS look better.
[> [> Re: Again, personal preferences. -- yabyumpan, 12:17:56 01/28/03 Tue

Agreeing with everything you said in your post lunasea, another huge Angel fan here but also agreeing with Rufus. I don't really want to repeat what i said in my post below in the 'story of two shows' thread but which ever show we prefer, it's down to something inside of us, which stories, characters move us, not which show is better.
[> [> [> Exactly -- Masq, 12:26:57 01/28/03 Tue

"it's down to something inside of us, which stories, characters move us, not which show is better."

I do not post in threads that debate which show is better, because there's really no point. I could not write some grand eloquent essay on why I love AtS better. The reasons I would point to would work for me personally, but perhaps not for someone else.

* Why Angel's struggle hits me on an emotional level and Spike's does not.
* Why I feel pain and hope over Angel's relationship with Connor.
* Why I get so much pleasure out of watching Angelus and Darla do awful nasty things, and then feel their angst over it centuries later when they are ensouled.
* Why I believe Kate Lockley was one of those most complex and misunderstood metaphorical characters on the show.
* Why watching bad-girl Faith's search for redemption moves me and bad-boy Spike's search for redemption is merely another plot line to report in my episode analyses.

These are things you relate to because they touch elements of your heart that come from your own life experience.
[> [> [> [> Are we twins or something -- lunasea, 12:47:46 01/28/03 Tue

* Why Angel's struggle hits me on an emotional level and Spike's does not.
* Why I feel pain and hope over Angel's relationship with Connor.
* Why I get so much pleasure out of watching Angelus and Darla do awful nasty things, and then feel their angst over it centuries later when they are ensouled.
* Why I believe Kate Lockley was one of those most complex and misunderstood metaphorical characters on the show.
* Why watching bad-girl Faith's search for redemption moves me and bad-boy Spike's search for redemption is merely another plot line to report in my episode analyses.

I liked Kate. She offered the theist perspective and wasn't really replaced.

I feel really bad for Connor. Angelus starts with devouring his father and will probably end with devouring his son. As soon as the two of them started clicking, I started writing Hell Spawn's obit.

I do have one thing I want to see this season. I want when Faith and Angelus fight for her to mount him like she did in "Enemies" and Angelus to say something just as great.

Speaking of Angelus, Amy said that David has been improvising a lot on the set now and that practically no two takes are the same. I can't wait to see what comes out of his mouth. There is just something special when he plays Angelus.

One thing AtS does incredibly well is to take you into Angel's pain. As horrible as rewatching Cordy and Hell Spawn again at the beginning of Habeas Corpses was, it served to disgust the viewer as much as it did Angel. I wanted to smash things also. I am sure they will take us into what Angelus does this time around more than they could on BtVS. Then when he is resouled, again we will feel his pain.
[> [> [> [> [> I think so! -- Masq, 13:10:21 01/28/03 Tue

"Speaking of Angelus, Amy said that David has been improvising a lot on the set now and that practically no two takes are the same. I can't wait to see what comes out of his mouth. There is just something special when he plays Angelus. "

I must admit, I did stumble upon this little spoiler. I try not to. I really try. But sometimes, with the all-or-nothing way they've been airing AtS episodes this season, I fall victim to boredeom and visit sites that I shouldn't be reading.

When I read this, I got very excited, too. Some of the writers on AtS haven't written Angelus flash-back scenes and certainly weren't around during season 2 of Buffy. Let the long-time Angelus expert put his sinister eyebrows and wicked one-liners into the job! Go David!

Ready for evil, evil, evil and angst, angst, angst

Also hoping the hell-spawn just gets emotionally shreaded and tossed around a lot but keeps his life. Maybe then he'll appreciate his souled dad more.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I know the feeling -- lunasea, 13:29:02 01/28/03 Tue

"I must admit, I did stumble upon this little spoiler. I try not to. I really try. But sometimes, with the all-or-nothing way they've been airing AtS episodes this season, I fall victim to boredeom and visit sites that I shouldn't be reading."

I can relate to that. I got massively spoiled this week because last week Basketball preempted AtS and they didn't reschedule it. I was so worried that I would miss something important, I actually read spoilers. (then they showed it Sunday, so I did get to see it) Unfortunately, this weeks was on the same page and I have no will power, so I kept reading.

I can't decide if I am glad or not. It is massive, but I am not sure I could sit through it if I didn't know.

The only thing I like to read are interviews with the writers and actors. They aren't going to ruin things for me. Most of their stuff are misdirects any way. As Steven said after he killed Tara "We are all evil liars."

I am so excited, I am bouncing and making Dru squeals periodically. When I wake up on Wednesdays, my brain screams ANGEL!!!! before my eyes are open. I get excited on Tuesdays, but never like this before.

It is so great to find someone who appreciates this as much as I do.

Now if we could just get to the crossover. I don't know what is more exciting, Angelus or David on BtVS.

yeah I do..... ANGELUS!!!!!!!!

I can't wait for Cordy to really see how much pleasure Angelus takes in what he does. I can't wait for him to tell her "Get over it."

ANGELUS!!!!!!

And they will pronounce it correctly this time. AND David gets to smile. I love his smile. I get lost in his smile

(besides we are linked. We are born at the same hospital exactly 2 months apart. I like that.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I know the feeling -- Masq, 14:13:32 01/28/03 Tue

Well, I don't lust after either David or Angel or Angelus (so much for the 'twins' thing), but I do appreciate the characters of Angel and Angelus, each in a different way, and the way David plays them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I know the feeling -- lunasea, 15:02:20 01/28/03 Tue

Twins can have some differences. All I said was I really like his smile. I like seeing people's hearts on their faces. I hate that David has to hide his, though it comes through in his pain. I was going to talk about that in his Sacred heart, but I find the task you asked me to do much more interesting. I am trying to find sutras (sayings of the Buddha or patriarchs) to back things up. It may take a while.

We both appreciate Angel and Angelus and the way that David plays them. That is what matters.

Chick superhero isn't what enthralled me. The souled vampire was (from "I'll be damned" on). The chick grew on me. By the end of "Angel" I was hooked on both. The way his pain was screaming from every fiber of his being and the way this 16 year old girl had to react to that by offering her neck makes me all goosebumply. The chemistry between those two.

Sorry, but Cordy just doesn't have it. She had her chance to offer he neck. "I love you, but I can't be with you" doesn't cut it. No wonder she got kicked out of the higher realms.



Still twins.

Never had one before. It is cool.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Chick superhero and Angel's inner demon -- Masq, 15:15:42 01/28/03 Tue

I was drawn to BtVS originally because I wanted to see a strong female hero. I still watch it for that reason. I enjoy all the strong females on both shows. If they didn't have them, I wouldn't be able to watch. At least not comfortably.

