January 2004 posts


Previous January 2004  

More January 2004

Blood on Their Hands -- Claudia, 08:57:11 01/13/04 Tue

While re-watching my copy of "Lineage" last night, the fake Roger Wyndham-Price's reaction to both Spike and Angel led me to wonder about the Watchers Council . . . and some the of the less savory choices they have made, especially in regard to the Slayers under theircontrol for so long. RogerBot's reaction also had me thinking of "Helpless" and the Cruciamentum test that the Council have inflicted upon Slayers who reach their 18th birthday. I wonder - how many Slayers have died because of this rite-of-passage? And just how much blood did the Watchers Council have on their hands over the years?

Replies:

[> Re: Blood on Their Hands -- Ames, 10:52:35 01/13/04 Tue

Let's see, on the one hand we have a large, wealthy, powerful organization led by a gang of ruthless and intelligent men and women, with centuries of experience. On the other hand we have a series of naive teenage girls, usually taken away from their parents and trained from an early age. I wonder who was usually in control there? And if the current Slayer starts giving the Council a little trouble as she matures? Well, if she dies, another is chosen - probably a pre-trained Potential already under Council control. All that's needed is a dangerous mission and a little slip-up in support or a bit of important information not mentioned. Or perhaps a "test" like the Cruciamentum just happens not to go well. Sounds a lot like Section 1 on Nikita!

Buffy must have been a real fly in their ointment. The real question is, why did the Council stay so much in the background with her? Maybe they figured she was a lost cause because they didn't get to her before she was chosen, but does anyone really think they wouldn't have taken her out if they wanted to? We know it isn't forbidden, because the "wet work" team from the Council was prepared to kill Faith.

[> Re: Blood on Their Hands -- skeeve, 13:19:08 01/13/04 Tue

"The Slayer is always a girl."

I'd guess that most of them died of the WC's birthday presents.
They didn't become women.
The so-called test didn't leave much opportunity for passing.
A bad night at the office would eliminate a bad slayer as effectively as the test.
What a bad night at the office would not do is demonstrate the power and ruthlessness of the WC over the Slayer.
The purpose of the test was to cow the Slayers it didn't kill.

I don't know whether Wood's mother was lucky enough to pass or lucky enough to be called after turning 18.

[> [> Re: Blood on Their Hands -- Claudia, 15:03:19 01/14/04 Wed

"I don't know whether Wood's mother was lucky enough to pass or lucky enough to be called after turning 18."


I bet if Nikki Wood had been pushing 30 around the time of her death, Watchers like Quentin Travers would still be calling her a girl.

Replies:

[> My Bad Luck -- Claudia, 11:35:08 01/14/04 Wed

I won't be seeing it. My family wants to watch "The West Wing".
The World and Agape Love -- Claudia, 12:43:44 01/13/04 Tue

Why do so many people value agape love? Why is it so important to society at large that we, as individuals, love the world or humanity at large? Why is it so important that we connect with humanity as much as possible? And why is more important to focus upon the world at large than with one's personal needs?

Replies:

[> Opening up the trusty quote bag and rattling it around (it's in here somewhere) -- Pony, 13:20:39 01/13/04 Tue

No man is an island, entire of itself;
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less,
as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were;
any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind;
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
it tolls for thee.

[> Re: The World and Agape Love -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:31:42 01/13/04 Tue

First off, regarding a love of humanity and the world, that's probably for the same reason that pessimism is sometimes discouraged: it's not healthy. Seriously, people with highly negative outlooks don't live as long, are more likely to develop dangerous health conditions, and suffer from psychological problems.

As for putting the needs of the world ahead of your own, think of it this way: if all or most of the people out there are putting the needs of humanity at large ahead of their own, you will also benifit from it, being that you're a part of humanity. However, this system only works if people, including yourself, put effort into helping others. If too many people just decide to be in it for themselves, the system breaks down, and you're left with only yourself to rely on. As the saying goes, sometimes you have to give a little to get a little.

[> [> A correction -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:35:04 01/13/04 Tue

"Seriously, people with highly negative outlooks don't live as long, are more likely to develop dangerous health conditions, and suffer from psychological problems."

That last comma should be removed. The intended meaning was that people with negative outlooks are more likely to suffer from psychological problems, not that all of them do.

[> Re: The World and Agape Love -- dmw, 15:00:16 01/13/04 Tue

Why do so many people value agape love? Why is it so important to society at large that we, as individuals, love the world or humanity at large? Why is it so important that we connect with humanity as much as possible? And why is more important to focus upon the world at large than with one's personal needs?

We evolved as social animals, with our greatest strength being our ability to work together. We evolved feelings of love and a moral sense to help us work cooperatively as gatherers and hunters. We value those feelings in others because they help assure us that others will work with us together.

As for applying those feelings beyond our tribes to humanity as a whole, that's a phenomenon known as the expansion of the circle of inclusion. Those within the circle are treated according to your moral code, but the same code does not apply to those outside of the circle.

Loving your family comes naturally--there's a tremendous selective pressure to love your children, siblings, and parents, all of whom share 50% of your genetic variation. Loving your tribe is also important; however, there are counter pressures to cheat if you can get away with it, though getting away with it isn't easy as we evolved many mechanisms to detect cheating as well as a moral sense that demands retribution.

Expanding the circle beyond the tribe is difficult, though as our tribes grew into nations, some of that expansion happened naturally. However, the expansion of the circle beyond our races and nations was very important, leading to the ending of the American system of racially based slavery among other wrongs. Today some people have even expanded the circle of inclusion to primates (an adult chimp's smarter than a newborn human after all) and other animals.

I think that expansion is a good thing for humanity, though I also think that there's also some good in loving your family more than your neighbors.

[> [> Re: The World and Agape Love -- Claudia, 14:20:32 01/14/04 Wed

But why is regarding the world and humanity at large more important than regarding your own personal well-being? All of these answers seemed to be messages that encourages people to place more importance in looking beyond. What about looking within? Isn't it also heathy to do that? Should the world and humanity really be more important than your own concerns and self-realization?

[> [> [> Heroism vs. self-interest -- Gyrus, 08:22:29 01/15/04 Thu

I'm suddenly flashing back to a couple of lines from some old TV show (I don't remember which one):

"What's wrong with looking out for number one?"

"Nothing, it just ain't exactly heroic."

[> [> [> [> Why? -- Claudia, 10:46:30 01/15/04 Thu

[I'm suddenly flashing back to a couple of lines from some old TV show (I don't remember which one):

"What's wrong with looking out for number one?"

"Nothing, it just ain't exactly heroic."]

Why should one be heroic? What's the big deal?

[> [> [> [> [> Because... -- Gyrus, 13:48:30 01/15/04 Thu

...you get a cool costume and free lattes at the Starbucks in the lobby of the Hall of Justice.

Seriously, I can't explain heroism to you. Either you admire people who take personal risks to help others, or you don't. And that's just my own definition of a hero -- there are plenty of others that are quite different. The only thing most people seem to agree on is that heroism is rare; if it weren't, we'd call it something else.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Because... -- Claudia, 15:09:53 01/15/04 Thu

"Either you admire people who take personal risks to help others, or you don't."

I think it all depends on a person's reason for being altruistic, in the first place. It seems that many like the idea of being altruistic, because they see some kind of reward in the end, or it makes them feel good about themselves. Or even worse, they feel that it is a matter of duty, no matter how they may personally feel.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Can't believe I'm going to ask this, but... -- Dlgood, 18:44:01 01/15/04 Thu

Or even worse, they feel that it is a matter of duty, no matter how they may personally feel.

Why is it inherently "worse" if one's motivation to do good stems from a sense of duty?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Can't believe I'm going to ask this, but... -- Claudia, 10:17:24 01/16/04 Fri

[Why is it inherently "worse" if one's motivation to do good stems from a sense of duty?]

Because it smacks of hypocricy. At least to me. If you're going to do good, I feel that it is better to do so, because you care about someone . . . or even if you care about the world at large, if it is possible. I am more impressed by those who are willing to do good because they care. Because they are speaking "from the heart". I'm not impressed when someone does good because they feel they have no choice in the matter, or for some other rational reason. Or even because they would be able to revel in their own sense of goodness.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Can't believe I'm going to ask this, but... -- Dlgood, 10:48:19 01/16/04 Fri

Because it smacks of hypocricy. At least to me. If you're going to do good, I feel that it is better to do so, because you care about someone . . . or even if you care about the world at large, if it is possible.


And where do you think that sense of duty comes from? It's not forced upon us. We don't have to be responsible. We can discard "burdens". The sense of duty arises from within as an external expression of our caring.

Buffy, for example, has saved the world with an attitude that she has "no choice in the matter" - not solely because somebody is making her do so. Rather, it's because she cares about the world, and the alternative of not saving it when she has the opportunity to do so, is too horrible to consider as an option. She in fact does have a choice.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Can't believe I'm going to ask this, but... -- Claudia, 10:58:28 01/16/04 Fri

[And where do you think that sense of duty comes from? It's not forced upon us.]

Of course it is. I think that many of us would be surprised how guilt and other forms of coehersion are used to force people to be altruistic out of a sense of duty. Look at how Buffy accepted the duties of a Slayer. She certainly didn't like being one.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> So is caring for people -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:04:35 01/16/04 Fri

We're often forced into caring about people. For instance, for my own personal reasons I need to communicate with a person on a regular basis, and that person continues to be funny, sweet, and touches me on an emotional level. I didn't necessarily want to care about that person, but I ended up doing so anyway.

In actuality, we don't have a choice about ANYTHING we do or feel. It's all determined by genetics and personal experiences. So, saying a good deed is less good because the person didn't have much of a choice in their sense of duty, just keep in mind that there's not really any choice in anything.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So is caring for people -- Claudia, 14:21:19 01/16/04 Fri

[In actuality, we don't have a choice about ANYTHING we do or feel. It's all determined by genetics and personal experiences. So, saying a good deed is less good because the person didn't have much of a choice in their sense of duty, just keep in mind that there's not really any choice in anything.]


You really believe this? Because this sounds frightening to me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So is caring for people -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:15:17 01/16/04 Fri

Well, think about it, if you take away biological and environmental factors, do you actually believe there would be a "you" left? I guess saying we have no choice is incorrect; rather it's that we don't control who we are. We can't control our genes, and we don't control how we're raised. Since we make choices based on our personalities, and our personalities are formed by outside influences, outside influences determine our choices. The idea that part of us exists independent of the outside world is a fallacy. The world is what makes us who we are. As such, teaching people to feel a sense of duty is not wrong because everything we feel is either tought or inherited.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Inseparability of Duty & Caring -- Dlgood, 12:42:39 01/16/04 Fri

Look at how Buffy accepted the duties of a Slayer. She certainly didn't like being one.

And yet she chose to do so, anyway. She wasn't forced to. We've seen both Buffy and Faith turn their backs on being the slayer. That Buffy accepted such duty reveals how much she cares.

Because if she didn't already care about the world so much, none of the duty or guilt would have moved her to keep slaying - when she doesn't like it all that much. Duty & Love aren't inseparable. Indeed, "duty" is a higher expression of love.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Inseparability of Duty & Caring -- Claudia, 14:27:37 01/16/04 Fri

[And yet she chose to do so, anyway. She wasn't forced to.]

When Buffy first rejected the idea of assuming Slayer duties, both of her Watchers, Merrick and Giles, literally pressure her with speeches about "duty" and "destiny". And she seems to have this idea that she has no choice in assuming Slayer duties. This does not sound like a person who "was not" forced to act as a Slayer.


I've always found it disturbing that some of the fans seemed to find no difficulty in the fact that Buffy had never really wanted to be a Slayer or assume Slayer duties. It seems as if it was more important to them that she acts like a hero, rather than lead her own life. And believe me, doing the latter is a lot harder than many imagine.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> But havent we seen her try to struggle with both -- RJA, 15:59:38 01/16/04 Fri

In some ways, I think the series had two parts to it. The first was her coming to terms with her being a Slayer. She struggled with it, tried to reject it, but ultimately came to embrace it. Duty didnt make her return to Sunnydale, and duty didnt make her sacrifice herself to save the world. There was no real obligation to do either. Yet she did both, and probably because she felt it the right thing to do. Which to me at least is both brave and heroic.

But like I said, the show seems to split into two. And the second part (arguably the last two seasons, maybe even earlier), she's not struggling to be a Slayer, she's struggling to live her life. And it's there, especially in season six, that she seems to be chafing at her duties to her human ties and world. Yet again, its something she overcomes.

To me, the ending saw her reconcile both, and determine what she thought the Slayer could be. And in doing so, she wasnt obeying to some notion of duty, but going with something she thought was both right and something she could live with. Which makes her heroic and realistic.

Of course, many can disagree with the rightness of her actions, or even with the idea that this is what was happening. But would you really want to see a show in which Buffy abandons being the Slayer, and abandons the ties of her family and friends and goes to live a fanciful life doing as she pleases? I guess that could be one interpretation of empowerment, but it's not one that sits easy with me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Everything's done to increase your own happiness -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:02:30 01/15/04 Thu

Do something bad/evil, you feel guilt. Do something good, you feel warm and fuzzy. Some see a more material reward for good behavior (Kingdom of Heaven, karma, etc.), but many others do it simply because it makes them feel good, and don't do evil because it makes them feel bad. However, I must ask what makes duty different from this? If someone feels a duty to do something, going against that duty will produce unpleasant feelings. Fulfilling that duty will create pleasant feelings. If someone does not derive any pleasure/release from pain from doing their duty, they will not do their duty. It's that simple.
Angel The Series Ranking and Comparing Episodes Game(spoilers to Destiny 5.8) -- shadowkat, 11:01:06 01/14/04 Wed

The Angel The Series Ranking Episode Game/Meme

To make the game a little more interesting, since the series is still going and hasn't ended? I've decided to add another layer to the game - that layer is - what do the episodes have in common? What episode in each section best handles/expands/builds upon the themes expressed? Or for that matter furthers the characters emotional arc? How is the writer building the characters' arcs structurally through these episodes? This is the really challenging part of the meme and while I think I do a decent job with it, I feel as if I'm missing something in each category - so anyone who's interested in putting their two cents in? Please do!

My ATS ranking choices and analysis on what each episode has in common besides where they fall in the series and what if anything the writer's intent might have been regarding that group of episodes. Only got up to episode 12, if there's interest - I'll do 13-22 as well.

Episode 1: City of ..s2 Judgement, s3 Heartthrob, s4 Deep Down, s5 Conviction

What the episodes have in common? Each episode examines Angel's state of mind at the beginning of the arc and how he views his situation and the supporting characters with him. What he views their roles to be and their relationship to him. Each episode builds on the idea of feeling uncertain about your place in everything or a lack of conviction.

City of ...starts things out with Angel getting drunk in a bar, contemplating the end of a relationship and trying to find the strength to go forward - when he meets Doyle and then Cordelia who are also in LA searching for a purpose - they find it through Doyle's visions which assist Angel in saving Cordelia's life.

Judgment - Angel, Cordelia and Wes believe they've found their purpose - that it is to do enough hero deeds so that Angel becomes human, they'll use the visions as their guide. Unfortunately the visions mislead them and Angel kills a demon championing a pregnant woman who's on trial. Angel takes the demon's place as her champion, discovering that the visions aren't always the best guide.

Heartthrob deals with Angel's uncertainty regarding his feelings or the lack thereof for Buffy's death. His old comrade James is so torn up about his lover, Elizabeth's demise that he literally has his heart torn out. But Angel feels nothing, he's okay and this bothers him and he's wondering about his purpose about the meaning of his life, now Buffy's gone - Cordelia tells him the meaning hasn't changed, it's still about helping others and grieving for Buffy, dying for Buffy isn't what she would have wanted nor does it prove his love for her. Passion or "passionate conviction" in something can lead you to seeing a far too narrow view, you lack perspective, as James did regarding Elizabeth or even Angel's relationship with Darla, seeing love as only being possible if you were passionate about and could not live without the other person. (ie. Too Much Conviction)

Deep Down takes the idea of hunting meaning in your life and examining your role and your desires to an even deeper level psychologically, where we see Angel lying beneath the ocean dreaming of his family and simultaneously of destroying it. Every time Angel grasps hold of something with any sense of conviction - it floats away. The MC Escher perspective.