But Angel's angst really hit me on an emotional level from the moment his vampirism was revealed. There's a part of him that will never be good, never be redeemed. With Spike, they made his demon so "good" by the end of Season 6, he didn't really need a soul--it made no difference. He became a white-washed character.

I think Angel is an entirely different take on human evil. He represents the notion that there is a part of us that will always be attracted to the hurt we can cause others, and we must fight that part, continuously. In the character of Buffy, that hurtful part of her is just a character flaw in her personality. In Angel, it is more metaphorical--his hurtful part is a literal demon inside him that he tries to keep supressed, tries to disassociate himself from.

Kind of hard to do when your friends lock you in a cage and rip out your soul.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Chick superhero and Angel's inner demon -- lunasea, 15:33:52 01/28/03 Tue

"There's a part of him that will never be good, never be redeemed. "

Until they brought up the idea of Shanshu. Death of the demon, Angel becomes alive.

They showed him the path to his redemption. The Oracles even forshadowed it: "The Powers-That-Be? Did you save humanity? Avert the Apocalypse?"

I agree with your take on the two champions. I find it interesting that both these characters are champions, however, I don't think that Joss ever kills hope. There is still hope that Angel will be freed of his demon. I am interested to see how he does this. I watch the show for WHY more than WHAT. That is what I see him being shaped towards. First step was for him not to want it and not to work towards it.

How powerful is that? We can't be freed of our demons through desire or work. It isn't something we can attain. It is something that happens to us when we stop trying.

Then again, I still hold out hope that Angel and Buffy will share one more kiss before the season is over.

I loved your imagery. Tomorrow will be amazing, even if I am spoiled.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Souls and demons -- Masq, 16:14:52 01/28/03 Tue

I think you misunderstood me a little here.

"Until they brought up the idea of Shanshu. Death of the demon, Angel becomes alive."

My point is, the demon itself can never be redeemed. It can either be evil, or it can die.

The demon part of Angel, as long as it lives, will never be redeemed. That was what bugged me about the Spike thing. His demon, without a soul, got to be so good and helpful, that he didn't really need a soul. So what was the point of giving him a soul at the end of Season 6? From a metaphysical point of view, I can't see that it gave him anything he didn't already possess.

That's why Angel's demon and his soul are so important. They stand for something. They are powerful metaphors for the human condition. Redemption isn't about gaining a soul, as Spike did, or about losing a demon and becoming mortal, as Angel did in "IWRY". It is about fighting, everyday, with the darker parts of your nature within, and winning, even if, and especially because, those dark parts don't go away.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Souls and demons -- lunasea, 18:10:04 01/28/03 Tue

You are harsher on Spike than I am. I like you.

Now I see your point. With the Buddhist themes of the show, I am not sure if they would say that the Dark parts don't go away. I have a feeling this season we will find out.

The demon, to me, is something Angel needs to abandon. He just has to figure out how. It is the ultimate source of his cravings. The demon was informed from Liam and is him, but he doesn't have to accept it as permanent.

The show has spent a great deal of time showing us where Angelus comes from. I am surprised that they haven't reminded us this season yet. Thing is Angel doesn't watch the show. He doesn't come to the boards or the chatty rooms. The audience knows more about him than he does. I think it is about time he realizes where his demon comes from. The Devil made me do it isn't going to cut it any more.

I don't think we see Angel's redemption the same way. Perhaps we don't see vampires the same way. Let me describe how I see Angelus (the demon inside of my champion). Not sure if I have posted this before.

Ever want to smash someone's face in? Sure you have. We all have. Thing is, we don't.

Here is how my 6 year old describes what happens. I told her about the small voice inside of us, the conscience. It will let her know what is right and what is wrong. If she listens to that, she won't get into trouble. That night she told me that it was hard to hear her small voice because she had a large voice in her tummy that told her bad things to do.

A vampire doesn't have that small voice. In Angel we focus on the after effects of the conscience, namely the guilt he feels because he has done all that stuff. A vampire only has the large voice. In a vampire, that large voice is even larger because of the demon.

But where does that large voice come from? They really don't develop that too much S1-3 on BtVS. Blame in on the devil/demon seems to be adequate to the needs to the show. The vampire retains the personality and memories of the human, but that is about it.

Then Angel gets his own show. It was supposed to be a detective series, so where Angel's big voice comes from wasn't important. Angel's redemption lay with saving souls. It was entertaining, but the writers remembered that they liked character development and returned to it.

They killed off Doyle and gave us episodes like "The Prodigal." We got to see where Angel came from. We finally got to really see Liam. We saw what informed Angelus. We saw the cause of that big voice.

Then Spike becomes a major character. He needed his "The Prodigal" to explain him. We got "Fool for Love." What a sensitive, sweet poet icon. That wasn't what they were trying to show. Flashbacks serve to show where present situations are coming from. Becoming does that rather well. So do several episodes of AtS.

The purpose of "Fool for Love" was two fold. In terms of the arc, it was to get Buffy to doubt her own goodness/darkness. In terms of Spike, it was to show where his big voice comes from, since we would be seeing more of it S5. It wasn't the sensitive poet that we were supposed to keep in mind. It was the FOOL and his motivation. The title isn't "Sweet Sensitive Poet and the Heartless Slayer."

That episode aired the same night as "Darla." We got to see where she came from also, but it also cast a different light on the events told in "FFL."

Vampires aren't just evil creatures. Their big voice is very vampire specific. Jesse and Dru are two other vamps where we see what informs them. Same thing with Harmony. Wouldn't it be fascinating to see where the Master comes from?

So we have vampires with various big voices. They have nothing to keep that big voice in check. When they want to hit someone, they do.

We get more about what informs the vampire in "The Prodigal." Angel is lashing out because his father always put him down. Without a soul, he can't see this. He thinks killing his father is a victory and showed how had the power. Angelus has been created from Liam's issues. Once that happens, the issues are gone, but the big voice remains.

"Billy" was an amazing episode (of course what else would you expect when Tim Minear and Jeffrey Bell team up) that really dealt with this. We all have those moments where we want to smash people's faces in. We all have moments of hate, moments of anger that cause this. Vampires don't. All they are left is what that causes. All they are left with is the big voice.

Because of that, they are powerless to silence it. The conscience fights the big voice, but only by dealing with what causes the big voice can we silence it forever. Thus we get AtS.

That is a vampire. Angelus has the big voice created by Liam and has to lash out against anything that big voice says to. He has no real choice. He really does lack free will. He is blinded by that voice, a slave to it. Same with Spike. Same with Dru.

So when it comes to Angelus, I don't see it as permanent. I don't like that view of humanity and since the writers put in Shanshu, I would like to think they agree with me.

To me his redemption lies with overcoming that big voice.

I had a real dark part once upon a time. I had some serious rage issues, even pulled a knife on my boyfriend. Those parts can be not only fought and conquered (like Angel did on Pylea), but ultimately abandoned. Angel fought and conquered them. They still haven't fully developed him.

If you don't think those dark parts can be abandoned, where else do you think they can take him?

He didn't accept being human in IWRY because he wasn't ready. Is he now? Maybe.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Souls and demons -- yabyumpan, 18:33:33 01/28/03 Tue

"It is about fighting, everyday, with the darker parts of your nature within, and winning, even if, and especially because, those dark parts don't go away."

That's it! Exactly how I see it and partly why I identify with him so strongly. I do think part of his journey though, is to intigrate and except the demon that he is. Lunasea, I don't think he can 'kill' it because that would mean destroying himself. He is the demon but with a soul. I would see his journey to be about duality and the path to becoming whole. That for me is about accepting all that he is - Liam/demon/souled vampire. Also about accepting the gifts that the demon gives him, all the super-heroy stuff - stamina, strength, hightened senses, quick healing. There's a paradox in there, it's because he is a demon, because under that soul there's an 'evil thing' trying to get out, that he can actually be a force for good. His evil,demon side gives him the ability to help people in ways that Gunn, Wesley etc can't. So I don't think it's about killing the demon as much as accepting it.
[> [> [> [> OT : Masq -- yabyumpan, 14:27:34 01/28/03 Tue

Did you get my email about my ideas for the Angel web site? If not, I'll post it again. :-)
[> [> [> [> [> I got'm -- Masq, 15:02:21 01/28/03 Tue

Just haven't had time to reply yet.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I got'm -- yabyumpan, 18:10:42 01/28/03 Tue

No problem, whenever :-) (didn't mean to hassle)
Would M. Night Shyamalan lie to us? (big spoilers for all his movies and BtVS to 7.12) -- ponygirl, 12:04:07 01/28/03 Tue

Thought I would squeak this in before the new Angel episode (tonight for me, yay!). I was thinking about the Signs references on BtVS a lot lately-- both Xander's comment a couple eps. back and Potential's possible homage in locking a vampire away behind a flimsy door. There seem to be a number of other references to Shyamalan's movies this season which I'm starting to think are pretty significant -- of course there are even more Star Wars references but I'm just going to ignore those.

I quite like M. Night Shyamalan's three movies, all of which seem to be based on the idea of taking a well-worn cliched genre -- the ghost story, the super-hero origin story, the alien invasion movie -- and treating it with complete gravitas. And of course the twist at the end (which I will be shamelessly revealing). Essentially I think each of his films could be seen as having a Message, and a Twist.

The Sixth Sense was the story of a little boy being haunted by ghosts, the strain of which was isolating him and possibly driving him insane. In the end he doesn't defeat or drive away these ghosts but learns to listen to them, finding that a great deal of the horror the visions held for him was his attempts to avoid them. Acceptance seems to be the message, instead hiding from the darker, stranger parts of ourselves we should be listening the lessons they can give. The twist is that the true protagonist of the film, the little boy's therapist, is himself a ghost but doesn't realize he's dead. We had seen everything in the movie through his perspective, and once he has his realization we see all that had gone before in a new light -- the wife isn't angry at her husband, she's mourning him, Bruce Willis doesn't just have a boring wardrobe, he's been wearing the same clothes for the whole movie.

Now BtVS seems to reference the Sixth Sense with the title of CwDP, and there's also the FE with its very particular limitation that it can only take the form of people who have died (why is that? is it because the dead have some sort of expired copyright on their likeness? as though they've moved out of play in this particular game?). But we've also been receiving tonnes of clues about "seeing" this season, warnings that we can't trust what we see. Shadowkat's been writing quite a bit about perspective, and I'd have to agree, we seem as an audience to be moving from one character's perspective to anothers, often becoming aware of how limited that perspective is. Heck, we still don't know what's going on with Giles. Episodes like Him, or STSP emphasize the idea of characters seeing only what they want to see.

Acceptance of the darker side of one's nature has long been a major BtVS theme, but the idea that the FE is the evil that's within us all seems to bring this theme to the forefront. Buffy wants to find evil and destroy it, Joyce in a dream tells her that this is impossible, that evil is all around us and is natural. Might the FE in the end have something to say that is worth hearing?


Unbreakable stars Bruce Willis again, this time as man who reluctantly comes to believe that he is a super-hero. He learns that his life has a larger purpose, a greater responsiblity, he comes to see his specialness. The twist is that his mentor in this journey, the comic book collector, the one who has been urging him along and could see his potential, is actually his enemy. The comic book collector knew the rules-- because of his own appearance and his medical condition he was meant to be a super-villain. In order to give his life purpose he needed an opposite. He had to create a hero.

Buffy has been on a long journey from wanting to deny who she is and seek a normal life to standing up in front of the SITs and talking about what it means to have a destiny. She's learned that she can't walk away from who she is, and she's come to celebrate the power within her. At the same time she's refused to be bound by prophecies or rules.

The FE on the other hand seems to have certain rules, and see this as a game. The cosmic chessboard of good and evil. Does Buffy have a part to play? Is this possibly why Ubie doesn't kill her or Spike? And in a larger sense can Buffy move away from the oppositional way of thinking that so warps the villian in Unbreakable? Or does good need evil in order to define itself?


Finally to Signs! Here Mel Gibson learns that the key to fending off an alien invasion is by regaining his faith in God. Essentially the message is that everything is connected... if we choose to see it that way. The twist is that the answer to defeating the aliens was right in front of them all along -- the ordinary becomes extraordinary: the glass of water a weapon; the wife's dying words change from a confused mumble to a prophetic message.

We've been told over and over this season that everything is connected, we're just not sure how. Buffy herself said in CwDP that she doesn't feel connected, Willow senses her own connection to the earth but doesn't seem to like the dark parts of it. It's all very vague spec but I'd say that connections and seemingly insignificant details are going to become very important.

So what does it all mean? I haven't a clue, the key feature of M. Night Shyamalan's movies is that the ending transforms the audience's perceptions of the rest of the story. I have to wonder if this is what we're heading with BtVS, if it's true I'd say we've been warned. Thanks for reading! I know a lot of people posted on Signs a while back so I hope I didn't plagiarize anyone -- it's an homage dammit! ;)
[> I certainly hope so. Great Post. -- Deb, 12:29:26 01/28/03 Tue

[> Adding my hope and praise to Deb's. -- Ixchel, 18:00:31 01/28/03 Tue

[> Signs and Stephen King's The Dark Tower (minor spoilers for both) -- Rob, 18:12:20 01/28/03 Tue

What I loved most about the "Signs" twist ending was that it was not a revelation that changed the meaning of the whole story, as in the previous two movies, but just involved the main character reaching a realization, making connections between seemingly unlinked events and discovering his truth in that way. Whether it really was fate or not does not matter as much as what the effect of these newfound beliefs has on Mel Gibson's character. He was able to see under the veil, so to speak, and see the inner workings of life and the world.