Finally we have Conviction - the title giving voice to the themes of all the episodes preceding it in this category. Except here Angel seems certain - he's not asking advice from his comrades - not really - he takes action. Yet, within the episode we see how everyone is being pulled by external strings, including Angel himself, and just as he is giving a speech to his comrades about how they can handle anything that pops up and they'll do it one step at a time, up pops something Angel can't begin to handle - Spike.

The other thing these episodes have in common is they all set up Angel's ship or feature relationship - in City of...it's the ghost of Buffy and Kate. In Judgment - it's Darla who appears at the very end. In Heartthrob - it is Cordelia and baby Connor. In Deep Down - it's Connor. In Conviction? It's Spike.

Best? Deep Down S4 - why? Because of the tight plotting, the wonderful twists and turns, the noir themes, and the wonderful visual metaphors. This episode furthered each character, took each to a dark place, which was examined in greater detail as the season unraveled. Deep Down also depicts Angel's fractured state of mind visually - through his dreams. The other four episodes don't quite take us that far inside Angel. In this episode we see the duality Angel is constantly struggling with - a duality he later describes as an MC Escher perspective. Also Angel's dreams foreshadow what happens during the season as each of his worst fears come to life.

Worst? Judgment. Just for bringing the word "champion" into the series lexicon. Also somewhat cheesy plot set up. An episode that even though I've seen it a couple of times, I keep forgetting. Judgment thematically is a confusing episode. Heartthrob and Conviction do a far better job of setting up Angel's ennui or uncertainty about his mission. City of , even though at this point in the series I think the writers were planning a more stand-a-lone, anthology like format, does a decent job of showing us how Angel's sort of lost his way again and needs someone to nudge him in the right direction. Judgment appears to be attempting the opposite - showing us an Angel who appears to be more certain - I'm going after the shanshue, I'm saving whomever the visions tell me to save to get it - only to discover he's killed the wrong person. This would be wonderful - except for one problem - instead of having someone else save the damsel, Angel gets to be her champion and gets points for doing it, which sort of unravels everything interesting about the episode. It does set the stage for Angel's eventual downward slide, but it does it choppily. Conviction, while also cheesy in places, is smoother - and the metaphor in Conviction of the son being the vessel containing world destruction - is a wonderful way of commenting on Connor without mentioning him directly. Unlike Judgment, Conviction improves upon re-watching.

Episode 2: s1Lonely Hearts, s2 Are You Now...s3 This Old Gang of Mine, s4 Ground State, s5 Just Rewards.

What all the episodes have in common? This time, the theme is how we relate to those around us? Do we trust them? Can we trust and depend upon them? How important is our ability to connect to others? Angel is the ultimate in the disconnect, an outsider of both demon and human worlds because of what he is. These episodes deal with how important it is for him to connect to those around him.

Lonely Hearts is about the attempt to connect through sex - but only feeling more disconnected or becoming a parasite feeding on the physical connection not the emotional one. It's also about trusting strangers in the most intimate fashion - only to have them betray you.

Are You Now is also about trusting strangers and being betrayed and how distrust can lead to paranoia - again there's a parasite, but this time it's feeding off of this emotion.

This Old Gang of Mine is about distrusting that which is different from you and destroying it before it destroys you - it takes the themes of Are You Now to the next extreme level.

Ground State comments on Lonely Hearts - we're back to the personal - one to one connection - where just connecting with someone on an emotional and physical level can be destructive to them - something Angel fears, because when he does it - he loses his soul. When Gwen - the supercharged thief does it - she electrocutes the individual, re-starting Angel's heart and stopping Gunn's.

Just Rewards comments on both threads -trust/paranoia and the need for emotional/physical connection. Through the ghostly Spike - we see how both threads interact. No one in AI trusts Spike, they want to get rid of him and we are lead to believe he like the characters in all the episodes before him, will betray the AI team, especially Angel, to get what he wants. Spike meanwhile wants physical and emotional connection more than anything else - something Angel is somewhat afraid of and keeps at arms length. The villain in Just Rewards - is a type of conduit - he connects the demons to the humans by providing them with a human shell to animate. They have to trust him to do it. Angel defeats the villain by trusting Spike to inhabit the villain and break the villain's power over Angel. It's Angel's ability to trust Spike and Spike's ability to reward that trust that wins the day.

Best? Just Rewards , does it in the most entertaining way. It establishes the Spike/Angel relationship out of the box. It also does a good job of exploring trust issues in relationships. How do you trust someone who once tortured you? Who you are jealous of and know is jealous of you? Someone you've known almost forever, and know what he is capable of ? Is it even wise to do so? This episode also does an interesting job with the metaphor of being a puppet. Throughout the episode we're mislead into seeing Spike as the potential puppet, yet in reality the only one in danger of being a puppet is Angel - to the PTB, to W&H, to his own desires. A theme that will continue to be explored throughout the season and better yet refers to all the seasons before it including episodes in BTVS. Nice use of the supporting characters as well - everyone is well-utilized. Enjoyable upon more than one watching. While I enjoyed Ground State, which does an excellent job of showing how being superhuman can disconnect you - it was uneven in places, specifically regarding Cordelia story line. Also a tad cliché on the superhuman bit. I did like how Gwen's inability to touch and Gunn's involvement with that is revisited in the later episode Players. Tough choice but going with the one that made me laugh.

Are You Now is the episode I'm sure most people will pick - not to be contrary, but I've never much liked Are You Now or Have You Ever Been (the full phrase by the way is "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been a Communist Sympathizer" taken from the McCarthy hearings...where many Hollywood writers, directors, and filmmakers got banned - Arthur Miller refers to it in his play The Crucible, Jack Finney discusses it in Invasion of The Body Snatchers, and Rod Serling deals with it in The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street, I think Hollywood is still obsessed with this topic.) I've tried to like Are You Now, because disliking it is a bit like disliking Casablanca to Angel fans for some reason. But it bores me. I basically knew the entire story the moment I met the woman in the hotel. I think the reason for this is that I've seen the same story done many times before - the tale of the person hunting a fugitive, everyone has a secret but is afraid of being caught, all feel guilty, but also justified in keeping their secrets - so to survive they find a scapegoat and that person gets lynched. Are You Now discusses the repercussions of distrusting your neighbor and paranoia on a grand scale, showing how the paranoia makes us a demon's puppets. Just Rewards, on the other hand - brings the story closer to home, it's less about the big theme or moral and more about the characters inter-relationships, more about the issue of trust on a much more visceral level - which is far more interesting and far less predictable or obvious in its answers than the mob mentality tale. To be fair? I was never overly fond of Rod Serling's The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street either - it too seemed to be more about the theme of paranoia than about the human characters. Yet it is admittedly well done and possibly the best version of this next to the 1950s film version of Finny's Invasion of The Body Snatchers. Perhaps my difficulty is with the morality play structure itself - I don't like being preached too, or told what the moral lesson is - I like being told a story and somehow coming up with my own conclusions. Just Rewards for me at least seemed to do this - it examined the characters, the moral, if there was one, I found for myself.

Worst? Lonely Hearts - tempting to go with This Old Gang of Mine - but that episode does further Gunn's character and explain he's movement away from the gang. Lonely Hearts is less memorable and does little to further character, spending far more time on the somewhat cliché metaphor of sexual parasites.


Episode 3: s1 In the Dark, s2 First Impression, s3 That Vision Thing, S4 The House Always Wins, S5 Unleashed.

What they all have in common? Each deals with the idea of who we are, what makes us who we and how we handle that. Each episode also has some sort of device - which would make things better - a temptation. A mirage if you like - a mirage that you want so badly you might sell anything for it, but you buy into the mirage and you lose everything. In In The Dark - it's the vampire equivalent of the holy grail - the gem of amarra. In First Impression - it's the kid who seems weak and easily defeated and appears to worship Gunn - in reality the kid's the monster, in That Vision Thing it's the visions and breaking what appears to just be a defenseless human out of a hellish prison, in House Always Wins - it's the temptation to interfere with someone else's path - to make it better, and finally in Unleashed - it's the beautiful girl who is also a deadly monster, the romantic view Angel has that his two sides really are separate and manageable and that he has a tight family unit - just as Nina, the werewolf girl does.

Unleashed in a way comments on all the others - it discusses the romantic view of life - the idea of a life in the sun that the gem provides (In The Dark), the impression of hero-worshipping kid (First Impressions), the idea that pain and suffering leads to heroism and through our trials we become better people (the martyr complex - I may be reaching here, this one just about has me stumped) (That Vision Thing), the concept of gambling for a better life or destiny because the one you have isn't good enough - or the idea that you can make someone's life better and give them their destiny (another somewhat egotistical view of heroism - which may comment on the one shown in That Vision Thing?) (House Always Wins), and finally the idea that the monster won't destroy your family and you aren't responsible for the inner beast (Unleashed).

Best? That Vision Thing One of the best descriptions of Cordelia's character and her struggle. Also the mirage or temptation is the most complex, Angel is given an impossible choice - does he allow Cordy to die, torn asunder by visions or does he break the seemingly harmless fiend from his hellish cage? The episode successfully explores both Cordelia's weaknesses and strengths, how a self-involved cheerleader can be heroic. Also does a good job of exploring Angel's relationship to Cordy and his guilt about her situation. It's the first indication we have that the visions can be manipulated and maybe by depending on them the AI gang has in effect taken on the role of puppets? Fascinating episode. While in the Dark isn't bad, it doesn't do much to further any of the characters including the lead. It's almost as if the writers are still feeling their way with the series. Also the gem is a bit too obvious a temptation - not as layered as That Vision Thing.

Worst? Unleashed - nothing redeeming here. The conflict is a bit obvious and has been done better elsewhere in the series - the maiden who becomes a monster and struggles with the dark part of herself. Yes, the dinner party sequence is wonderfully twisted and there's a hint at darkness to come, but no guarantee. Exploitive and cliché with the girl werewolf in places. Direction isn't bad. Script? Dull. The House Always Wins - clunky as it is, does a far better job with the metaphor of Angel as a puppet to external forces and his own desires. The temptation in House is also far more interesting and less obvious, since it is Cordelia's temptation to interfere - she saves the day, but by doing so, may actually be opening the door to Jasmine. Also the scenes with Wes/Lilah and Connor have energy to them - that the supporting character scenes in Unleashed somehow lack.

TBC...in next post

sk

Replies:

[> Part II, Episodes 4-12 of ATS Ranking Game (Spoilers to Destiny 5.8 only) -- s'kat, 11:07:11 01/14/04 Wed

Here's part II - or episodes 1.4/5.4 -1.12-4.12

4. s1 I fall to Pieces, s2 Untouched, s3 Carpe Noctem, S4 Slouching Towards Bethlehem, s5 Hellbound.

What do they have in common? Each episode deals with our own worst impulses and how those impulses can take control over us - so that they are our master and not the other way around. The idea of "will" and "control".

I Fall To Pieces starts things off with a person who has found a way to control every piece of his anatomy with his mind and uses this ability to control another human being by stalking her and threatening her. In Untouched - a telekinetic, who was molested as a child, loses control of her power - it is all controlled by her emotions and pain, others attempt to harness it by controlling those emotions. Carpe Noctem - deals with a man who can switch bodies with others, forcing them to occupy his aging one until he sucks theirs dry. Slouching Towards Bethlehem is about Cordelia's loss of memory - without our memories, what motivates us, she is controlled by her perceptions and desires, yet, we later learn she is also being manipulated by a higher being who is using her impulses and weaknesses against her. Hellbound - comments on the previous episodes - showing an evil fiend who manipulates all incorporeal objects - able to torture and send other ghosts to hell instead of himself - he tells Spike, it's about the will - do you have the "will" to control your own reality or are you just a puppet of someone else's will.

Hellbound - wonderfully dark and creepy. The visual MC Escher metaphor at the end with Pavayne staring out at an endless hallway not only echoes Deep Down and Tomorrow but also reflects back on Angel's own state of being. Spike's discovery that it is all about having a will - is a nice contrast to the idea of being trapped in one's own eternal state of nothingness. Dark. With nice use of supporting characters.

Worst? I Fall To Pieces - cheesy episode and very creepy. Also somewhat cliché bit about crawling body parts. Doesn't really go anywhere or comment on the characters. Carpe Noctem, while not much better, at least comments on Angel's dark nature and how others relate to him.

5. s1 Room with A View, s2 Dear Boy, s3 Fredless, s4 Supersymmetry, s5 Life of The Party.

What do they all have in common?

Room with A view is about Cordelia's insecurity - which is symbolized by where she lives. This is a girl who has always felt secure in who and what she is - exudes confidence, but somewhere in Buffy S3 the rug got pulled out from under her and she's been floundering ever since. The horrible state of her apartment, her inability to bunk with Angel or Doyle, and the discovery of the lovely Room with A View - which is occupied by two restless spirits - all depict Cordelia's own internal struggle for confidence and home. Dear Boy - discusses Angel's uncertainty about his state of being as well as Darla's. Both have souls, yet are they good, evil, or something in between? How much of their past actions were really due to the lack of a conscience to being a demon? One can't go into the sunlight, the other is doomed to die of a deadly disease. Both want salvation - but they want it by changing places - Darla wants to become a vampire again, while Angel desires to be human. Both are connected to each other by their desires - by the fact that they are in a sense family. Both feel responsible for the other's state.

Fredless discusses the idea of belonging and Fred's insecurity regarding where she really belongs. Does she belong with her parents or the AI team? Do her parents presence make the monsters in her head more real? What is the connection between parent and child? And how responsible is she for her insanity? Supersymmetry - another Fred episode, discusses how you deal with those who hurt you and how you struggle with your own darkness - Fred struggles with hers, Wes with his and Gunn with his - what are the costs? Is it worth giving up a portion of your soul to save another's? (The redresses the issues in Dear Boy just as Fredless redresses the issues raised in Room With A View - both from different angles.) The final one, Life of the Party - takes this a step further and questions what happens when you give up something in order to belong, in order to be important and be accepted and be the Life of the Party - and how giving up a part of yourself adversely affects those around you. (Again may be reaching on this one - tough category to analyze.)

Best? Dear Boy - it is possibly the darkest of the bunch and does a wonderful job of developing Angel and Darla's twisted relationship as well as introducing Drusilla and explaining in greater detail just how twisted and sadistic Angel was and as Darla notes, still is. The episode leaves viewer wondering how much of Angelus is still in Angel. A question that will be addressed continuously through the series, making Angel a true "noir" hero or anti-hero. Supersymmetry while wonderfully murky is also deeply flawed - the plot feels contrived in places and has to almost be fanwanked to work - ie. how did Fred's professor manage to get her to open that precise book in the library anyway? It does propel the characters forward nicely and does a wonderful job of blasting apart a relationship that isn't going anywhere, but - it still feels contrived in places and disjointed, while Dear Boy is nearly flawless. Room with A view showcases Cordelia and Doyle wonderfully, but does little for the lead, Angel, also it doesn't really propel the story forward. In some ways Fredless, also flawed in some respects - with the insect subplot, addresses these issues a little bit better by simultaneously addressing the question of family. Also the mother and son ghosts in Room are a tad hokey and over the top. Charisma and Glenn Quinn's acting saves it, barely.

Worst? Life of The Party - another episode that is nice in theory but doesn't quite work on screen. The characters seem silly rather than funny. Their actions do little to propel either the story or themes forward. Also it doesn't cover the consequences of giving up something of yourself for others and the murky issues that go along with that decision quite as well as Supersymmetry or Dear Boy. I enjoyed Life, but it doesn't quite live up to the other episodes in the category.