This actually also reminds me of a fantasy series I'm reading now, Stephen King's "The Dark Tower," about a mythical hero's quest to save his dying world, helped by three people he had drawn from our world, twentieth century NYC (each from a different time period, mid-60's, late 70's, late 80's). This fantasy world, in actuality, exists on a blade of purple grass in an abandoned backlot in NYC, similar to the end of Men in Black, where we find out our world and entire solar system is just another marble in an alien's bag. Throughout the series, seemingly random, slight things end up having great signficance later. In fact, one of the main themes of the series is...you guessed it...it's all connected. A random phrase one character heard a man yelling to his friend might end up later in the book being the thing that saves them. Something that catches another character's attention for a moment that is promptly forgotten, ends up reappearing in a different form later. One of the characters, Jake, is struck by a curious children's book at a used bookstore, "Charlie the Choo-Choo" and buys it. Later, it ends up leading the characters on a significant portion of their quest. Not only that, but it ends up being the very copy that one of the other characters had as a child.

Part of me can't wait until the season finale of "Buffy" this year, because after viewing it, I am almost positive, things will fall into place that will call into question a great deal of what we have seen before. On the other hand, since this may be the last 10 episodes ever of "Buffy," the other part of me can wait. lol.

Rob
[> Excellent post ponygirl...playing the game -- shadowkat, 21:12:49 01/28/03 Tue

Wow...I was planning on not posting for a while but this post just brought up some ideas I've been thinking about for quite a while now.

This is a really cool post. You mention within it several reasons why I love Btvs this year and why I love M. Night Shyamalan's movies. Only one haven't seen yet is Signs.
Unbreakable is my favorite.

Unbreakable stars Bruce Willis again, this time as man who reluctantly comes to believe that he is a super-hero. He learns that his life has a larger purpose, a greater responsiblity, he comes to see his specialness. The twist is that his mentor in this journey, the comic book collector, the one who has been urging him along and could see his potential, is actually his enemy. The comic book collector knew the rules-- because of his own appearance and his medical condition he was meant to be a super-villain. In order to give his life purpose he needed an opposite. He had to create a hero.

Buffy has been on a long journey from wanting to deny who she is and seek a normal life to standing up in front of the SITs and talking about what it means to have a destiny. She's learned that she can't walk away from who she is, and she's come to celebrate the power within her. At the same time she's refused to be bound by prophecies or rules.

The FE on the other hand seems to have certain rules, and see this as a game. The cosmic chessboard of good and evil. Does Buffy have a part to play? Is this possibly why Ubie doesn't kill her or Spike? And in a larger sense can Buffy move away from the oppositional way of thinking that so warps the villian in Unbreakable? Or does good need evil in order to define itself?

In the book, Finite & Infinite Games, by James P. Carse (which HAcciety has quoted from quite a bit on the board and was recently loaned to me) - Carse makes the point that in games - no one can play the "game" alone and we cannot be forced to play, we are selected but not forced.

Here's the quote, p. 5, Finite & Infinite Games :

(Oh Finite - is defined as game that has a definitive ending, there is a winner and loser and the game is over.
Infinite - is defined as a game that does not have a definitive ending - there can be many finite games - but each just builds on the last one or coexists - there is no ultimate winner or loser and the game continues as long as there are players to play, players can be replaced by a new player ; Example Buffy dies, Kendra is called, Spike kills Nikki - in comes a new slayer...as he states in Boxer Rebellion (FFL) - don't worry Angelus - there will be a new slayer called...the game is ongoing - it does not end with a death.)

[ ] = are my comments - trying to make it clearer to people and myself at the same time.

"Persons are selected for Finite play [which can occure within Infinit play]. It is the case that we cannot play if we must play, but it is also the case that we cannot play alone . Thus in every case, we must find an opponent and in most cases teammates, who are willing to join in play with us. [teammates aren't absolutely necessary but the opponent is - for example you can't have a discussion on the board if no one responds to you.]. Not everyone who wishes to do so may play for, or against, the New York Yankees. [Not everyone for instance can be the slayer - as Dawn realizes in Potential. Only some are chosen.]Neither may they be electricians or agronomists by individual choice, without approval of their potential collegues and competitors." [Xander is the carpenter, Willow the witch, Giles the Watcher/Librarian,]

"Because finite players cannot select themselves for play there is never a time when they cannot be removed from the game, or when the other contestants cannot refuse to play with them...."

Now here's the problem with people not being able to be forced to play:

"Whenever persons may walk on or off the field of play as they wish, there is such a confusion of participants that none can emerge as a clear victor. Who for example won the French Revolution?"

So in Unbreakable - the villain spends the entire movie enticing the hero to play. The villain's acts are all about getting the opponent to participate. Because without the opponents participation - he's not the villain. His status as "comic book" villain is only possible if there is a superhero.

Warren is the same way on Btvs - without Buffy to fight him, he's not the villain. This is why in Season 6 it is sooo important to Warren to get the slayer to fight him. But Buffy keeps ignoring him. She barely runs after him in Gone. So like the villain in Unbreakable who equally has troubles getting Willis' character to go after him, Warren ups the ante. He can't be Lex Luthor it Buffy won't be Superman. This is why Warren doesn't leave town and use his resources to gain power over the US, but instead focuses most of his attention on Buffy and defeating Buffy. Killing Buffy is what makes him a winner in the game. That would be the finite ending. But only if Buffy participates, which she finally does in the comic book show down that Warren devises in Seeing Red.

In the game of life - it's not so clear cut of course.
Interesting. In Season 5 and 6, references are made to two games by Anya - Monopoly - an on-going game that in some ways is more infinite than finite - yes it has an ending, but only when one player has bankrupted all the others. If the players choose not to bankrupt each other but keep competing - the game becomes infinite. The goal of Monopoly is to monopolize the board with your houses, your money, etc - so the other players have no money and must leave the game. It has set rules. But if none of the players monopolize the board..it can go on endlessly. The other game mentioned by Anya is the Game of Life - an odd board game - where the winner is whomever reaches the center of a long meandering maze and hits all the life points - graduation, marriage, kids, a job...it's been a while since I played it, but I'm pretty sure the board game is finite.
GO - can be either - depending on whose playing, according to my brother - but the point is finite usually.

But the point of our lives isn't finite. Yes we die - that is finite, but our memory lives on and others take our place in the game to continue it. The Yankees may win a number of finite games, but they are playing infinitely.

Buffy kills vampires - that's a finite game. But there has always been a slayer - or at least as far back as humans and vampires co-existed, when the vampire is slayed, new ones turn up - their number is infinite. She always has opponents. If she dies, the vampires have a new opponent.
If she were to walk off the stage, the vampires would fight Faith or whomever followed Faith. So if Buffy stops playing at this point in the series - it does not necessarily stop the play. Buffy doesn't necessarily win or lose by leaving the field. But infinite games can't be won or lost - so even if she stays on the field - that won't happen. Buffy's not playing the board game life - she's playing the real version which does not necessarily have a set number of goals and steps before you reach the end and are done. It's not simply laid out.

The villains Buffy battles are selected just as Buffy is, by an unseen player. They, however cannot be forced to play the game, they must choose to. Spike by choosing to get a soul and not continuing to play for the evil team - walked off the playing field. But he didn't just walk off. He changed teams. He chose not to play any more by the rules established. The FE cannot force Spike to play. Spike must choose to. By the same token - the villain in Unbreakable cannot force Willis to play or force others to, they must choose to. FE cannot force Andrew to play - he has to choose to. In many ways the villain in Unbreakable reminds me of the FE - to persuade his opponent and teammates to join the game, he resorts to subterfuge, deceptive mind-tricks, and manipulation. The FE can't play by itself - it's not corporeal...if everyone ignores it...it can do nothing. This is what happens in Amends - when Buffy stops Angel from killing himself and FE leaves for awhile. The harbringers were killed by Buffy. Angel is prevented from a) self-immolation and b) killing or hurting Buffy. Neither Angel nor Buffy choose to play the game. Fortunately the Mayor and Faith do...so the FE hasn't really left - it just found better players for it's team.

The thing about evil...is it doesn't really exist unless we give voice to it, form and substance. Just as nothing really exists unless we decide it does - very Matrixy concept. That's the turning point in the movie the Matrix, when the hero Neo (another movie referenced by ME) realizes that he can control the reality he's in because it's not real - it only exists in his head. Sort of like controlling your dreams or nightmares - I guess. The FE takes the form
in your head - what can hurt you or manipulate you. The FE is the evil in your head.

Buffy looks for manifestations of evil on the internet...she hides it from Principal Wood by saying it's evil movies. He tells her that evil movies plant images in kids heads that may be best left alone. Once you see true evil you can't forget it. Why go there? Makes me wonder - if the demons Buffy's been slaying are manifestations of her and her friends demons taking root in reality due to the fact that she thought them up.

Going back to games...(hope this is making sense, it's late here and I've been uggy all day)..has the FE popped up because Buffy needs an opponent? Probably not. FE has always been there. Buffy has always fought it. So I guess the real question might be...what if Buffy stopped "fighting" it or engaging it by it's rulebook - slaying vampires, using power, killing demons and instead fought it in a different way...maybe trained others to slay their fears, or accepted it's existence but not the insistence on the finite game. Like Monopoly - instead of trying to take over the board - found a way - to keep everyone playing or keep the game in play?

Just some thoughts. Hope they made a lick of sense.

Wonderful post. Really enjoyed it.

SK
She LOVED the World, a lot -- lunasea, 13:10:00 01/28/03 Tue

I will have to add the Angel part of this later. I find it amusing that people think I am slamming BtVS. My kids (ages 6 & 2) know all the characters, I watch and talk about it so much. At this point, I have reached my end when it comes to analyzing it, but that is after an intense 3 week session of episode-by-episode analysis of S6 for Buffy's Dark Night. My next project was going to be on the "Vamping of Willow Season Six," but I decided to move on to AtS instead. I had been looking for a hook and I finally found one. Now my mind is racing.

But I wanted to share this last thing I was working on today.

I don't see Angel and Buffy as heroes. I see them as saints. Saints are typically lumped together with heroes, but to me there is a big difference. Let's see if I can actually put words together to express what I am feeling. It really goes to why I love the shows and why Buffy and Angel have captivated me.

Joss tried to write an amazing superhero to base his story on. She has super powers, the kind of destiny that prophecies are written about and an awesome responsibility. She is the little blond girl that took back the night. Her seasonal arcs follow the hero's journey, a metaphor for growing up and individuating.

Thing is Joss is the one writing that story. He is someone who watched all those horror movies and felt bad enough for the blond plot device that he wanted her to take back the night. That heart translated to his hero and later to Angel. That is why they are saints and not just heroes.

Marti gave an amazing interview where she discussed what she saw as the psychological underpinning of the show. I agree with her.

Well, I have a theory, and it's something I've been working on all these years, and Joss may hate me for saying this, but I think it's an exploration of being exceptional. I mean the whole idea of being a super-hero is the idea that you are unlike other people, and people are drawn to that, but at the same time, it makes you the other...someone that may have trouble relating. It's inherantly a lonely thing, and I haven't said this to Joss, but I kind of think it's his life story. Because he's exceptionally brilliant, and he has abilities other people don't have. He can take the summer off and write a musical that's every bit as good as what major composers, who've dedicated their life, can come up with. He's just an amazingly smart, over-capable person. And he lives in a world where his brain functions faster than most people's. And not that he can leap tall buildings, but the more I look at Buffy's struggle, I see it's a study of being exceptional.

Buffy isn't exceptional because of her superpowers. If that was the case, Faith and Spike would be exceptional. Buffy and Angel are exceptional because of their hearts. Joss wants to keep Buffy vulnerable. That isn't what happens with your typical superhero. Their downfall is brought about because of hubris. Buffy's vulnerability comes from her heart.

I call it the Sacred Heart of Buffy. I compare it to that other well known Sacred Heart, Jesus. He was painfully dying, hung on the cross. What was his concern? "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." That is what makes Buffy more than a hero.

S5 Buffy discovers that she can love. S6 she comes back. At first I thought she acted out of character. She had an amazing revelation and it didn't seem to change her. All she did was moan about not being in heaven. I started to think that maybe "The Gift" was a suicide in a fit of dispair and what I thought I saw was just wishful thinking.

Then I went through a similar experience myself. The Spirit Guide in "Intervention" says that love is pain. Makes sense. How much pain was Spike's unrequitted love giving him? How much pain did Angel and Buffy's star crossed love cause them? When love wasn't returned, it sure hurt.

But I don't think that is what the Spirit Guide meant. I came to a point similar to Buffy's in "The Gift." You would think after that, everything would be great. The opposite happened. I had trouble watching what Buffy was going through S6, because I was going through it myself. After realizing how much I loved everything, I found my own Dark Night.

Why? Because love is pain. Everywhere you look, things are hard, bright and violent. That isn't what you want for your loved ones. It hurts to see your loved ones engaging in self-destructive behavior. The more you love, the more it hurts to see the world. I can't even read the news any more.

Being a parent is hard. The world is hard, bright and violent. It can hurt your children. You just want to lock them in their rooms until the world is safer. That isn't going to happen. You can try to protect them, or you can show them the world and how to protect themselves. You can turn that pain that love has caused into strength. You can make your loved ones stronger.