6. S1 Sense and Sensibility, S2 Guise Will Be Guise, S3 Billy, S4 Spin the Bottle, S5 Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinquo

Every episode in this category deals with how we relate to others and deal with our feminine side. Sense and Sensibility starts things off with the obvious metaphor of the sensitivity stick and sensitivity class - a nice twist on "anger management". Angel needs to be more sensitive to others, but he can't lose his own identity in the process. The whole episode is about getting in touch with your feminine or sensitive side. Guise Will Be Guise - looks at the same topic from another angle - Angel goes to a swami to figure out how to deal with his feelings towards Darla and how to open up, Wes meanwhile does open up and date and interact with women by pretending to be Angel. Both are dealing once again with pretenses, denying the sensitive/feminine side and being a guy. takes it a step further - showing how the male frustration with the feminine side of his personality can develop into misogyny or misogynistic tendencies. Billy literally projects his hatred of his feminine side onto others. Is Angel more in tune with this side? Not clear. Spin the Bottle - is about that inner child or adolescent, we've dealt with the inner feminine now, but we're still a little immature in how we're dealing with it. Cautionary Tale is about the midlife crisis, we have incorporated all these issues, but how do we deal with that stage in life when the adventures are done, we are no longer the hero we once were? How do we deal with the fact that our friends are no longer the same? Things have changed around us...the world is no longer quite as clear-cut. We still put on the mask, but instead of wearing it, it wears us - Numero Cinquo is his mask - the hero wrestler, yet the mask means nothing without his brothers - the mask symbolizing their unity. Now it only isolates him, closes him off from others- so he can't be sensitive to their needs. Numero Cinquo like the other season 5 episodes seems to comment on the episodes that came before it in that category and expand on them. It's not just about integrating the two sides, it's about how we deal with others, how important others are too us - we can't be a hero alone; sometimes we are more heroic together. Numero Cinquo realizes that in some ways his brothers and his relationship with his brothers made him more than he could ever be by himself.

Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinquo - a lovely character sketch on a former Mexican Wrestler as well as a nostalgic trip on the Luchadores. If you knew nothing about them? It probably flew over your head. But those who did? It was a rare treat. The actor who played Cinquo brought the right mix of pathos and dry wit to the role. The episode also did a nice job of revisiting the territory of Epiphany in S2, with a nice little twist. Every character was utilized here and every character brought something to the mix. Also builds on the theme of brotherhood and incorporating the gifts others bring. How our positive relationship with others can strengthen us.

Worst? Sense and Sensibility - while Guise Will be Guise is somewhat silly regarding the mafia - it does have a nice bit with the swami and Wes pretending to be Angel. Sense and Sensibility - is a mediocre episode focusing on the pluses and minuses of sensitivity. More cringe-worthy than laughable. Doesn't do much to further character or plot.

7. S1 Bachelor Party, S2 Darla, S3 Offspring, S4 Apocalypse Nowish, S5 Lineage.

What do they all have in common? They all deal with family or relationships with family and the family's destructive traditions. How our family can turn us into monsters and the struggle not to be a puppet to the family's will.

Bachelor Party - the family requires that groom eat the ex-husband's brains otherwise they can't accept a divorce. The groom (a demon) is in love with his new bride (a human), but she gives him an ultimatum - either give up the ritual or she won't marry him. The family doesn't practice any other rituals but the notion of divorce is reprehensible to them. The groom picks his family and loses his bride. The other theme is accepting who you are and your family, but not letting your family control what you are or decide to do. Doyle is half-demon and is ashamed of his family and denies that side of himself.

Darla deals with the idea of throwing away family or children - becoming something else and the regret that goes with that, it also examines how she became a puppet to her new father - the master - doing and believing whatever he wished, yet struggling with that, when she sires Angelus (her vampire child/lover) Darla leaves the master and goes off with Angelus - rebels against her father. Now with a soul she's struggling with the ties she remembers and the guilt she feels regarding what she did because of those ties and connections.

Offspring - the idea of having a child and struggling with what it means. What is this thing inside me? Is it human or a monster parasite? And falling in love with the idea of having a child depend on you - yet trying not to let that control your actions. Loving the child no matter what it is, because it is part of you. Apocalpyse Nowish comments on Offspring - giving birth to a beast and sleeping with your surrogate mother. The idea of family in the extreme - can our desire to link with the mother we knew create a monster? Should we let our love and desire to protect our mother control us? Lineage being a puppet to your father's will - the other side of Apocalypse Nowish - this time it's the father doing the manipulating. Yet we eventually learn that the mother (Cordelia) and the father (Roger) are puppets themselves controlled by another force entirely.

Darla - lovely cross-over that isn't really a cross-over with Fool for Love. Flawless in its execution and what it tells us about Darla - both in the present and the past, as well as what it tells us about vampires and souls. Advances the mythology and the characters. Also delves deeper into the character of Lindsey.

Worst? Bachelor Party - a romp without much to say. Shame to, since Doyle was a fascinating character who doesn't get much screen time before he's killed. We're given a little background on Doyle - but most of the episode is taken up by the silly demon family.

8. S1 I Will Remember You, S2 Shroud of Rashomon, S3 Quickening, S4 Habeas Corpses, S5 Destiney.

What do these have in common? All deal with quests and the desire to become human or inhuman and all are about searching for information, information that the hero or heroes may take a tad too literally for their own good. In each - the hero must undergo several challenges or a fight of sorts to get to the object of his quest and in each the information he is given is misleading or he misinterprets it.

The first, IWRY- actually has the character, Angel, achieve his goal without doing anything more than killing a demon and getting soaked with it's blood - Angel questions the simplicity of it and feels undeserving. He also has trouble with his loss of "hero" status - he feels that without him, the world will end, his friends will die - so it is a reverse quest in a sense. Instead of hunting for humanity - Angel hunts for the opposite, he goes to the Powers, represented by Oracles, for advice and help - they grant him his wish and time is turned back - he is given the chance to alter time, to take what he knows and ensure he does not become human again. The sacrifice is the loss of Buffy. But towards the end of the season, when the oracles are killed, Angel discovers a scroll that gives him hope that he can earn the humanity. Shroud of Rashomon is another quest tale - this time they are hunting a Shroud with mystical powers - its powers turn the people who touch it somewhat demonic or nasty/shallow in some way. It has the reverse effect of the demon blood in IWRY. The episode appears before Darla is turned into a vampire again and Angel goes dark. The shroud brings out the worst impulses of the characters - forcing them to overcome being puppets to their internal desires.

QuickeningHabeas Corpses comments on Quickening, in this episode an adolescent Connor, the child in the previous episode, is trying to determine his relationship to the Beast that destroyed the sunlight - am I a Beast as well? They reach the white room eventually and are told by the conduit before it dies that the answer to their quest regarding the appearance of the Beast lies among them, the information misleads them into believing that the person responsible is Angel, when in reality it is the one person who is not present at the time - Cordelia. Finally Destiny, which in a way comments on all the episodes before it - the quest to become human, the horrible price to be paid, and the desire to save the world - yet is the information provided true or false? A complete mislead? Or in reality was the quest about the two men on it?

Destiny - as much as I love Habeas Corpses, Destiny was better - it's riff on the false quest for the Grail, the information it provides on Spike and Angel's past meeting and past history and the fight scenes alone catapult this episode to the top. The supporting characters - Gunn, Fred, Harmony, and Eve are also utilized well. And the best part? We find out the whole quest and possibly the prophecy itself is a game set up by Lindsey - who provided Angel with access to the prophecy to begin with. A nice mind-twist.

Worst? Shroud of Rashomon - even though I Will Remember You comes in a close second. Silly episode that sets up Angel's view that he can't be human and be a hero, and/or he doesn't deserve being human, yet desires it. But as much as I did not like IWRY - Rashomon is worse, the plot doesn't quite work in either episode and the metaphors are clunky and confusing - but Rashomon does little to further the plot and with the Darla arc going full-steam ahead, this break in the action is annoying at best.

9. S1 Hero, S2 The Trial, S3 Lullaby, S4 Long Day's Journey, S5 yet to be seen

Each one seems to be about an unlikely hero or about striving to save lives by giving up your own. The ultimate sacrifice. Hero - does it first with Doyle's decision to push Angel out of the way and save the half-demons from the full-blooded demon troops himself. Doyle had previously been set up as someone who was denying his demon heritage and avoiding being heroic at all costs. In the Trial - Angel attempts to give his life for Darla's. Which is a surprise because prior to this Angel is shown as denying that he cares for Darla. Angel also is the one who staked and killed Darla the first round. But the life he gains is not Darla's but something else. Darla is still doomed to die the way she did as a human. But before Darla can fully embrace that death - Drusilla steps in and turns her. Lullaby comments on Trial - where Darla gives her life for the love of the child she and Angel created. Selfless act? Not really. Certainly not like Doyle's. But for Darla it's miraculous. Prior to this, Darla cared for no one but herself and hated the child inside her, wishing to kill it. Now she kills herself so it can be born. Long Day's Journey is about Angel taking lives in the past...it seems to twist the commentary in on itself. The characters attempt to save Manny - the neutral human in long day's journey - the man who can go either way, but fail, because they fall asleep on the job. Manny's life is unwittingly sacrificed. We later learn it's by Cordelia for the Beast. Cordelia does the opposite of Darla - in this episode, yet for the same reasons to protect the life she wishes to bring forth. (Season 5's version on this theme of sacrifice and responsibility is tonight.)

Best? Lullaby - one of the best episodes of the series - a dark examination of motherhood and selflessness. In this episode we explore who Angel and Darla are and what they have reaped with their sins. Holtz perfectly embodies Angel and Darla's worst fears - the dark father neither can ever appease or gain the approval of, the one person both have been running from their entire lives. It culminates with many twists and turns in an alley, with Holtz holding a cross bow on Angel and his newly born son - which was brought into being when Darla staked herself. Holtz's decision not to shoot the crossbow, is an interesting twist and fitting, since his choice of revenge is so much better. This episodes themes and metaphors echo throughout the episodes that follow. A wonderful cap to Darla's arc. While I enjoyed Long Day's Journey - it isn't quite as poetic nor as smooth in its portrayal of the themes as Lullaby is.

Worst? Hero - like Lullaby, a character sacrifices himself for others, but the reasons are so contrived. The threat a cliché rip-off on old WWII Nazi movies. Doyle deserved a better send-off.


10. S1 Parting Gifts, S2 Reunion, S3 Dad, S4 Awakenings, S5 yet to be seen

Each of these episodes has at its center a false hope or dream. Also each episode sets up the next one - 11 - which involves a fall or redefinition of a major characters status. Parting Gifts - is about the ghost of Doyle and the false hope Cordelia has that she can pass the visions to Wes or someone else. The desire Angel has to hold onto Doyle or move Wes into that role. Instead, all they have is a video-tape. Wes is however more or less brought into the group. Reunion is about Angel's false hope to reclaim Darla after Dru vamps her. And perhaps Darla's anger and disappointment at being brought back into the world vampires. Yet at the same time it comments on the connection the two women feel for each other. Angel fails in Reunion and seeks bloody vengeance against W&H, whom he blames for causing this, as do Dru and Darla. In this episode they break W&H's control on them or so we think. Dad is about Angel's desire to be super-dad and in this episode that dream seems to be realized - only to be smashed just a few episodes later. Angel thinks he's outmaneuvered Holtz and W&H yet in reality they've hoodwinked Angel as we discover in a later episode. Awakenings - is Angel's dream of the perfect day which is another quest, where the members of his family - Wes, Cordy, Connor pull together, apologize to him, and let him save the day. He bonds with his son and Cordelia - only to find out it's just a dream engineered to release his soul. Waking up from it - his alterego, Angelus, laughs.

Reunion - as good as Awakenings is, Reunion is better - in Reunion, we see the relationship between Darla and Dru explored for the first time - as well as what happens when you sire a vampire. The sibling motif is one that will be revisited later with Spike and Angel. We also see a dark side of Angel we haven't really seen up to this point, evidence that Angelus always lurks beneath the surface. Angel's decision to lock the lawyers in with Darla and Dru is one of the darker moments in the series and a calculated risk by the writers - to show a much darker complex hero. It is also a mislead, the audience believes that Angel has gotten the upper hand. Awakenings, in contrast, is really a one joke show - a great joke and one that explains Angel a great deal - but it does not further the plot or the characters nearly as dramatically as Reunion. Of course after I see S5's episode 10, I might change my mind on this one.

Worst? Dad, while Parting Gifts is clunky in places - it starts with a wonderful montage on Doyle and has the entrance of leather pants Wesley. Dad on the other hand is less than memorable - mostly a chase sequence between Angel and five groups fighting over a Connor which got a tad repetitive after a while.

11. S1 Somnabulist, S2 Redefinition, S3 Birthday, S4 Soulless, S5 yet to be seen...but if the prior ones are any indication? Watch out. It should be memorable and dark to say the least.

Each episode turns a characters world upside down. All are in a way about redefinition - based on trauma. A character is forced to re-evaluate their life, themselves, etc based on what they've done. Someone forces them to look at their past in a different way and by doing so, the character redefines himself in some way. How do we deal with past crimes? Past regrets? How are we punished or rewarded? And how do they define who we are now?

Somnabulist - is about Angel's past obsession with killing families and how he redefined himself upon becoming a vampire, and then again upon becoming ensouled. How he dealt with his father - and how he deals with his vampire son, Penn, and the responsibility he feels in that situation. Angel in Somnabulist is forced to redefine who he is based on what he was. Kate in Somnabulist, the cop Angel has befriended, is also forced to redefine her relationship with Angel and her trust of him. Their relationship shifts.

Redefinition is about how Angel redefines himself and his life after his loss of Darla to W&H's machinations. How he deals with that loss and like he did with Penn, goes after Darla to destroy her, yet can't do it. In this episode, Angel also redefines his relationships with his friends - firing them.

Birthday - is about Cordelia and how she deals with the limited options - the visions are killing her and Skip others her a means of redefining herself, she can either rewrite history and pick another path - that of an actress, do nothing and die, or become part demon. In the episode - Cordy deals with the question of what might have been, her regret of not becoming an actress and belief if she pursued it she might have been a star with her own situation comedy. Simultaneously she's forced to consider how her actions may have affected others in her life. Sort of the reverse of Somnabulist - not regretting what you did, so much as regretting lost opportunities. Cordy chooses becoming part demon - a huge redefinition but like those before, not necessarily a good one.

Soulless - which like Redefinition, comments on Birthday - Cordelia in Birthday becomes part demon to help Angel, Angel due to Cordelias machinations, lets his soul go and becomes demonic in soulless - he is redefined in the eyes of his friends. While Cordelia in Birthday is redefined in her own. In Soulless - each character is forced to re-evaluate and redefine itself and it's relations with others. Wes is forced to re-evaluate his relationships with Fred and Lilah, Gunn with Fred and with Wes, and Angelus with Cordelia and Connor. Angelus' appearance also redefines who Angel is and how much of Angelus lurks in Angel. The episode simultaneously comments on guilt and how we justify or excuse it.

Best? Soulless - outside of the Cordy bits, a wonderful six person play. The interaction between the caged Angelus - Fred, Gunn, Wes, and Connor is brilliant to watch and informative on every character in the piece. We learn quite a bit about how sadistic and nasty Angelus truly is. He doesn't need to touch these guys to hurt them - he knows where their buttons are after all. The literature references alone are worth a second look. One of the best episodes in the series. While I loved Somnabulist - Soulless takes the themes explored and expands on them, it also does a good job of exploring the supporting characters. I may change my mind after S5's 11.

Worst? Birthday - while the Cordy sitcom bits are entertaining and the episode has some interesting things to say - this episode starts an arc that painfully deconstructs the character of Cordelia. Clunky at times, its easy to see why Cordy fell for Skip's con. But confusing the audience in the process probably wasn't a great idea. Birthday is a murky episode, to this day I can't decide if Cordy made the right decision - I have a feeling if I were Cordelia I'd have done the same thing.

12. S1 Expecting S2 Blood Money, S3 Provider, S4 Calvary S5 - yet to be seen.

All about the consequences of redefining ourselves - who we are. How what we think is true isn't. Expecting is about the redefinition of the body during pregnancy - in this episode, Cordelia is seduced by a one-night stand and ends up becoming a brood mare for a demon. The child changes her somewhat - making her redefine her priorities, albeit briefly for it. She is a bit ruthless regarding the child. Blood money is about being ruthless to achieve positive results. Angel manipulates a young woman and others to obtain a bunch of money, he even hurts a few innocent people to get it, and attempts to redeem his actions by giving the money to the young woman. But his purpose all along was to make W&H pay - a purpose he'd latched onto in Redefinition. Provider also deals with obtaining something by nefarious means. In both cases it's money. In Provider - like Expecting - it's for a child, Angel's child. The redefined purpose of Dad - where Angel decides his purpose is no longer to help others so much as to be a Dad. Cavalry - likewise deals with the idea of the ends justify the means - in Cavalry - Lilah suggests letting Angelus loose to kill the Beast, Cordelia lets him loose to kill everyone and keep people distracted from her child. (Cavalry comments on the redefinition in Soulless - where everyone falsely believes Cordelia got Angel's soul back when it was just a ruse so she could release him. In Cavalry we learn that it's a ruse and he didn't get his soul back at all.) This episode cleverly comments on both Expecting where Cordy fights Wes and Angel for her child and drinks blood to nourish it and Blood Money/Provider where the AI team continue put lives in jeopardy to accomplish their own ends.

Best? Calvary - the culmination of the Lilah/Cordy arc where Cordy literally takes over Lilah's femme fatale role by killing her and making it look like a vampire bite - the second time in the series that Angel has been framed. One of the series best - should be seen in association with Billy and That Vision Thing for full effect. Of course S5' 12 may change my mind.

Worst? Expecting - as bad as Provider and Blood Money are, Expecting is worse. Blood Money has W&H's Lilah and Lindsey to propel it as well as the interesting reintroduction of Anne from BTVS. Provider? Some nice male bonding between Wes and Gunn. Expecting? Nothing memorable. Except possibly Cordy drinking blood.

That's all I've completed so far. Thanks for reading. Comments? Suggestions? Ideas???
Feedback appreciated as always.

sk

[> Correction Re: Judgement -- dlgood, 13:14:12 01/14/04 Wed

In Judgment - it's Darla who appears at the very end.

Actually, Darla has a very brief scene with the W&H lawyers very early in the episode, and that's it for her. The more noteworthy scene, IMHO, is Angel's closing jailhouse conversation with Faith, which foreshadows her growth and ironically foreshadows his slipping.

[> [> Re: Correction Re: Judgement -- s'kat, 13:52:03 01/14/04 Wed

Thanks - I haven't seen Judgement in a while and for some reason it just doesn't stick with me, while others do.

Actually, Darla has a very brief scene with the W&H lawyers very early in the episode, and that's it for her. The more noteworthy scene, IMHO, is Angel's closing jailhouse conversation with Faith, which foreshadows her growth and ironically foreshadows his slipping.

But she appears in it and more importantly with W&H early on - which sets up the ship for the season with Angel. Faith may be the contrast - and also foreshadowing for Angel's desire to save Darla. I don't think it really is foreshadowing Faith's growth at this point - so much as commenting on Angel's view that he could save and redeem Faith and as a result? Is also able to redeem Darla. Expanding the scope a bit - I think once again the writers may be commenting on the idea of "judgment" itself - how we "judge" who is worth saving. Angel in the episode kills the wrong person remember? He goes to see Faith, possibly to make himself feel better for saving her. Then we have W&H who plan to manipulate Angel through his desire to save Darla - which he falls for hook, line and sinker. Who is redeemable? Who isn't? Is it up to us to judge? Or anyone?
Faith is a reminder to Angel that he may want to be careful of that - after all there's a point in the story where we wonder if she is redeemable. So perhaps the ship being set up early on - is the one where Angel wants to save someone but can't...at least not the way he thinks?

Hmmm...you may persuade me yet that it's better than Conviction.

[> Oops - screwed up on episode 2 and episode 3 - see changes here. -- s'kat, 19:48:27 01/14/04 Wed

I flipped the episodes That Vision Thing and That Old Gang of Mine. That Vision Thing should be episode 2 and That old Gang of Mine episode 3. Kudos to the poster on ASSB who caught it!

Episode 2: s1Lonely Hearts, s2 Are You Now...s3 That Vision Thing, s4 Ground State, s5 Just Rewards.

What all the episodes have in common? This time, the theme is how we relate to those around us? Do we trust them? Can we trust and depend upon them? How important is our ability to connect to others? Angel is the ultimate in the disconnect, an outsider of both demon and human worlds because of what he is. These episodes deal with how important it is for him to connect to those around him.

Lonely Hearts is about the attempt to connect through sex - but only feeling more disconnected or becoming a parasite feeding on the physical connection not the emotional one. It's also about trusting strangers in the most intimate fashion - only to have them betray you.

Are You Now is also about trusting strangers and being betrayed and how distrust can lead to paranoia - again there's a parasite, but this time it's feeding off of this emotion.

That Vision Thing is about Cordelia wondering if she can trust the Powers who gave her the visions. It's the classic dilemma - what happens when you learn that the visions you thought were from god, may be from some nasty shaman down the street? The question of trusting the higher power and with it your own calling. Cordy begins to question her own role. She has faith, but her faith is put into question and the writers are asking - what happens if faith turns you into a puppet to anyone's manipulations? Can we trust in it?

Ground State comments on Lonely Hearts - we're back to the personal - one to one connection - where just connecting with someone on an emotional and physical level can be destructive to them - something Angel fears, because when he does it - he loses his soul. When Gwen - the supercharged thief does it - she electrocutes the individual, re-starting Angel's heart and stopping Gunn's.

Just Rewards comments on both threads -trust/paranoia and the need for emotional/physical connection. Through the ghostly Spike - we see how both threads interact. No one in AI trusts Spike, they want to get rid of him and we are lead to believe he like the characters in all the episodes before him, will betray the AI team, especially Angel, to get what he wants. Spike meanwhile wants physical and emotional connection more than anything else - something Angel is somewhat afraid of and keeps at arms length. The villain in Just Rewards - is a type of conduit - he connects the demons to the humans by providing them with a human shell to animate. They have to trust him to do it. Angel defeats the villain by trusting Spike to inhabit the villain and break the villain's power over Angel. It's Angel's ability to trust Spike and Spike's ability to reward that trust that wins the day.

Best? Just Rewards , does it in the most entertaining way. It establishes the Spike/Angel relationship out of the box. It also does a good job of exploring trust issues in relationships. How do you trust someone who once tortured you? Who you are jealous of and know is jealous of you? Someone you've known almost forever, and know what he is capable of ? Is it even wise to do so? This episode also does an interesting job with the metaphor of being a puppet. Throughout the episode we're mislead into seeing Spike as the potential puppet, yet in reality the only one in danger of being a puppet is Angel - to the PTB, to W&H, to his own desires. A theme that will continue to be explored throughout the season and better yet refers to all the seasons before it including episodes in BTVS. Nice use of the supporting characters as well - everyone is well-utilized. Enjoyable upon more than one watching. While I enjoyed Ground State, which does an excellent job of showing how being superhuman can disconnect you - it was uneven in places, specifically regarding Cordelia story line. Also a tad cliché on the superhuman bit. I did like how Gwen's inability to touch and Gunn's involvement with that is revisited in the later episode Players. Tough choice but going with the one that made me laugh.

Are You Now is the episode I'm sure most people will pick - not to be contrary, but I've never much liked Are You Now or Have You Ever Been (the full phrase by the way is "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been a Communist Sympathizer" taken from the McCarthy hearings...where many Hollywood writers, directors, and filmmakers got banned - Arthur Miller refers to it in his play The Crucible, Jack Finney discusses it in Invasion of The Body Snatchers, and Rod Serling deals with it in The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street, I think Hollywood is still obsessed with this topic.) I've tried to like Are You Now, because disliking it is a bit like disliking Casablanca to Angel fans for some reason. But it bores me. I basically knew the entire story the moment I met the woman in the hotel. I think the reason for this is that I've seen the same story done many times before - the tale of the person hunting a fugitive, everyone has a secret but is afraid of being caught, all feel guilty, but also justified in keeping their secrets - so to survive they find a scapegoat and that person gets lynched. Are You Now discusses the repercussions of distrusting your neighbor and paranoia on a grand scale, showing how the paranoia makes us a demon's puppets. Just Rewards, on the other hand - brings the story closer to home, it's less about the big theme or moral and more about the characters inter-relationships, more about the issue of trust on a much more visceral level - which is far more interesting and far less predictable or obvious in its answers than the mob mentality tale. To be fair? I was never overly fond of Rod Serling's The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street either - it too seemed to be more about the theme of paranoia than about the human characters. Yet it is admittedly well done and possibly the best version of this next to the 1950s film version of Finny's Invasion of The Body Snatchers. Perhaps my difficulty is with the morality play structure itself - I don't like being preached too, or told what the moral lesson is - I like being told a story and somehow coming up with my own conclusions. Just Rewards for me at least seemed to do this - it examined the characters, the moral, if there was one, I found for myself.

Worst? Lonely Hearts - tempting to go with This Old Gang of Mine - but that episode does further Gunn's character and explain he's movement away from the gang. Lonely Hearts is less memorable and does little to further character, spending far more time on the somewhat cliché metaphor of sexual parasites.


Episode 3: s1 In the Dark, s2 First Impression, s3 That Old Gang of Mine, S4 The House Always Wins, S5 Unleashed.

What they all have in common? Each deals with the idea of who we are, what makes us who we and how we handle that. Each episode also has some sort of device - which would make things better - a temptation. A mirage if you like - a mirage that you want so badly you might sell anything for it, but you buy into the mirage and you lose everything. In In The Dark - it's the vampire equivalent of the holy grail - the gem of amarra. In First Impression - it's the kid who seems weak and easily defeated and appears to worship Gunn - in reality the kid's the monster, in That Old Gange of Mine it's the temptation to rejoin the old gang, the human gang - which seems noble and heroic but has become monsterous while the demon, you're working with, is actually more human - so your stuck, unable to go back to that glorious past (which wasn't that glorious) and stumble onwards in your new group of friends, in House Always Wins - it's the temptation to interfere with someone else's path - to make it better, and finally in Unleashed - it's the beautiful girl who is also a deadly monster, the romantic view Angel has that his two sides really are separate and manageable and that he has a tight family unit - just as Nina, the werewolf girl does.

Unleashed in a way comments on all the others - it discusses the romantic view of life - the idea of a life in the sun that the gem provides (In The Dark), the impression of hero-worshipping kid (First Impressions), the human gang of glory fighters, the gang you formed (That Old Gang of Mine), the concept of gambling for a better life or destiny because the one you have isn't good enough - or the idea that you can make someone's life better and give them their destiny (another somewhat egotistical view of heroism - which may comment on the one shown in That Old Gang of Mine?) (House Always Wins), and finally the idea that the monster won't destroy your family and you aren't responsible for the inner beast (Unleashed).

Best? Ugh! It was easier when That Vision Thing was here. Okay...The House Always Wins because it does the metaphor the best - with the temptation to interfer and give someone back their destiny. In The Dark and First Impressions were the most enjoyable but a tad clunky metaphor wise. Geeze - episode 3 seems to be a weak category for ATS doesn't it?The House Always Wins - clunky as it is, does a far better job with the metaphor of Angel as a puppet to external forces and his own desires. The temptation in House is also far more interesting and less obvious, since it is Cordelia's temptation to interfere - she saves the day, but by doing so, may actually be opening the door to Jasmine. Also the scenes with Wes/Lilah and Connor have energy to them - that the supporting character scenes in Unleashed somehow lack.

[> Cool! -- Pony, 20:09:01 01/14/04 Wed

You reminded me of so many episodes I'd forgotten. I don't feel comfortable ranking AtS because I watched it off and on for the first two seasons, but yours is an excellent thematic episode guide. I like most of your choices too!

[> Once again, 'kat, you've kicked it to the next level -- cjl, 07:21:42 01/15/04 Thu

Will respond officially when you're done with the seasonal comparisons in toto, and when I have a couple of spare microseconds...

[> Since it sank all by itself in the Buffy ranking thread- my Angel picks repeated (sp 5.8) -- Tchaikovsky, 13:53:52 01/15/04 Thu

1) Angel does brilliant, brilliant season openers, and I don't want to give the impression I don't deeply value the work of Greenwalt in 'Judgement' and 'Heartthrob', but 'Deep Down' is extraordinary.

2) 'Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been?', an elegant episode well-told, edges the very competent introduction of Gwen in 'That Vision Thing'.

3) In a weakish week, I'm tempted to give the prize to 'In the Dark', but I think that was a backward step for the series at the time. So Minear takes it again, even with the sub-par 'That Old Gang of Mine'

4)'Untouched', both one of the scariest monsters ever (Bethany's father), and a beautiful piece of direction from Joss.

5)'Supersymmetry', a lovely tangly and ambiguous episode, just about edges the series-shaping 'Dear Boy', and I do like 'Fredless', the 'Family' of Angel.

6) All five episodes are marvellous: 'Guise Will Be Guise' does a mesmeric job of setting up Wesley as a leader in Season Two; 'Sense and Sensitivity' invests Kate's character with a lot more impetus than we could have hoped for; 'Billy' and 'Spin the Bottle' are both episodes nestling before the start of something massive, and the really beautiful 'The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco' takes it for its all round perfect direction and music.

7) Significantly weaker than their Buffy counterparts, the seventh episode decision really hangs on whether you prefer the plot-line of Season Two, Three or Four. For me, 'Darla' edges 'Offspring'.

8)A lot of episodes that I have less fondness for than others here: including the still-hideous (I re-watched it to see if I was angry that day) 'I Will Remember You', and the snoreathon of 'Habeas Corpses'. There, that sentence was incendiary. 'Destiny', my current hope for a wonderful Season Five, sweeps out the competition.

9) 'Lullaby' is captivating, but I think 'The Trial' may be my favourite episode ever, for the challenges that Angel faces for Darla, and for the spine-tingling Greek tragic ending.

10) 'Reunion' is lovely and creepy; but 'Awakening' peeks inside Angel's soul, and deserves the gong.

11) 'Soulless', bless Seasn Astin and his little hobbit feet, is the best hour of entertainment ever to come from one character sitting in a cage talking to other characters.
The strengths of 'Somnambulist', 'Redefinition' and 'Birthday' are all noted.

12) Not a good week, at all. 'Provider' is a miscalculation, while 'Expecting' and 'Blood Money' are not-that-entertaining fillers. 'Calvary' takes it.

13) It pains me not to put in all three episodes of the Season Four Faith arc, but it would be overkill, and 'Waiting in the Wings', despite cjl's reservations, is classic Whedon.

14) 'I've Got You Under My Skin', a genuinely excellent Season One episode, takes on 'Release'! And wins! What's happening to the Faith episodes?

15) Good God. This choice is the hardest decision over both shows with four absolute Titans in contention. I bet 'Calvary' is sniggering that it won its contest, considering that here we have a battle between: 'The Prodigal', which gave Angel real forward momentum, and consolidated Minear's genius; 'Reprise', which did the same in the most nihilistic way in Whedon's canon; 'Loyalty', the best episode of Season Three, and Wesley's turning point; and 'Orpheus' where the Angel/Angelus/Faith conversations are magnificent, and Willow just such fun. 'Reprise' currently the best episode of Angel ever, just takes it. Which means that there's no Faith Season 4 whatsoever. Sometimes I surprise myself.

16) And its partner 'Epiphany', can't quite make it a double, losing out to the chaotic, insolent anarchy, and the final heartache, of 'Sleep Tight'.

17) 'Forgiving' beats out two of my betes noir in 'Eternity' and 'Disharmony' and the flawed yet interesting 'Inside Out'

18) 'Five by Five' quite easily dismisses some weak opposition, thereby marking Faith's return after her triple defeat in the Season Four episodes.

19) Although I have a soft spot for the under-rated 'Belonging', Shawn Ryan's best episode by far, no-one takes on 'Sanctuary' and wins. Tight, marvellous plotting, good character resolutions.

20) In not the greatest week, I choose the dense and unwieldy but fascinating 'Sacrifice'.

21)'Benediction', Holtz' final act of treachery, is delicious, and sets up a Season Finale that I, possibly alone, am very fond of.

22) But not fond enough to beat out the magnificent Tim Minear, with playful Lilah his mouthpiece, redefining the entire show with 'Home'.

It's count-up time:

Season One: 3
Season Two: 5
Season Three: 5
Season Four: 7
Season Five: 2

Well, I am really very fond of Season Two, but the figures speak for themselves, and Season Four, a brilliant Season, takes it.

TCH
Agape Love -- Claudia, 11:13:32 01/14/04 Wed

I had previously posted a message on this topic, but it's missing. So, I'm posting it again.


Many fans talk about how it is important for any of the characters to do good for the world at large or for all of humanity rather than for an individual. That to be considered good, a character has to be selfless.

My question is - why? Why do so many people value agape love? Why is it so important to society at large that we, as individuals, love the world or humanity at large? Why is it so important that we connect with humanity as much as possible? And why is more important to focus upon the world at large than with one's personal needs?