That is what Buffy learned in "Grave." Love is pain is easy to get, once you start loving. Turning that into strength, that is the hard part to figure out. It is the only way I know to deal with that pain.

S6 originally upset me, because after the hero has his revelation, he is supposed to come back and put that into effect. Buffy was in character, of a saint. She was St. John of the Cross. She was St. Teresa of Avilia. She was Jesus. She was Buddha. Mundane heroes don't have the sacred hearts these people do.

The Gift ends with Buffy's tombstone. "She saved the world, a lot." Nice statement for a hero and it shows how people see her.

I would have it say something different. "She loved the world, a lot."
[> Buffy's S6 depression -- HonorH, 13:27:51 01/28/03 Tue

Great post, lunasea. I'd like to add one thing: many heroes and yes, saints, go through a Dark Night even after their epiphanies. Many normal humans go through depressions after amazing things happen to them. Post-partum depression is one example of this. What could be greater than bringing a new life into this world? Yet new mothers struggle with tears, fears, and depression--and it's not just hormones. A man may work his ass off to gain a position, and once he has it in hand, suddenly find himself despondent. Newlyweds come home from the honeymoon and have their first fight. Lottery winners turn to alcohol just weeks or months after becoming rich beyond their wildest dreams.

Why? Because the story's not over yet. You have your moment of bliss, but sooner or later, the real world sets in again. Your everyday problems don't cease just because you reached your goal, and frankly, it gets you down. Buffy faced her greatest trial and gained her greatest reward: peace, rest from her struggles. Then the real world came crashing in again and dumped her into the middle of the supernatural--demon fighting--and the mundane--paying bills. After such an experience as she'd had, it's no wonder she went into depression.

Just my two dinars.
[> [> Need some Buddhist insight on this -- luna, 16:54:02 01/28/03 Tue

Although we've had some brilliant posts on the connection between BtVS and AtS and some aspects of Yoga and Buddhism, I've missed where we dealt with this basic issue. What little I've learned about Buddhism has been that expecting happiness or satisfaction to result from achievement is like expecting it to result from possession. "Success" is illusory, no? So even Buffy's success in fighting evil is never going to lead to final satisfaction.

I remember a book that used a quotation from a Zen thinker as its title: If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.
[> Re: She LOVED the World, a lot -- WickedBuffy, 14:22:05 01/28/03 Tue

I would call Buffy a superhero, not a hero. There's a difference. People post about Buffy as if she fits into our reality, not a tv show. If she was in our reality, then by our definition, she's a superhero. She has super powers, like Angel.

I'd call Xander, pre-witch Willow, pre-power Cordial, Wes and the rest of the human gang the heroes. They fight as hard as Buffy and Angel *without* the super strengths or other extra enhanced stuff. They get scared and they still fight.

I don't know of any superheroes in "real" life, it's for fantasy. But I do know and read about alot of heros right here among us with no scripts. We have many Fred, Xanders, etc here right now.

(Same with the Saint stuff - how can it even apply compared to real life saints? It seems it would be more definitive to use words that Joss invents for his worlds than to try to drag some of ours over that don't really quite fit. There is a hierarchy in his worlds, it seems more accurate to use those terms instead of jumping realities to ours. errrr, I have no idea what the words would be, all I know is The Powers That Be seem pretty high up. For example, to define Angel "Angel has many saintly qualities and that's why I believe he is a true Rograhm." ) imho
[> [> Re: She LOVED the World, a lot -- lunasea, 14:46:30 01/28/03 Tue

To use Joss' words then, from "I Will Remember You," Angel is a "not a lower being." So is Buffy. Everyone else, including Cordy, is a lower being. (Skip lied to mislead her)

But if we don't try to fit the Buffyverse into the context of our own world, what relevance does it have to us?

There is a lot more to being a hero than courage. Giles says that he isn't one. Why not? What makes someone a hero in the Buffyverse. Not putting your own defintion of hero onto it, but what is the Buffyverse definition?
[> [> [> Re: I would say that the definition is much like Parzival -- curious, 15:28:36 01/28/03 Tue

"He was not an angel or a saint, but a living questing man of deeds, gifted with the paired virtues of courage and compassion, to which was added loyalty. And it was through his steadfastness in these, not supernatural grace, that he won, at last, to the Grail." ---(CM.Vol 4 The Masks of God)

Though I must confess that when I read this, my immediate thoughts are of Buffy and Xander before anyone else. It is Buffy the young woman that is my hero, not the slayer. Xander is heroic precisely because because he has no supernatual power and does it anyway. Same goes for the others. I tend to think of Angel as a Byronic hero, but nevertheless hero.
[> [> [> Buffyverse heros aren't always mine... -- WickedBuffy, 15:35:45 01/28/03 Tue

Great question!

In Buffyverse, it appears a hero (consistantly regarded as one, not an occasional thing like Xander punching our a bad guy in an episode to save Willow) is usually someone with super powers who fights for "the good guys". "The good guys" are generally defined as being represented as people who don't consistantly do evil, or live for evil, etc. Though Xander might temporarily do evil (The Pack) he is still considered a goody guy who erred, not even of his own free will. Willow walked a very fine line for awhile with her dark magic, and even crossed it - but she reformed so now she's a good guy until proven otherwise. Angel, too, reformed, so when he's Angel, he's a good guy.

Did anyone ever call Joyce a hero? I don't remember they did. Here she was a mother who's only daughter faces danger, torture, gruesome experiences and death daily - and she still keeps calm and usually supportive(as she comes to understand). If that was my kid, I'd be a nervous wreck. But Joyce kept the home fires burning and made sure home was home. But she didn't have super powers or actively go after demons, she only card for and loved her children, and that's not a "hero" in Buffyverse.

Is Spike a hero yet? SchizoHero? He has gone back and forth so many times and he doesn't even have an alter ego like Angel to blame it on! What's he in Buffyverse, then? I'd say he was a hero for love, and once he was a demon for lust. To me, he's a hero. I get to see his transformation and what he's fought within himself to get whre he is know, one step forward, two steps back. In Buffyverse, I don't think they consier him a hero. (eh, maybe Buffy does now.)

Angel is considered a hero and it's taken for granted he will do heroic stuff. But all I've seen of his transformation is in flashbacks. I'm not impressed. But, the Buffyverse is. Yet he didn't try to get a soul and reform, it was a curse, not his decision or free will that made him have to live with what he's done. He seems less driven to do good than to do good in order to clear the conscience he didn't even want.

In Buffyverse, heros are chosen and named so by the writers. In WickedBuffyverse, heros are chosen and named so by their intentions and thier hearts.
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffyverse heros aren't always mine... -- lunasea, 16:02:05 01/28/03 Tue

In Buffyverse, it appears a hero (consistantly regarded as one, not an occasional thing like Xander punching our a bad guy in an episode to save Willow) is usually someone with super powers who fights for "the good guys".