Replies:

[> Connection -- Arethusa, 11:50:10 01/14/04 Wed

We all crave connection to others. We are alone and often lonely, each and every one of us. So we try to connect to others, helping and sharing and learning to care about each other. Just taking care of your own personal needs doesn't satisfy that craving for connection with others. So we reach out for love despite the risks of being hurt, we help others to feel like we are a part of their lives, we post our thoughts hoping others respond and understand us. We need others. We need to connect.

[> [> To What Degree? -- Claudia, 13:22:22 01/14/04 Wed

"We need others. We need to connect."

Yes, but to what degree? But aren't there moments when it would best serve the individual to be alone?

[> [> [> Yes. The degree is up to you. -- Arethusa, 13:44:30 01/14/04 Wed


[> [> [> [> What I Meant . . . -- Claudia, 13:51:52 01/14/04 Wed

I meant that is it really so important that individuals connect with humanity . . . all of the time? Should we really focus all of our attention to humanity and the world at large?

Or should a semblance of balance be maintained in which there are times when we require a little self-involvement? What is more important? Connecting with humanity? Or forming some kind of connection with your self?

[> [> [> [> [> Are they really that separate? -- Rahael, 14:28:01 01/14/04 Wed

I say this as a lover of solitude.

Firstly I think there is a difference between being a 'sociable' person and connecting with humanity. One can spend all of ones time with other people, and yet, be quite self involved. One can be alone and disconnected not only from 'humanity', but from oneself.

Connecting with other people in a meaningful way doesn't happen all the time, but when it does, it connects us to ourselves, our own humanity. It's the best kind of self involvement.

I'm someone who seeks solitude at some times, company at others. But I don't think I'm ever really disconnected from 'humanity'. Sometimes i just need the time to think, even if I'm spending that time, alone, thinking about other people.

There was a time when I used to walk to school with my sister. At about half way through the journey, I'd say "okay, I need to think a little, can we stop talking now?" and we'd walk in companiable silence. I can be comfortably silent with someone and utterly connect with them.

Being disconnected from oneself is the quickest way to lose your contact with humanity. As Arethusa said, it's all about the degree, and we all know how much company or solitude we all need. But that's just a personal preference and says nothing about our deeper connections, and indeed, how we even envision something like 'ourselves' and 'humanity' and how we define the relationship between the two.

The best, easiest social interactions feels like I can truly be 'myself'. Or maybe I'm just saying that cuz I'm in a golden period where I'm getting *nothing* but positive, happy, worry-easing social interaction. I'm around people who need me, but who also instinctively help me whenever I need it. I get to connect with people who make me feel whole.....it's the golden mean.

[> [> [> [> [> In many ways, they intertwine -- fresne, 16:51:29 01/14/04 Wed

Purely aside from religious reasons for my taking Agape and Caritas very seriously, although, I'm not sure that there is really much I can add beyond what Rahael said, or for that matter Pony's poetry grab, but...I like to hear myself type.

Typing as someone who finds constant interaction with people somewhat draining and the way in which I recharge is to go off for some alone time. As someone who is fairly focused on being the most me that I can be.

I invest a good deal of my energy into being friendly, upbeat, aware of others, striving for a wide angle view, because I believe it makes me a "better" person. Better being defined as healthier. More capable of performing the job that pays for the things that makes me happy. Of being a better writer. Of making interpersonal connections. Of facilitating a world in which I want to live.

The periods of my life when I have focused entirely on myself and cut off interaction, and I'm just speaking for myself, have been the periods where I have been the most depressed, self destructive and physically ill.

I don't think I could form a connection with myself, grow into myself, without learning to connect with others.

Perhaps, like Everest, because Agape is there and as the harder thing to do, it is well worth doing. And Agape unlike Everest, won't cause me to loose any toes doing it.

The reverse in fact. It is a type of love that the closer I am to it (and seriously, I'm petty, hold grudges, and tend more to phileo than agapeo), the closer I am to the Primal Love that moves the sun, the moon and the stars. As introspective as I am, I don't want to remain bound by the edges of my own skin. Hmmm...I'm segueing into religion.

Okay, in all honesty I don't expect characters or people to achieve Agape. I don't expect people to say, "Ah, yes. Agape. Gotta get some of that." I don't expect people to connect 24x7. People aren't load balanced, geographically dispersed, operate with recoverable and redundant systems. We can't really failover and we aren't really backed up. But a little more vertical and horizontal scaling would be nice. Plus, it makes for a good continuity plan. Not just for ones self, but for the species.

[> [> [> [> [> Read some Ayn Rand Claudia, you'd probably like her. -- Nino, 17:54:32 01/14/04 Wed

Her fiction talks about the importance of self and her essays "The Virtue of Selfishness" turn altruism on its head and promote a pretty cut throat capitalist attitude...it sounds pretty harsh at first, but she is a fabulous writer, and even if you disagree with her politics, her fiction is wonderful (The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged being her major works)

[> [> [> [> [> [> The Opposite -- dmw, 19:54:48 01/14/04 Wed

but she is a fabulous writer, and even if you disagree with her politics, her fiction is wonderful (The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged being her major works)

I'd say the opposite. She's a terrible writer, her major works being thousand-page advertisements for her philosophy thinly disguised as novels, but her philosophy and politics have been influential in the U.S. and she's worth reading for that reason. I'd advise going for one of her shorter ones, preferrably nonfiction, to avoid the pain of the type of discussion that from Plato was bearable in a short dialog but which Rand has expanded to over a thousand pages. No character feels like a real person in her novels, and every one of them has a purpose, either to explain her ideas and show how good the people who support them are, or to show how the opponents of her ideas are irrational and spiteful. As in one of Plato's dialogs, you can't win if you argue with Socrates, or in this case, one of Rand's several incarnations in her books. Oh, and just in case you missed her points, hammered home with the subtlety of hitting you over the head with a baseball bat, John Galt's 57-page speech at the end of Atlas Shrugged gives it to you again. It's just like a textbook with a summary at the end.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Selfishness and Altruism -- Claudia, 10:09:38 01/15/04 Thu

I found this article from the Libertarian Alliance and written by Max More called, "The Importance of Selfishness and the Dangers of Altruism":

The Importance of Selfishness and the Dangers of Altruisim

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Selfishness and Altruism _ Second Attempt -- Claudia, 10:12:16 01/15/04 Thu

Here is my second attempt on posting the link -The Importance of Selfishness and the Dangers of Altruisim
[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Selfishness and Altruism Third Attempt -- Claudia, 10:14:25 01/15/04 Thu

Here is the link: http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn004.pdf


Highlight it and paste it in the web address box. Hope you enjoy the article.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well it's certainly a point of view -- RJA, 15:17:27 01/15/04 Thu

One I find reprehensible and wrongheaded, but still...

Reminds me of what one great leader said in the past: 'There is no such thing as society'.

It did seem though that the author of the piece would only write of extremes and opposites to prove his point, and thereby ignoring basic reality. He mentioned altruists as people who only ever belived in self-denial and self-sacrifice (which is of course bad), compared to those who only have self-interest. And never the twain shall meet. Which doesnt really reflect my experience of the world. I for one dont place myself in either group, being neither altruist or self-obsessed wanker. Maybe there is something that the author cant get his head around, a happy medium in which instead of trying to create some war between the individual and those around him, it could be realised that you can do good things for other people without denying yourself, without giving up your rights.

Its interesting that he characterises altruists as those who are threatened by others, but in everything he says the author seems to be the most threatened. If only the self matters, why does it bother him that others want to do good, or even sacrifice themselves? If he was truly at ease with himself he wouldnt have to worry.

But this quote made me realise I will never come close to agreeing with him:

We do not have a right to a job or to welfare or to education or to medical services since that implies someone must be forced to provide them

And indeed that is quite true. The idea that a child has a right to be educated or treated implies that somone should provide it. But hey, lets go with the author's opinion. And when he falls on hard times and can't afford to send his child to school or treat his child for a disease, just turn round and tell him that there is no right to what he seeks.

Truly, self-interest makes the world go around.

And to relate it to something Buffy-esque. Compare the idea of Buffy sacrificing herself to the idea of Buffy pushing Dawn off the tower. I know which ending I prefer.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Balance -- dmw, 15:38:30 01/15/04 Thu

It did seem though that the author of the piece would only write of extremes and opposites to prove his point, and thereby ignoring basic reality. He mentioned altruists as people who only ever belived in self-denial and self-sacrifice (which is of course bad), compared to those who only have self-interest. And never the twain shall meet. Which doesnt really reflect my experience of the world.

Yes, this is the problem with both the extreme capitalist and socialist philosophers. They're both idealists, building elaborate gossamer structures of how they claim the world is on unrealistic and flimsy foundations. Human nature is more complex than they think, having necessarily evolved a balance of selfish and selfless behaviors in order to live together.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well it's certainly a point of view -- auroramama, 07:03:27 01/16/04 Fri

"I know which ending I prefer." To generalize, I know what kind of a world I want to live it. Even if I knew that neither I nor anyone close to me would ever need help from society, even if I chose to be utterly selfish, I'd still want to live in a world where the streets aren't full of hungry, sick, crazy people. To the extent that I'm not yet living in that world, I have a motivation to share the wealth: I don't want to live in hell on earth.

In any case, the idea that the money you earn is purely and utterly the product of your personal efforts, and that you are therefore inalienably entitled to keep every red cent of it, is at least as suspect a right as the right of all citizens to education. Without the rest of society to provide markets, infrastructure, the rule of law, and folks who need widgets, how many of us would have jobs? Even farmers use tools made by other people, and get the items they can't grow by selling cash crops to other people. Even a gold nugget is next to worthless without a society to give it value.

I'm with those who seek a balance between capitalism and socialism, not that I know what that balance ought to be. There are things that capitalism does well, and there are things it does badly, for which we need to use other tools.

Humans naturally have self-interest, and we have to work with that; but that doesn't mean it's all we have. We're social beings; as far as I know, there's no evidence that a significant subset of human beings have ever lived as solitary individuals, meeting only for purposes of reproduction. The need for a circle of other humans around us is just as primal as individualism.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well it's certainly a point of view -- Claudia, 10:08:11 01/16/04 Fri

[I know which ending I prefer." To generalize, I know what kind of a world I want to live it. Even if I knew that neither I nor anyone close to me would ever need help from society, even if I chose to be utterly selfish, I'd still want to live in a world where the streets aren't full of hungry, sick, crazy people. To the extent that I'm not yet living in that world, I have a motivation to share the wealth: I don't want to live in hell on earth.]


I'm afraid that we are living in hell on earth. And that we have been doing so since the beginning of time.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And on that note -- have a great weekend everybody! -- Pony, 10:23:42 01/16/04 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And you have a good weekend, too! -- Claudia, 11:11:37 01/16/04 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> But 'we' know better (rant warning) -- Celebaelin, 16:57:50 01/15/04 Thu

Before I start foaming at the mouth too much I will still say that altruism in an evolutionary sense is denied because only if it is a successful evolutionary trait will 'the gene for altruism' persist in the population, if altruism does not at least result in a genetic break-even in proportional terms the gene (or group of genes) will simply die out. For rational animals such as ourselves, who are not merely consequences of their genetic programming, the argument extends beyond genetics and into behaviour, behaviour is learnt rather than innate but if that is what is advocated by society and widely voiced then it MUST be leant some credence. Even if it's only the suckers who believe in altruism, for it to persist it must have value, and not only to the beneficiaries of the acts but also to the perpetrator. If no acts of kindness were ever repaid none but the most resolute of martyrs would continue to act in an altruistic manner on any occasion whatsoever.

I was all set to write a conciliatory post regarding Richard Dawkins 'Selfish Gene' view of altruism. But I didn't get far into the argument set out in the article before I encountered a highly suspect, ill thought out example that makes me think the author might well owe more to altruism than he or she is willing to admit. I refer to the spurious Person A, Person B, Person C etc(!) argument at the bottom of column one and the top of column two. It made my blood boil in an 'I'm gonna rip the f*****g head off that one and spit down its throat' kinda way. I'll give you misery and death! Nature, as has been said moderately often, is red in tooth and claw (Alfred Tennyson 1850). The classic example from any text on social behaviour in animals is that of the warning bird-call. Why do they do it? It doesn't help the individual; quite the opposite, it actually decreases the individuals' chances of evading the predator in a number of ways.

1) It attracts attention.
2) It detracts from the callers other actions (affects breathing during the coming bid to escape).
3) It provides the predator with fewer other targets.

If the caller were merely to keep quiet and fly off then it WOULD NOT be the one to be eaten. This would make it what Dawkins would call a cheater. But that's not universally the behaviour pattern that we see, not by a long way. In this instance the explanation is that the genetic interrelation of the birds of the flock dictates that if, on average, more than one copy of the DNA carried by the individual escapes the attack as a result of the call; mother, father and a sibling, or three siblings, or five half-siblings etc. then it is OK to be the victim, but better not to be! The success of the strategy depends on keeping the proportion of cheaters sufficiently low, individuals who would take advantage of the warning but would not give one if in a position to. Solitary species have no ability to take advantage of social behaviour in this way of course.

It seems obvious that the author has either not read widely on altruism or is deliberately presenting a biased viewpoint, perhaps in order to gain more knowledge in the area without having to do the actual hard graft themselves. I got so angry at that point I had to stop reading the article. On the basis of what I did read it is outrageously self-serving and both intellectually and morally sub-standard. Personally I find that I cannot defend this article even from the standpoint of opening the eyes of the blind to the possibility of being taken for a ride. It is the social Darwinism equivalent of the square wheel, and a fifth square wheel at that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Echoing Pony's sentiment, have a great weekend all! -- fresne, 11:12:51 01/16/04 Fri

Plus, some blah, blah, blah, tip, tap, tip.

"If you wish to attain moral perfection though, you must give to those you hate. To attain true unselfishness you must take nothing in return, no gratitude, no pleasure or happiness, no self-esteem, no pride in your virtue. The nearer you can approach total misery, complete self-destruction, death, the better you are."

Interesting, although I can't really agree since I believe the results of achieving moral perfection and giving and unselfishness is a whole wonderful ballroom dance in which every couple is doing their own variations on the steps (spin me, spin me, spin me, dip), but no one runs into each other. You always understand your partner's signals and they understand yours. And there's this wonderful celestial sphere music and the delirious joy of motion fills you and, it's just darn cool.

Mainly, though I just muddle through with mosh ballroom and unfortunate hoop incidents and grumble, grumble, "freaking pick a tempo already."

And the Polkas of Death, I just stay away from those.

Although, the Schottische Conga line is really fun.

I know some people enjoy the pure thrash of Moshing, but I have wee little feet and I don't really like dancing in steel toed shoes. I prefer something really soft and flexible. Not too much grip, or I can't slide or spin, but not totally slick, or I fall down.

Where was I?

Oh, given that I work in corporate America, I think my reaction to the hypothetical politician's statement wasn't quite what was intended,

"Don't be evil, don't be selfish, pay your taxes," cuz I kind of try to do this already,

"submit to my control" we had a discussion about this in the context of Data Modeling and the benefits of coming up with some commonly agreed upon rules and definitions rather than having an environment where every application has their own database and defines terms however they want. For one thing, it makes it hard to count your customers. Plus, in a darn intrusive government way, there's that whole Sarbanes Oxley compliance issue,

"and don't complain." Well, I vote, so I get to complain, lots,

"You must give up your autonomy, your self-government," Or as Oscar Wilde put it, he didn't like Socialism (Communism? It's been awhile since I read the essay) because it takes up too much time in the evenings. So, yes, a representational republic is the government for me. I've got dances to go to,

"so that I can force all those greedy, selfish people to help those in need." As I said, I work in Corporate America. So, yeah. You wouldn't (or maybe you would) believe the comments we got about why you do security at a recent meeting. All I could think was, hmmm...this executive could use a bit more agape.

That's why I like Ben and Jerry's ice cream. Lots of Agape. Plus, you know, chunky things in the ice cream.

What? It's not product placement, it's sugar cravings. And is a nice example of people freely choosing to be generous, with sugar and its positive successful effects. Affects. Impacts. Chocolate comets crashing into caramel seas, ringing malt spheres with their passage.

"Mmmm...donuts, is there nothing that they can't do?"

Then again, perhaps Homer Simpson isn't the best spokesperson for altruism.

Altruism, sacrifice, control. Selfish sacrifices. Self sacrifice. John Stuart Mill. Harriet Taylor Mill. Martyrs bleeding milk and Teresa of Avila dreams. Hildegard of Bingen hearing...migraines, music, choice.

I don't know, I want dervish spin the Magician. One hand up and one hand down. Bring on the Hanging Man, full up in contemplation and at the end of the Danse Macabre, I want fall to the floor in a lung heaving, leg trembling inchoate, because it's only a fun dance if you spend every little bit of yourself.

Spend. Redeem.

Maybe I shouldn't distain the Death Polka. Most of the force of spin comes from centrifugal force anyway.

I want the middle ground between the Martyr and the Whatever You Want to Call the Other End. I want to really know myself and myself is in the world. And world is full of want. Need. Feel. I want to make my way in that world and trying to do it so in such a me, me, me, seems not only needlessly difficult, but somewhat neglectful of the Doe, Ray, Fah, So, La, Tea.

What can I say; I like sugar in my tea. Some people don't. Okay. It's a big world.

Lemon?

Cream?

Milk?

Justice League hot chocolate with psychedelic colored marshmallows? With your Buffy chocolate bar.

It's product placement, but it's tasty.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I give up reading anything when I come to an example of Godwin's Law -- KdS, 12:43:33 01/16/04 Fri

From any ideology.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I disagree -- Nino, 13:28:13 01/15/04 Thu

Well I'm about half way throught "Atlas Shrugged" so I guess I can't speak on it yet, but I can say that so far I think the mystery of John Galt and the disappearing geniuses is great, and keeps me interested. Granted, its a little long, and can at times be redundant, but I would certainly not call the writing terrible.

As far as characters not being realistic, I think Roark in "The Fountainhead" is a realistic depiction of what a hero could and should be. Whether people live up to that is another story, but I find it very easy to connect to her heroes in "The Fountainhead" a little more difficult in "Atlas Shrugged" who's heroes seem to be, as you imply, less then human in some regards.

I suppose I was waiting till the end of the novel to come to my conclusion over the characters, but thus far, with few exceptions, I feel that each character is portrayed as very real, despite the fact that most of us have never and will never meet someone quite like, say, Dagny Taggart. I think that's the point of the way she was characterized. You think she is detached and not relateable or real, but I feel that Rand used her well to counter the didactic altruism we have had pounded into us as a society. Society says a hero is someone who lives for others or dies for others, as the case may be. It's kind of scary how it's become an almost universal truth, this definition of a hero. If nothing else Rand points this out and says, "Hey look, another kind of a hero...the exact opposite of what society tells us a hero is." She makes us question things that "go without saying."

On this board alone an altruistic view of heroism is rampant..."Do the right thing" means "sacrifice the self" and I think Rand's fiction does a wondeful job of getting us to question this assumption, and questioning is always good.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Types of Heroes: Creators and Saviors -- dmw, 15:33:41 01/15/04 Thu

I agree that it's a good idea to question the meaning of heroism, and I'm inclined to prefer something closer to the Creator hero, who creates for his or her own reasons and not for the good of society, to the altruistic Savior hero. Of course, I should confess that I am a Creator type, not a Savior type. I'm not a scientist in order to help people, but rather because it's interesting and fun, and all the scientists and engineers I know love their work for similar reasons.

Linus Torvalds is a good example of the Creator hero, and is a particularly interesting case because he sounds so altruistic. After all, this is the person who is in charge of producing an operating system better than Microsoft's Windows, but he gives it away without charging a dime. However, he didn't create Linux and give it away to the tens of millions of people who use it because of altruism, but he did it rather, as the title of his biography states, just for fun, for the joy of creation, and of course he does require something back--if you modify and distribute Linux, you have to share your contributions with everyone. Few if any improve Linux out of an altruistic reason, but because they have an itch of their own to scratch and giving it back to the community is not just required but an important part of the fun of working together on such a project.

Creators are important. After all, if there were no Creators, there would be nothing for the Saviors like Buffy to save. If there were no mothers like Joyce to have and bring up the children or builders like Xander to make their homes and surroundings, what would there be for Buffy to save? I agree that our society tends to ignore Creator heroes and that it has greater respect for Savior-type heroes like doctors who repair injured people, firemen who rescue people from danger, and so forth.

Returning to Rand, these ideas are not so complex as to require thousand page novels and have been expressed better elsewhere without needing such repetitive length. She's a political philosopher, not a writer, and it shows.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Point taken...didn't anyone like Rand's fiction? -- Nino...hoping for a literary supporter :), 21:05:57 01/15/04 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I did -- s'kat, 21:22:05 01/16/04 Fri

Rand's not a bad writer and her fiction is rather interesting. I'm not overly fond of her philosophy, but she does have some interesting things to say. It helps if you understand Rand's background a bit of course. It also helps if you don't take it too personally. I found bits of Fountainhead to be quite amusing. She tends to be narrowly focused though and that can get annoying after awhile. Oh, want to make it clear - I'm not a follower of Rand, nor agree with her views, but I can enjoy reading her books without agreeing with her.

I've read four of her novels:

1. Anthem - the shortest, which really gives you her views in a nutshell, and her fears of a fascist society. (Ironic, considering one could use her philosophy to create one as well.)

2. Night of January 16th - a murder mystery/play that is really quite interesting with a clever twist.

3. Fountainhead - which gets bogged down with philosophy but has some fascinating characters. The architect who almost destroys himself trying to build his buildings his way. The woman he falls in love with and has a very tough relationship with. There's a pseudo-rape scene in the book that is written as a seduction that is interesting to contemplate and can be read more than one way. Oh and the newspaper owner... Some rich characters, who you can either interpret in pure philosophy terms as archetypes or just as characters. The thing about reading is the reader can bring whatever she or he wants to the table. There's a pretty good film based on it - starring Gary Cooper, Raymond MAssey and PAtricia O'Neal.

4. Atlas Shrugged - the longest of the books and most bogged down by philosophy. I couldn't make it through this one, got bogged down. It is an interesting story though about a bunch of industry brains who go on strike against the government buying their companies and doing away with competition, away with creativity.

Ayn Rand came from an environment which ruled out creativity. She confused Stalin's violent dictatorship with Marx's economic philosophy, a mistake many people make.
And developed her own philosophy as a bitter response to it.
Both are extremes. I find both interesting. I disagree with both, b/c I think both make the mistake of over-simplifying human nature and complex situations, both make the mistake of making generalizations, and both tend to be a bit reactionary. That doesn't mean I don't think they don't have interesting things to say or good points, I just think they carry their views to the extreme. But, both did form their philosophies as a reaction to things happening in their immediate environment and directly to them and their friends. Marx was reacting to the horrible conditions in Europe that he saw and experienced during the Industrial Revolution - which included child labor, sweat-shops, poverty, and classism - conditions that he associated with captialism. Rand was reacting to the horrible conditions of her society which was during Stalin's regime at the height of the Cold War, when Stalin was killing people in camps and creativity was pounced on as were any opinions that differed from Stalin's and the regime. Rand, being an intellectual and an artist - found this contemptible and abhorrent - she barely got out. Her books in some ways comment on her fears at the time. Both Marx and Rand are interesting. They should be read critically though. But you see, I've read lots of books and writers whose take on the human race or philosophy I'm not fond of. Doesn't make them bad writers or uninteresting, actually it makes them more interesting - because it gives me a chance to see how they think and evaluate their opinions and views for myself.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The thing about philosophical fiction is . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:49:54 01/16/04 Fri

The philosophical/moral values inside it are often stated as facts. Hearing differing views doesn't bother me, but when there isn't a more literary form of "IMHO" present, it becomes quite irritable. And, even then, it wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that there's no counterargument. If someone posts an opinion I disagree with on this board, I can either reply to it or wait for someone else who disagrees to reply. Either way, at least one part of the argument is likely to be something I agree with. However, in philosophical novels, there's no way to argue with the author. After reading the book and disagreeing with his/her views, I can't walk over to their home and start debating the philosophy presented in their books. To me, not arguing/debating with someone when you disagree with them is like giving in; it's like saying, "You're right, I give up." Because of this, unless I find a way to contact spirit's from beyond the grave and argue with them, I'm going to avoid as much of Ayn Rand's writings as possible.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I did -- dmw, 07:35:23 01/17/04 Sat

But you see, I've read lots of books and writers whose take on the human race or philosophy I'm not fond of. Doesn't make them bad writers or uninteresting, actually it makes them more interesting - because it gives me a chance to see how they think and evaluate their opinions and views for myself.

Rand's not a bad writer because of the content of her philosophy, but rather because her books were written only to promulgate her philosophy, focusing on her opinions to the detriment of her story. I agree that there are a few interesting aspects of character and plot, but they're buried under a thousand pages of repetitive argumentation for her philosophy.

She's not bad because of her opinions or even because she expresses them in her fiction, but rather because of how she does it. There's a reason that fiction devoted to political philosphy is generally short, like Animal Farm or 1984. I don't think either of Orwell's books are literary masterpieces, but I can enjoy an expression of political opinions to some degree if it's not endlessly repetitive.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I did -- s'kat, 08:49:38 01/17/04 Sat

Have you read her shorter works? I can't tell from your post above and haven't been able to read the entire thread, so if you did...ignore this.

I like parts of her writing. Like I said above, Atlas Shrugged, while it had an interesting story in the center, it got ruined by her philosophy. I wish someone had taken a red pen to the novel so I could have gotten more of the story. As it was, I found myself scanning most of it to get there. Sophist is right, Gault's speech is tedious. The Gault character is the least interesting and a cypher for her philosophy. The other characters though? Interesting and complex. Dagny - one of the toughest women in fiction.
But anti-heroes not really heroes. Rand's heroes have a lot in common with the anti-heroes in the noir films of the time.

Her short novels - Anthem and Night of January 16th are a little easier. 100 pages each. And I believe fit the Orwell idea of short novel. But you shouldn't compare Rand to Orwell, they wrote differently and for different reasons.
Rand wrote for the same reasons Nietzche, Marx and others of that ilk did to explore philosophical ideas and promote a philosophical viewpoint. She used fiction to do it, although I think she has also written several essays as well.

As for whether or not she is a bad writer? Well it is interesting to note that when they did the list of the best fictional works of the 20th century, readers voted for Atlas Shrugged as number 1. Atlas Shrugged since it was first published (1960s??) has never been out of print, and sells numerous copies. So while you and I may not consider Rand a good writer and see flaws, she obviously found a way to connect with a universal audience and engage them - that is "good" writing. If you get someone to read you, and not just once, (I know people who read Atlas Shrugged once every two years - I know, I know - it seems bizarre, considering I couldn't get through it the first time, but there you go.) . What engages them? She develops strong multifaceted characters who have problems people identify with, her characters don't whine, they take action. They make something work and take control of their lives. This is the same reason millions of people read Gone With The Wind. I've never been able to read it, I certainly don't like the book, but I have to respect the fact that it is the bestselling book next to the Bible, and has lasted more than 30 years.

It's easy to judge something as bad writing based on what you were taught is good writing or your own background. But how do you explain it's popularity? That's somewhat harder.
Yes, we can say people have horrible tast while we have great tast, after all look at how popular those nasty reality series are and how low Angel, our favorite series, ratings are - but that's an easy way out, I think. What makes us think, our tast is necessarily better? And how do we know - why someone else liked it? It's hard to contemplate, because it does mean exploring tasts that threaten or conflict with our own. Just as it is really hard to be tolerant of tast that we consider abhorrent. We want to strangle those people who voted Atlas Shrugged at the top of The Modern Literature list - you nits, we scream, can't you see Lord of The Rings or Animal Farm or Ulysses by Joyce are far better works!!! But they disagree.
What can you do? But attempt to understand why.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, I recently read a list of the top ten bestselling books . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:55:01 01/17/04 Sat

And Lord of the Rings was the only novel on there, not Gone With the Wind or Atlas Shrugged. Just thought I should mention that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well.. -- Nino, 10:07:09 01/17/04 Sat

In 1991, "Atlas Shrugged" was voted the second most influential book of all time (1st was the Bible) in a poll done by the Library of Congress and Book of the Month Club.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Was never disputing influence, just sales -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:31:07 01/17/04 Sat

After all, very few people will pick up Atlas Shrugged just to pass the time.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Care to reference the source? -- s'kat, 10:27:05 01/17/04 Sat

Mine was The Modern Library in 1999 and Library of Congress.
Lord of The Rings took off again when movies got made.
But it was not at the top of the list in 1999 or 2000.

Top ten now? Yes. Top ten of all time? heh.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dorling Kindersley Top Ten of Everything 2000 -- KdS, 15:29:04 01/17/04 Sat

Recent editions are dumbed down less than the Guinness Book of Records, which has gone completely down the toilet in the last 20 years. Unfortunately no source is cited. Figures are given, but I'm not including them because of the severity of the approximations.

1) The Bible (presumably all editions)
2) Quotations from the Works of Mao Zedong (the Little Red Book)
3) American Spelling Book by Noah Webster (all editions)
4) Guiness Book of Records (all eds)
5) The McGuffey Readers by William Holmes McGuffy
6) A Message to Garcia by Elbert Hubbard
7) World Almanac (all editions)
8) The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care by Dr. Benjamin Spock
9) Valley of the Dolls by Jacqueline Susann
10) In His Steps: What Would Jesus Do? by the Rev. Charles Monroe Sheldon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Unfortunately, I can't -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:28:08 01/17/04 Sat

The book belonged to my brother, who has now returned to college, taking it with him. Although, it may have been the top twenty instead.

As for "best of all time", it's incredibly difficult to judge that when many high selling books started centuries/millenia ago, back before accurate record keeping could be done. So finding the bestselling book of all time becomes estimation at best.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I did -- dmw, 13:15:59 01/17/04 Sat

I've read her shorter works and recommended finding something short or nonfiction for those who are interested in her ideas earlier in this thread.

So while you and I may not consider Rand a good writer and see flaws, she obviously found a way to connect with a universal audience and engage them - that is "good" writing.

I'm not sure that there's a universal audience, but she is tremendously popular with American young men in high school or in their 20's. While I know a lot of older Libertarian types who would rate her books influential to their development, few if any of them remain as fond of their books as they were when they were younger. She doesn't seem to be nearly as popular outside the U.S. either.

What engages them? She develops strong multifaceted characters who have problems people identify with, her characters don't whine, they take action.

Why is Rand popular? First, I would agree with your statement if you drop the adjective "multifaceted." (I also don't agree that Dagny was tough; she's an almost ordinary viewpoint character by Randian standards when compared to Reardon or Galt.) Rand's philosophy is straightforward and obvious enough for most people to grasp, while also appealing directly to American culture, so I'm not too surprised by her popularity.

Why don't other writers fare as well as Rand? While Joyce may be a better writer, he's far too difficult to read to do well in a general contest of popularity. Tolkien and Orwell's writings are set in unrealistic worlds, which turns off a large percentage of the readership base, so I wouldn't expect them to do terribly well (though perhaps the LotR movies have helped mainstream Tolkien in the last three years--many more people are willing to watch F&SF than read it.) Since you brought up the Bible, I wonder if the percentage of people who actually read all of AS is as small as the percentage who actually read the entire Bible.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I did -- s'kat, 21:03:54 01/17/04 Sat

I'd be careful with the generalizations, actually we both should be. And being just a tad judgmental.

I know quite a few "women" between the ages of 35-50 who seem to love Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. They laugh at me for writing on Buffy or watching the show, which they consider nothing but a juvenile supernatural soap opera. (I don't really understand why, I can hazard guesses, but I am reluctant to judge them - personally Shrugged drug for me and while there were elements that were fascinating within it? It did get didactic at times, but I find The Practice didactic at times. And of course I found plenty to chew on in Buffy and prefer BTVS to Rand...or I'd be posting on the Rand board, (shudder).)

I don't like Rand. And am not into Rand. I want to make that clear. But I do know people who do like Rand, who are friends of mine or close acquaintances, and do not fit your description above. I also have friends who find Tolkien worthless and have *never* watched the films or went to sleep during them. I would not judge them on it, they just don't like Tolkien which they consider male geek fantasy.
(It's not, of course,...and I'm not bashing Tolkien, I like Tolkien, read the books in 1982. Was in the play version of the Hobbit. But I only know two people off line (or folks haven't met through online friends) who have read the books or liked the movie. I'm using Tolkien as an example - basically what I'm trying to do is put you in the shoes of the people who like Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead...)