But it wasn't her superpowers that made Buffy unable to kill Ben. Giles said she was a hero because she couldn't take a human life.

When I get into discussions about why Giles' isn't a hero, I get into the song we first saw him sing "Behind Blue Eyes." "His dreams aren't as empty as his conscience seems to be." Ripper will be amazing.

In the Buffyverse, it is a strong conscience that compels Buffy and Angel to act a certain way that makes them higher beings. They not only have super physical powers, but super consciences driven by super hearts. It doesn't matter how Angel got his. He has it now.

Willow sees all the pain of the world and is going to end it. Buffy sees that and turns it into strength to help others. Same thing with Angel. "We live as though the world was what it should be, to show it what it can be." He sees all that harshness and cruelty and it gives him the strength to be Uber Champion. It isn't about guilt any more.

That is why Buffy and Angel are higher beings and no one else is.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffyverse heros aren't always mine... -- WickedBuffy, 17:13:07 01/28/03 Tue

I just go by their actions, not words (like life). Early Buffy seesawed between peer pressure, societal pressure and Giles pressure. Later, Xander and Willow, her closest friends were part of the Giles - making a new kind of peer pressure. They had to talk her into things, remind her of her super powers and how she is supposed to be using them. In those cases, the stronger consciousnesses were Xander, or Willow or even Cordelia with a pep talk. Then, Buffy didn't want to let her friends down even more than she wanted to destroy evil.

In the Buffyverse, if Xander had super powers, would you consider him a higher being? He has the biggest heart of them all and an incredible conscience already. Though can see Angel as an Uber Champion in the Buffyverse, I still have a hard time coming to terms to consider her anymore than a good girl with superpowers and a strong will. There seem to be plenty of people on the show with incredible hearts and consciences, just without the random "here's some superpowers too" gift.

Others have also not killed a human when they could have, some even a demon if they could empathize enough with the reasons. Lately Buffy has been throwing out shrill statements about killing a human, off the cuff. Would a higher being even joke about that kind of thing?

So though I don't agree they are "higher beings", I do think they are closer to higher beings because of their super powers (which are unique to them) and also their hearts and consciousnesses (which are in many people). Becasue that is what decides who they use it.

and llike Buffy/morph said at the end of Season 6 : "It's about Power." And finding the balance of it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Of course, would these others act the same way if they DID have superpowers? -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:07:44 01/28/03 Tue

We know that Willow and Anya committed some pretty heinous acts once they got superpowers. Also, it seems pretty clear that Spike could never have come to care about Buffy or Dawn if he hadn't been given the chip, thus nullifying his superpowers, at least in regards to humans. And I remember once hearing the writers say that an episode they had been planning to do but hadn't found the time for was giving Xander Slayer powers, but having him be unable to deal with them (since this would be a one episode thing, it would have to be very quick). A major theme on Buffy and Angel is having enormous power how to use it, whether you'll keep to your morality or become corrupted by it. We know that Buffy and Angel have, for the most part, resisted this corruption (moreso Buffy than Angel). It is put into doubt if the other Scooby and AI members would do the same.

If it's any consolation, I do consider Xander, Willow, and others heroes. But just because people like Buffy and Angel have superpowers doesn't make them less heroic. Besides, both have been pitted against enemies far more powerful than themselves, and both have faced evil when mystically deprived of their powers.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy is a hero (spoilers up to season seven) -- Dan The Man, 21:05:20 01/28/03 Tue

This post covers Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1.01-7.12). I'm choosing to ignore AtS so that my post will bit a shorter. I hope this is somewhat coherent, I wrote it fairly quickly.

It is very easy to stand on the sideline and tell someone, "This is way you should do it", but Buffy does not get that option. Buffy is the one that has to get it done. In season one, she had to face The Master, even though she knew that he would kill her. She did and after she was revived she then defeated The Master. This trend continues through out the series. "In the end, you're always by yourself. You're all you got - That's the point." (Whistler 2.22) None of the other characters have to carry that kind of pressure all the time. Also, Buffy has the powers that the others do not have but to quote Stan Lee's Uncle Ben "With great power, comes great responsibility." Buffy has options that are not open to Xander or any normal human. Buffy can be Faith if she chooses to be like her, but instead she chooses to help others. In Freshman (4.01), Xander says "When it's dark and I'm all alone and I'm scared or freaked out or whatever, I always think, 'What would Buffy do?' You're my hero".

Also, before you canonize St. Xander, it might be a good idea to play a little devil's advocate on Mr. Harris with a few examples of bad behavior of his part. In The Pack (1.6), Xander's possession manifests his darker impulses and among other things, he tries to force himself on to Buffy. In Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered (2.16), Xander blackmails Amy to use magic (a love spell) for revenge on Cordy. In Revelations (3.07), Xander demonstrates an inability to view Angel as anything other than a vampire who once killed people and is undeserving of forgiveness or a second chance. In Once More, With Feeling (6.07), Xander raises a demon (Sweet) that kills people. These are just a few of the more memorable examples of times when Xander was less that heroic.

"I just go by their actions, not words (like life). Early Buffy seesawed between peer pressure, societal pressure and Giles pressure. Later, Xander and Willow, her closest friends were part of the Giles - making a new kind of peer pressure. They had to talk her into things, remind her of her super powers and how she is supposed to be using them. In those cases, the stronger consciousnesses were Xander, or Willow or even Cordelia with a pep talk. Then, Buffy didn't want to let her friends down even more than she wanted to destroy evil."

Buffy is hero, not because she isn't tempted to do other things, but because she is. One of the wonderful things about Buffy the Vampire Slayer is that Buffy is not portrayed as a straight arrow hero who never makes mistakes. Buffy is not perfect and she does not have all the answers, but when it counts Buffy gets it together and helps those in need and that is what being a hero is all about.

P.S.: "It's all about the power" is the final line of Lessons, which was the season seven premiere.

Dan The Man
call for Nietzsche -- Clen, 16:55:35 01/28/03 Tue

Hi,
I've always found Nietzsche interesting and a challenge, and I know his name occasionally comes up around these parts. I would be interested in musing a little on this myself, but it seems this forum board loads a little slow for me. No big deal, but it makes it time-consuming to browse. I was hoping that:

ANYONE who has written some Nietzschean-Buffy stuff, send it to me.

I think it would be interesting reading, maybe give me some further ideas on what to write about, and keep me from treading over the same old familiar ground others have covered.

To those pertinent parties who are interested, please send it to:

sextarget@hotmail.com

(yes, the address is a little conspicuous. but it is real, I assure you, and has a legitimate history, not just a brainstorm for coolness/lameness on my part)
[> Re: call for Nietzsche -- David Frisby, 17:41:36 01/28/03 Tue

I just now sent you a thing on Nietzsche and Buffy I've been working on -- it's rough and not finished, but you might find it interesting, and if so, please let me know what you think ...

here it is for this forum too ...