Most people actually have read the Bible, they take Bible study classes, and have even discussed it. Whether or not they understand the Bible is another issue and one under constant debate. There's so many translations of the Bible, I've lost track. I own several. Two off-hand? The King James version, The New Catholic Version including the Apocraphy (sp?). I've also read the Mormon, The Christian Scientist, and seen the Children's Bible, The Book (the one put out by Fundamentalists as a best seller a while back). I would not make the assumption people haven't read it. Be careful, people will surprise you.

Heminway and other writers of Joyce's time, found Ulysess unreadable. So that could be part of the problem. And it is impossible to read, there are several versions of it as well, so it may depend on the version you get on how readable it is. I've seen two, the 1960s version which is close to unreadable and the newer unabridged version that came out in 1988, I think which I've read three times. The first version was type-written by nuns and almost illegible.
I did a thesis on Joyce in the 1980s...so it was a while ago. Studied everything about him. Even attempted to read some of Finnagan's Wake which borders on illegible.

You may despise Rand with a fiery vengeance, but that does not mean she is a bad writer or not worthy of attention.
Or that the individuals who found worth in her works have bad taste or.... Generalizations are dangerous. Be careful of making them or you fall into some of the same traps Rand and Marx fall into - both made sweeping generalizations based on extreme circumstances they'd experienced. People are incredibly complex with complex tastes and interests.
Rand's philosophy is fairly easy to understand, yes. But like all philosophy - the reader or interpreter takes what they want from it. Marx was fairly simplistic too actually.
But the interpreter took what they wanted from Marx. And the philosophy became something else.

I'm not defending Rand so much as I am defending the right to like and appreciate Rand and the necessity of being tolerant of others likes and dislikes without judging them harshly or putting them down because they don't agree with yours. Which was part of Rand's philosophy - the right of the individual - the right to like what the individual liked and to come up with new ideas. Not the entirety of her philosophy just a portion of it. Other bits and pieces, have to do with allowing things to fail, in order to discover a better means, instead of subdizing it and encouraging the flawed item to continue. Those are examples of worthwhile elements. Rand may seem simplistic on the surface, but her philosophy did have some depth and did have an major influence on the 20th century and American Business endeavors. Alan Greenspan who controls the Federal Reserve Bank and interest rates - is a strong follower of Rand, and read Atlas Shrugged - you can't tell me that he only affects the American Economy? Tolkien didn't influence World Economic thinkers, Rand did. Many business people have read Rand, they don't agree with most of what she says, but some of what she says works in business. Just as many business people have read Machievelli (sp?) The PRince, which isn't a nice book, but does have interesting concepts that people have found work well in the business world. I don't agree with them, but understanding these principals and knowing what they are helps me to understand the people who use them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I did -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:20:17 01/17/04 Sat

"Most people actually have read the Bible, they take Bible study classes, and have even discussed it. Whether or not they understand the Bible is another issue and one under constant debate."

But, how many people have actually read the WHOLE Bible? I'm talking Every. Single. Verse. I'm betting there are quite a few people out there who read the Bible regularly but don't necessarily read the whole book. It's understandable: the thing's truly humongous even with the incredibly compact print; add in an archaic writing style, and you've got a book that discourages complete reading.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I once had a tense moment with a colleague -- Rahael, 04:17:23 01/18/04 Sun

when she decided to tell me that I was a 'bad Christian' because I didn't 'believe' every word of the Bible. (We're talking Genesis here, among other things).

So I asked her whether she believed in this or that. Her answer was: "I can't say, I haven't read the whole book".

She goes to church without fail and is deeply immersed in the church and community.

I too am a Christian, though clearly 'bad' (heheh), and I have read the *whole* thing. several times.

So what does this tell you? Absolutely nothing! Except for the fact that one may be devout and not have read the book the way through. Which isn't an *untenable* position at all, considering Church history. When the bible was only available in Latin, most Christians didn't 'read' the book.

And I can say that my colleague is indeed a 'good Christian' in the sense she has a kind and generous heart, but I wouldn't recommend her going out to convert the heathens any time soon!

I am so staying out of the Rand debate!! The Bible is so much less controversial. Ahem. Could be famous last words.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Where did this reply come from??? -- dmw, 07:31:10 01/18/04 Sun

I'd be careful with the generalizations, actually we both should be. And being just a tad judgmental.

You're reading far too much into my post that isn't there. I made no attempt to describe all of Rand's readers and I certainly didn't say that no women liked Rand. You're the one who's overgeneralizing here. All I said is that her appeal is not universal (particularly outside the US) and that she's tremendously popular among young American men. I didn't say that her readers were only young American men or that even that such a group made up the majority of her readers.

Most people actually have read the Bible, they take Bible study classes, and have even discussed it. ... I would not make the assumption people haven't read it. Be careful, people will surprise you.

Actually, I started with the assumption that most people (in Western civilization) had read the Bible, but experience has taught me that it's not the case even in a highly religious country like the US. Most people have read bits and pieces, but few have read the entire text.

You may despise Rand with a fiery vengeance, but that does not mean she is a bad writer or not worthy of attention.

I don't despise Rand, but I do think she's a bad writer. Despite your use of may, the fact that you would write such a implicative sentence about my feelings makes me think that you're reading emotions into my posts that simply aren't there.

I'm not defending Rand so much as I am defending the right to like and appreciate Rand and the necessity of being tolerant of others likes and dislikes without judging them harshly or putting them down because they don't agree with yours.

I haven't done that. I'm not sure why I'm bearing the brunt of your crusade against generalizations, but I will assert my right to assess the quality of Rand or any other writer and explain why I think that way and I will defend that as strongly as you are defending the right to like her.

I brought up reasons why Rand's books were popular among the American public because you brought up the poll as evidence that Rand's a good writer because of her popularity. The argument that popularity is equivalent to quality is fallacious, as I demonstrated by giving reasons for Rand's popularity other than her putative quality. The argument only holds if quality was the only reason for popularity, which it obviously isn't.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We're arguing at cross purposes here -- s'kat, 13:13:12 01/18/04 Sun

I'm sorry, I misread you, easy to do on a computer screen, where you find yourself reacting and not reading carefully.
I did see read what I thought was the implication that only American men liked her - and that annoyed me. I also got the feeling from the above post and the others that you *really* despise Ayn Rand. I see emotion in your posts. My apologies if that's not your intent, but I felt it in forceful tone and word choice used. Again, I may have misread. I admit, I too choose forceful words which can come across as overly emotional, which is the risk of writing forcefully.

I don't like Rand by the way, I'm sort of playing devil's advocate on the topic. Probably a mistake. What I'm doing is challenging the dismissal of a writer who seems to have influenced so many people in leadership. I'm more curious why Rand's philosophy influenced these people than why people despise her. Or why she's a bad writer. That seems more subjective to my way of thinking. Personally? I think she's a lousey writer - couldn't make it through Atlas Shrugged, yet I did enjoy Anthem and the play. And at times her characters made me laugh. But it fascinates me that people do like her, just as it fascinates me that people watch those horrid reality shows or love Da Vinici Code.
All of which I dislike. Now we could have a very amiable and somewhat pointless discussion on why Rand is horrible or continue this, what has also become rather circular and pointless on why Rand isn't a horrible writer..or, we could wonder what it is about Rand's philosophy that has interested people??

At any rate, I'm done. I should have been wise like Rah and stayed away from debate. (It's amusing in a way I didn't considering I'm not overly fond of Rand and find some of her conclusions amusing. But people seem to reacte with love or abject hatred.) Random made the best post on the topic and I'm afraid it will get lost. I hope people have read it. He/She seems to understand Rand and other philosophers far better than I do.

Sorry for any misunderstandings. Leaving the discussion.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Simplicity and Influence -- dmw, 07:51:56 01/18/04 Sun

Rand may seem simplistic on the surface, but her philosophy did have some depth and did have an major influence on the 20th century and American Business endeavors.

The simple and straightforward nature of her presentation of her ideas is actually one of the few points of quality in Rand's books. This statement was not meant to denigrate Rand's work. I think Feynman's admonition that if you can't explain your ideas to an intelligent layman, you probably don't understand them yourself, is generally true. Complexity wins no favor from me. As to her influence, I specifically recommended reading about Rand's ideas for that very reason in an earlier post.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I did -- Sophist, 08:34:20 01/18/04 Sun

Marx was fairly simplistic too actually.

While there certainly are simplistic followers of Marx (and even a term for them: vulgar Marxists), I would not describe him or his writings with that word. If anything, Marx suffered from the German philosophical disease of obscurity and unnecessary complexity.

I'll stick by my characterization of Rand as "simplistic".

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreeing with dmw -- Sophist, 16:12:55 01/15/04 Thu

I don't have much to say about the writing style; that, after all, is a matter of taste. I will say that John Galt's speech is surely the most tedious segment in the history of the English language.

The real problem is not with these works as literature. They were not really written as literature, but as philosophy in the form of literature (a time-honored tradition -- I'm not questioning that). The trouble is that the philosophy is just simplistic and unimaginative.

[> [> [> Re: To What Degree? -- LittleBit, 14:45:16 01/14/04 Wed

Why do you see the two as mutually exclusive?

[> [> [> [> Re: To What Degree? -- Claudia, 10:35:03 01/16/04 Fri

[Why do you see the two as mutually exclusive?]

Explain please.

[> Help an individual/yourself, help one person; help society, help a lot fo people -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:17:21 01/14/04 Wed

Assuming all individuals deserve help equally, then helping a large populace supercedes helping yourself or one other person. After all, helping society at large is really just helping individuals several hundred/thousand/million times.

[> Wait, I've got another one! (reaching back into the quote bag) -- Pony, 19:51:41 01/14/04 Wed

To whom do we tell what happened on the
Earth, for whom do we place everywhere huge
Mirrors in the hope that they will be filled up
And will stay so?

- Czeslaw Milosz

[> [> Oooh, me too, me too! -- Gyrus, 14:01:07 01/15/04 Thu

"It's a rational transaction -- one life for billions."
Dr. Hans Zarkhov, FLASH GORDON

Okay, maybe not as highbrow, but still...

[> [> [> Another one! -- Pony, 08:31:47 01/16/04 Fri

How strange is the lot of us mortals! Each of us is here for a brief sojourn; for what purpose he knows not, though he sometimes thinks he senses it. But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people -- first of all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of sympathy. A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving...

- Albert Einstein

[> [> [> [> How about... -- Celebaelin, 09:13:19 01/16/04 Fri

Wonderful women! Have you ever thought how much we all, and women especially, owe to Shakespeare for his vindication of women in these fearless, high-spirited, resolute and intelligent heroines?

Ellen Terry (1847-1928) British actress. Four lectures on Shakespeare, 'The Triumphant Women'

[> What Love's got to do with it. [longish, very vague spoilers to AtS 5.9] -- Random, 16:14:52 01/15/04 Thu

Okay, just so this question doesn't stay OT....
[btw "agape love" is basically tautological. Agape is a form of love, much as blueberry is a form of berry.]

What we have to remember is that we are dealing with an arbitrary, if useful, division of forms of love. The names are merely the creations of the Greeks, gaining currency in the modern Western world via the medieval classicists. So agape isn't an absolute descriptive -- merely a convenient one. Before we continue, we can at least start with a working definition of agape: basically, stripped of Christian conventions, it is love that is of a spiritual, non-sexual nature. Generally, it refers to a universal love, but it can also be somewhat interchangeable with what we know of as "platonic" love. (The two terms are not parallel -- they come from different philosophical sources, though "agape" preceded Platonism (proper noun).

As you are probably already aware, you are bordering on Randian objectivism. Which is all well and good -- if you rationalize it thoroughly. Which, agree or disagree with her conclusions, Rand did. The problem most people make is that they accept the generic conclusions of philosophies but never do the gruntwork of actually thinking them through, examining not only the ethos, but the very epistemologies that underly them. One can be a Randian, or at least accept the principles, but it befits one to put in the effort to examine rather than mrerely assert or assimilate. So asking what the point of agape is requires not simply a matter of justifying love, or a rationalizing self-interest...those lead only to circular argument in isolation fromt an understanding of the causative principles and consequences that give basis to the idea. A:"Why not value self-interest over agape?" B:"Cause self-interest makes more sense and is more natural ." A:"Oh? Prove it." B "Cause it makes more sense to take care of yourself first, cause that's what we're interested in." A: "I don't buy it." And so it goes.

Agape is not merely a word, or a sentiment, to be slapped on an individual's motives. To place a value judgment on it requires examination of the philosophical underpinnings. First, let's consider the nature of motivation, and whether motivation is even an accurate descriptive for discussing agape. Jeremy Bentham, an early Utilitarianist and teacher of Mill, formulated the concept of "hedonic calculus" (calculus felicific) Simply put, it's the process of calculating the aggregate total of pleasure versus pain that would attend a certain course of action. So whenever a person performs an act, he or she, in this perspective, undergos a process analysis (conscious or subconscious) and acts accordingly. Which is not to say that people always perform as would most benefit themselves and give them the most pleasure. Pleasure, incidentally, within this context, is not merely generic desirable physical or emotional sensations -- it can be anything that produces a state where one considers that a satisfactory end has been achieved and one is accordingly satisfied in some way. Hence, ethical behaviour which results in death -- say, protesting a tyrannical regime -- can be said to be the result of calculating the pleasure value of behaving in a manner that benefits many people. Whether one buys Bentham's formulation or not, one cannot ignore the principle that he is observing in claiming that all actions are self-interest in some form. The question is, is agape external to self-interest, or is it interchangeable depending on motivation? Or, perhaps, the two concepts are fluid in relation to each other and there can be considerable overlap without diminishing one or the other.

So we can postulate for a moment that agape and self-interest are not incompatible. Pony, in her reply to you, quotes Donne's excellent Meditation XVII, a justifiably famous analogy for the communal nature of both human experience and human interest. Ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. One cannot disassociate from the rest of humanity, even if one is an ensouled dead body with a latent demon. To act in self-interest without accounting for the rest of the population is, arguably, a very short-sighted self-interest. Self-interest is very carefully distinguished from actual selfishness by quite a few people, for excellent (if misguided, in my opinion, because I could argue it's just semantics) reasons. We need only look at the Spike of Becoming to see this in action -- it is in his self-interest to keep the world from being destroyed. He even lists the things that he'll lose if, to paraphrase Donne's words, the continent is obliterated while he remains.

But are agape and self-interest even properly contrasted? Self-interest, to be sure, is a sentiment. Not even an avoidable sentiment, I would think. But the construction "to act on principles of self-interest" is not necessarily concentual with the construction "to act on principles of agape." Thus, we can address the idea of motivation here. To call self-interest a motivation would be fairly accurate. Certainly, it can exist in principle alone, but when all is said and done, the greatest relevance of the term comes from its role as either a motivator of action or a rationalization of the same. I would suggest that perhaps agape is slightly more problematic. Certainly, it's not difficult to see agape as motivation for behaviour. But the nature of agape isn't simply interest or drive -- it is, conceptually, an emotive state. Feeling love as an emotion, after all, does not preclude other drives...indeed, great horrors are committed in spite of love.

Let's bring Schopenhauer into this for a moment because he he makes excellent and cogent observations about the nature of agape. And because I like him:

Now before I go farther, and show, as the last item in my discussion, how love whose origin and nature we know to be seeing through the principium individuationis, leads to salvation, that is, to the entire surrender of the will-to-live, i.e., of all willing, and also how another path, less smooth yet more frequented, brings man to the same goal, a paradoxical sentence must first be here stated and explained. This is not because it is paradoxical, but because it is true, and is necessary for the completeness of the thought I have to express. It is this: "All love (agape, caritas) is compassion or sympathy


The principium individuationis is, as its name implies, the principle of the individual. It correlates to the setting of distinct boundaries between the individual and the world, keeping out the maelstrom, as it were. Schopenhauer is making the distinction here between the emotion and the expression of the emotion. It is telling, though, that Schopenhauer doesn't include eros, an issue that will be clarified in short order.