Selected Illustrations of Nietzsche's Philosophy of Power within the Framework of the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" Television Drama

1.a. Joss Whedon's Buffyverse is a world ruled to a great degree by the power of magic.

1.b. Our world according to Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy of power is ruled to a great degree by the power of thought.

2.a. In the Buffyverse a young Buffy Summers played during her childhood at being the heroic "Power Girl" (2.18), the one who rescues and saves those needing her help.

2.b. In Nietzsche's epic world of _Thus Spoke Zarathustra_ the (pre-superman) Zarathustra taught the people to prepare for the coming of "the Superman," the one who will teach them or their descendants the meaning of the earth.

3.a. Whedon is an avowed atheist and thus has no supreme power or "God" ruling (or even watching) the whole, but there's also no simple materialism wherein all atoms obey physical laws -- there are the "Powers That Be" and magic is essential to their influence within the whole.

3.b. Nietzsche diagnoses modern times with his word "God is dead" (meaning after a few centuries of spiritual warfare a few hundred co-conspirators pulled it off and triumphed over the Kingdom of Darkness or Christendom and ushered in Modernity, and by analogy thus advocates no political philosophy of tyranny (or royalty either) to rule the future of humanity, but also not one of socialism (or democracy either) where there's one happy herd of sheep (but no goats or dogs or wolves or shepherds or owners or consumers) -- he advocates instead the political philosophy of "Nobility" and their thought is essential to their influence within the whole.

4.a. During the onset of her adolescence Buffy is called by the "Powers That Be" to magicaly become the chosen one, "the" slayer (always singular, with exceptions to that rule, as always, or at least usually), she who bravely prowls graveyards at night and who possesses the power and skill to fight and defeat the forces of darkness (demons generally but vampires specifically) and to save humanity from extinction at their hand and the world from going to hell.

4.b. During the course of his development Zarathustra is called to "take part and fight" (Birth 15) and eventually comes to recognize the "lot" nature gave to his life and mystically becomes (the independent intelligent individual of integrity) "the" superman (always used in the singular, except once (Z.2.17) in a different context), the one who courageously traverses centuries of twilight and who possesses the power (namely, that power which is the the supreme form of the will to power (Beyond x, x, x, x) and which explains physics or the world, biology or life, psychology or the soul, and philosophy or the highest simply) and the teachings to argue with and refute the various Platonisms of the western tradition and especially that twilight wisdom of nihilism, and to redeem humanity from the Preachings of Justice (or the Spirit of Revenge, Z.2.20), and to defeat the old Master of the World (or the Spirit of Gravity, Z.2.10), and give it a new center of gravity (the eternal return).

5.a. Being called to become the slayer is said by Buffy's first watcher (who represents the Watcher's Council) to be her Destiny (or at least its inception), for whose sake she must forgo dating and romance and marriage and children, while her second watcher, Rupert Giles (the super-librarian of the occult extraordinaire), calls it her sacred duty (x.x), including all that accompanies it, training, discipline, and sacrifice (x.x), and later in a dream (4.22) he calls it her sacred birthright.

5.b. After a long severe trial (see especially Z.2.22) of denying and refusing his destiny (to become the superman, after first having only preached the need for one), Zarathustra finally accepts his destiny (Z.3.1) and becomes the superman (Z.3.13), including what accompanies it, his forgoing of his happiness for his work (Z.4.20), along with the event of the great noon of the earth and humanity, followed by the Hazar or 1000 year empire of humanity. [Zarathustra's animals say that being the teacher of eternal recurrence is his destiny but his soul sings the song of his dance with his life, his love of life, and their marriage and children (this incarnation of Dionysos and Ariadne being his sacred duty).]

6.a. Buffy ("the" slayer) fights against the forces of darkness but the source of her own power lies in darkness (5.1). Buffy's best friend and very powerful sidekick, Willow Rosenberg, who during the course of the series becomes one of the most powerful witches in the buffyverse, in a special moment of clarity, faces off against Buffy and reveals that the whole slayer thing is not about the violence but about the power (6.21). To stand against Willow when she goes bad, Giles is given power by an English Coven in Devonshire, a gift whose source lies in the earth itself and which partakes of the true essence of magic, and when she takes this power from him she becomes the most powerful mortal ever, but the power she there manifests is contaminated by her need for vengeance and rage (comparable to torture and death and chaos or the source of the power of "Glory" (5.21) who is a hell-god), and only when her spark of humanity is kindled by the power of her friend's love is the world saved from destruction at her hand. Her friend, who is as well Buffy's friend, Xander Harris, is a simple mortal man whose "heart" brings strategic reason and passionate loyalty to the group.

6.b. The source of Zarathustra's power comes from Dionysos (the god of darkness (x.x) and ....

[the rest was not perfected ... David Frisby]
[> [> Re: call for Nietzsche -- Clen, 20:37:18 01/28/03 Tue

It is interesting, and thanks! I appreciate your help. I am curious, my understanding of N. is mostly self-taught with only a little nourishment from others, but in 4b, does N. seek to refute nihilism? In some senses, he is very nihilist (Hollingsdale (Hollingsworth?) calls him cheerfully nihilist). But on top of that, why would he want to refute anything? Doesn't N. want to be the great affirmer, to say YES to everything, even his own wretched life?

Also, why would you characterize Dionysius as the god of darkness? This seems a very Christian judgment, one that N. would have been trying to escape.
[> [> [> reply to your questions -- frisby, 21:04:59 01/28/03 Tue

Nietzsche himself says "Dionysos, as you know, is the god of darkness" (Ecce Homo or Twilight, I'd have to check to be sure).

Nietzsche understands nihilism as the illness of the time, following the death of god, and himself as the cultural physician who has discovered the cure, making it possible to now love life.

Understanding Nietzche's "great yes" as somehow excluding any sort of refutation (including his refutation of nihilism) is simply mistaken -- I wanted to say stupid but pulled that, thinking it stupid to say that. Part IV of Zarathustra presents the (jack) ass who breys 'ye-a' to everything whatsoever. Nietzche's great yes is more like what he calls the pagan concept of god, a great yes to all that is and was, an affirmation of the whole (and not the ignorant breying of the ass).

Nihilism (that is, the position that the world as it is ought not to be, and that the world that ought to be never will be) is basically a position on the relativity and subjectivity of all value, or, at bottom, as it seems to me, a belief that the past is not or has no ontological character. Nietzsche takes the side of nature.

but i go on too long ...

reading an earlier post now makes me think that the end of buffy 7.1 (it's about power) might be reversed so that the finale of season 7 will be all about love ....

Nietzsche's overall task is the love of life ...

Current board | More January 2003