He continues:


We have seen how, from seeing through the principium individuationis, in the lesser degree justice arises, and in the higher degree real goodness of disposition, a goodness that shows itself as pure, i.e., disinterested, affection towards others. Now where this becomes complete, the individuality and fate of others are treated entirely like one's own....in truth they are only of a negative nature, and only the end of an evil. Therefore whatever goodness, affection, and magnanimity do for others is always only an alleviation of their sufferings; and consequently what can move them to good deeds and to works of affection is always only knowledge of the suffering of others, directly intelligible from one's own suffering, and put on a level therewith. It follows from this, however, that pure affection (agape, caritas) is of its nature sympathy or compassion. The suffering alleviated by it, to which every unsatisfied desire belongs, may be great or small. We shall therefore have no hesitation in saying that the mere concept is as unfruitful for genuine virtue as it is for genuine art; that all true and pure affection is sympathy or compassion, and all love that is not sympathy is selfishness...All this will be in direct contradiction to Kant, who recognizes from abstract reflection, and in fact from the concept of duty and the categorical imperative, and who declares felt sympathy to be weakness, and by no means virtue. Selfishness is eros, sympathy or compassion is agape.


Ergo, agape in and of itself is emotion, impotent and theoretical. The question is, how does it manifest? Calling it a "motive" is misleading, if one is using the same definition for motive as one would use for "self-interest" or "selfishness." In a Platonic scheme, it is a cause. Or even a Cause. Sentiments manifest from it


Let's touch on Spike, then, since your posts quite strongly suggest previous posts you've made about him and heroism. Spike's awareness of love was, until he moved past his sexual interlude with Buffy and gained a soul, severely circumscribed. Perhaps you have inadvertently managed to describe exactly what the lack of a soul does -- while the emotions may be present, they can never be anything other than selfish. Hence, Spike could feel eros, for that was a means of satisfying his own desires...but never true agape It is telling that he didn't even appear to show sexual interest once he regained his soul...Certainly, Buffy would never have gone for it, but he didn't even appear to care anymore What that implies is that the love he had felt for Buffy prior to regaining his soul had been almost purely selfish -- and his outlook afterwards was a reaction against that. Extreme, yes, for eros is not by necessity selfish...but these were extreme circumstances, and the relationship he had with Buffy had been one that warranted a great deal of reflection once he regained his soul. Recall his madness: "Must service the girl." This is, I think, symptomatic of the pain he feels, the realization of the nature of his love prior to the soul. One might even say that the soul is a form of objective correlative, contextually speaking. It is a marker that analogizes with his emotional and moral state. It reached its apex at the end of Chosen...where he sacrificed his life to save the world. One could -- and I have on occasion -- argue that he sacrificed himself simply for one tiny segment of the world, Buffy. But this wouldn't change the basic fact. Agape, after all, is unconditional love for others, and can manifest itself quite handily in a single dualistic relationship. It is, by these lights, superior to simple eros in the fact that it is love without selfishness. What makes this so fascinating is that we are witnessing a microcosm created by ME, the transition from eros to agape in a single relationship. However, eros and agape are not mutually exclusive -- indeed, in this particular relationship, agape without eros is as incomplete as eros without agape.

He recognizes this. I would suggest, in fact, that Spike was wrong in saying that Buffy loved him, because she experienced a sort of agape. Perhaps even filias/sororitas. But it wasn't what he truly wanted -- eros and agape conjoined. And in that way, he was right, and that is what he intended -- she no longer desired him selfishly, in terms of eros. It was a lesson Xander learned a long time ago.

But here's the catch (and where I finally get to your rather vague question): he recognizes that, for the first and only time in his long life, he is doing something out of love, not for love. And thus chooses to sacrifice himself. Recall my Platonic scheme: he acts in a manner that springs from love rather than being love's bitch and acting because love motivates him. The distinction is a subtle but profound one. His sacrifice is a manifestation of his love. In the dialectic of the Platonic scheme, simply put (i.e. eschewing terminology that would have to be explained), everything is a reflection of a higher (and fundamentally inactive) source. Hence, Spike's sacrifice is a reflection of agape, not a creation of it. He is no longer a fool for love. He may be a fool of love, but it is clear that ME considers this a higher state. Self-interest is laid to a final rest when Spike acknowledges Buffy doesn't love him as he wants her to.

The greying of Angel parallels the selfishness, but not quite. The diminishment of agape is not paralleled by an increase in self-interest. A telling point. This is the nature of true corruption -- it doesn't work with artificial, easily-identified checks-and-balances. It lays bare the complexity of how we interact with the world. To decrease Angel's immediate sympathy for others does not come as so trite an expense as increasing his selfishness.That is for amateurs, and Wolfram and Hart are consummate professionals at the game of corruption. Wes has already touched that dark place, and I suspect Gunn is hurtling headlong into it. Only Fred and Lorne seem to be resisting, though the single Lorne-centric episode reveals what is perhaps the most obvious manifestation of what is happening to the rest of AI. Other than that, Lorne is a victim of too-little screentime, But Angel is faced with the brutal realities that accompany his new role. His "dark period" of AtS S2 was despair, the feelings of impotence and failure dominating his motivations and personality. It was, of course, his long dark night of the soul. The Angel we've seen recently is an Angel that has withdrawn in an entirely different way. To refer back to Schopenhauer, hasn't so much lost his sympathy as he has lost his ability to manifest it. Unlike S2, where they were pretty much the same, I believe there is a crucial divide here between his internal and external states.

I'm afraid. Spike, as of this season, seems to be in partial regression, personality-wise, and I tend to disagree as to the nature of the contrast with Angel. Spike's behaviour reflects an prematurely accelerated rebirth into "humanity" via his new soul. But if he is the enfant terrible contrasted with Angel's maturity, he is already showing signs of inexperience. The cracks in the facade are apparent in places. He sacrifices his chance for corporealization twice -- once for Angel, once for Fred -- and these are heroic moments that the William the Bloody of old would never have considered. The soul is there, it is functioning, but Spike has all the markings of an also-ran hero right now. He is still self-centered for the most part, still cruel and detached from certain aspects of humanity. His treatment of Harmony and his constant mockery of AI's attempts to do good are not simply him acting as some noble voice of dissent and critique...they are hallmarks of a personality unwilling to look past its own petty concerns. The "higher purpose" of Spike's role, I think, is more the product of meta-narration in fandom than indicative of a pattern in the show itself. And one can legitimately argue that he has no obligation to act as a hero, no requirement to embrace agape. One would be right . Unfortunately, he has a history to deal with, fighting against evil in Sunnydale, taking the first steps in that direction. What I suspect we'll be seeing is a transformation that establishes once and for all that he is capable of being a hero on a regular basis without simple selfishness as an impulse, that he doesn't need a Buffy to give him reason. Hopefully, he won't need a Fred to do so either. (Personally, if Fred replaces Buffy in Spike's affections and takes on her function as a motivator for Spike, I will lose a great deal of faith in ME's writing abilities. It would be...unworthy of them) No doubt he will achieve great things before it's all over.

I was going to discuss Buffy and the rest of the Scoobies, but have a headache now. Feel free to take up their cause if somebody wants.

[> [> This is a truly excellent post. -- s'kat, 20:46:02 01/16/04 Fri

Finally someone explains the philosophical distinctions between agape love and eros in a way that I can grasp. Thank you. What I like most is you take a little from several philosophers instead of relying on one - the difficulty with philosophy is a tendency towards extremes, all or nothing views - ie. Ayn Rand, who due to her own extreme experiences, had a tendency to see things in this manner. If one studies Rand or quotes her, it behooves one to at least read up on her background a bit. (Not you Random, you seem to have a firm grasp. Speaking generally.)
She came from Stalinist Russia, barely escaped. I visited East Germany during the Communist reign - and I can see how it could influence someone like Rand to take an extremist view in the opposite direction. Rand, ironically, makes the same mistakes with her philosophy as Marx, which is both underestimate certain competitive drives in human nature and needs - both fail to see that their philosophy can lead to a fascist state or a state where one group is well-off and the other horribly down-trodden. That's the trouble with philosophy - works great in theory, not so great in practice. But enough on Rand, who tends to annoy me after awhile.

What I liked most about this post is the excellent analysis of Spike, which supports my own view that he is not being poorly written this year. Why people think he should be all heroic now with no flaws is beyond me. Where's the character arc in that? OR the interest? Half the fun is watching the character struggle, evolve, change, and fall down. A very good commentary to watch is Whedon's on the Firefly episode Serenity - where Whedon states repeatedly that he is not interested in an established hero with no flaws, nothing to overcome - he's interested in the bitter man whose lost everything struggling to do the right thing, when he'd rather do something else. There's no character arc, according to Whedon, in the other story.

I think part of the problem viewers have is they overinvest or rather project their own desires onto the characters and story, forgetting this isn't their story - it's someone elses and that the people telling the story are interested is something a little bigger and more complex than Spike becoming a hero and riding off in the sunset or Angel shanshuing and riding off into the sunset with Buffy or whomever. Whedon isn't really interested in the typical straight line heros tale that we see in so much B grade fiction and movies. He's interested in something a bit murkier and more complex - the human struggle to do the right thing and find meaning in a world that doesn't always have meaning. I've made this mistake in the past, getting so obsessed with one character, that I become blinded to the tale to what the writers are saying. That's a shame. Because honestly? The tale is more interesting and innovative. Luckily, I have some friends who occassionally knocked me upside the head and got me to refocus on the tale. One of my new years resolutions this year is not to obsess about one character or become invested in whether or not he is happy, finds romance or is redeemed. If I want that? Read fanfic or a romance novel - safe and easy. But I don't, not really, not if I'm honest with myself. Otherwise I'd be watching and reading other things. The tale this season is a fascinating one, if you are willing to stop worrying so much about your own desires for X.Y.Z character long enough to see it.

What is it? I think Random has more or less identified it above rather eloquently.

The greying of Angel parallels the selfishness, but not quite. The diminishment of agape is not paralleled by an increase in self-interest. A telling point. This is the nature of true corruption -- it doesn't work with artificial, easily-identified checks-and-balances. It lays bare the complexity of how we interact with the world. To decrease Angel's immediate sympathy for others does not come as so trite an expense as increasing his selfishness.That is for amateurs, and Wolfram and Hart are consummate professionals at the game of corruption. Wes has already touched that dark place, and I suspect Gunn is hurtling headlong into it. Only Fred and Lorne seem to be resisting, though the single Lorne-centric episode reveals what is perhaps the most obvious manifestation of what is happening to the rest of AI. Other than that, Lorne is a victim of too-little screentime, But Angel is faced with the brutal realities that accompany his new role. His "dark period" of AtS S2 was despair, the feelings of impotence and failure dominating his motivations and personality. It was, of course, his long dark night of the soul. The Angel we've seen recently is an Angel that has withdrawn in an entirely different way. To refer back to Schopenhauer, hasn't so much lost his sympathy as he has lost his ability to manifest it. Unlike S2, where they were pretty much the same, I believe there is a crucial divide here between his internal and external states.

I'm afraid. Spike, as of this season, seems to be in partial regression, personality-wise, and I tend to disagree as to the nature of the contrast with Angel. Spike's behaviour reflects an prematurely accelerated rebirth into "humanity" via his new soul. But if he is the enfant terrible contrasted with Angel's maturity, he is already showing signs of inexperience. The cracks in the facade are apparent in places. He sacrifices his chance for corporealization twice -- once for Angel, once for Fred -- and these are heroic moments that the William the Bloody of old would never have considered. The soul is there, it is functioning, but Spike has all the markings of an also-ran hero right now. He is still self-centered for the most part, still cruel and detached from certain aspects of humanity. His treatment of Harmony and his constant mockery of AI's attempts to do good are not simply him acting as some noble voice of dissent and critique...they are hallmarks of a personality unwilling to look past its own petty concerns. The "higher purpose" of Spike's role, I think, is more the product of meta-narration in fandom than indicative of a pattern in the show itself. And one can legitimately argue that he has no obligation to act as a hero, no requirement to embrace agape. One would be right . Unfortunately, he has a history to deal with, fighting against evil in Sunnydale, taking the first steps in that direction. What I suspect we'll be seeing is a transformation that establishes once and for all that he is capable of being a hero on a regular basis without simple selfishness as an impulse, that he doesn't need a Buffy to give him reason. Hopefully, he won't need a Fred to do so either. (Personally, if Fred replaces Buffy in Spike's affections and takes on her function as a motivator for Spike, I will lose a great deal of faith in ME's writing abilities. It would be...unworthy of them) No doubt he will achieve great things before it's all over.

Yes, I think that's it in a nutshell. We can already see it unraveling if we pay attention - at the end of this weeks episode, we have Spike actually taking time to be nice to, to listen to, and try to comfort Harmony - something he's never done before - without sex involved immediately during it. But we didn't go there. We have Angel reluctantly letting Harm live, but he shows no compassion to her or her situation and just dismisses her - much like the busy CEO who stops seeing his employees as anything more than numbers. (If you've worked in a corporation that has more than 200 people, you know what I mean.) Angel's lack of compassion makes sense character-wise, he's closed himself off in some ways - due to Connor, the job, the mind-wipe,
the situation he's in. He feels he can't really trust or tell anyone anything - so is isolated. This is in some respects parallel to Buffy in S7. Someone on another board made an excellent post regarding what happened to Buffy and what the writers may have been going for with the whole Slayer mythos. Hopefully I can remember some of it to paraphrase here - according to the poster, the Shadowmen's means of implanting the slayer with demonic power or the rape - made it so the slayer would be alone and die. As she grew older, the mission would take over and she'd be unable to love or show compassion, feel cut off. This is commented on or shown in LMPTM, Help, Beneath You, Selfless, etc...except, with Spike and Buffy's inability to put words to her feelings for Spike or acknowledge may be due to her fear/certainity that this has begun to happen. With Willow's help - she disperses the power and changes it, so it is now shared, the Sit's gasp of fulfillment is echoed by Buffy and it is here that she is finally able to knock away the First who in some ways reflected Buffy's fear that she could not touch, could not love, could not feel and had become a weapon - hard. This is when she is able to go to Spike and smiles, overcome with the knowledge that she can love - not eros, agape - compassion, a feeling she fears she has lost - which ME examines repeatedly through her bad counseling sessions - in the counseling sessions we see her struggling for that emotion that she fears is gone. In the end - after she shares the power and she grasps Spike's hand - she says with wonder, something everyone besides Buffy has seen all along, that she love's Spike - feels compassionate love for him. It is a huge moment for Buffy.
Spike oddly acknowledges this, but at the same time states that it's not love - in the sense of agape + eros, hence the no you don't. (And I think the reason he doesn't chase after her yet again - another sign of growth in the character, Spike is no longer love's bitch or as you state the "fool *for* love", he's grown up a bit, not stagnated.)
Buffy having finally reaffirmed her ability to feel compassion for others, to love on that level, can now move on to have a life - no longer doomed to live the solitary - compassionless existence of the slayer - a weapon. (Although I'm not convinced she was ever doomed to this...it was unclear. Nor do I believe for a moment that was what Nikki was like, but I digress.) Perhaps it would be better to state - Buffy now *believes* with certainity that she is no longer doomed to live a solitary compassionless existence as a weapon. Hence the smile at the end. Willow likewise is opened up and freed - able to feel compassion and link with others, when before she feels cut off from them due to the selfish use of her power. In fact ME may have been striving to show the same type of progression through the metaphor of Willow's magic - dark to white through the season. It's dark when she takes the power from someone else, it is white when she shares it.
When she finally breaks free of her own selfish love and selfish desire and feels compassion, the magic lightens up?
With Xander - I think we get this progression early on in Selfless - where he finally feels compassion for demons, Anya, Spike, and for Buffy. By being placed in Buffy's shoes, experiencing what she went through with Angel, and sacrificing himself to help Anya - Xander crosses a line between eros to agape. It's why he is able to take Spike in - in the episode Him that appears directly after Selfless, when prior to Selfless, Xander would have never agreed. It's why he sees the trigger in Sleeper. And why he is able to reach out to Dawn in Potential. It takes longer for Anya - who doesn't quite reach this point until End of Days when she realizes she likes people and is willing to fight and die for them, when before she would have skipped town or only stayed for Xander. I think - this was a major theme in S7, the movement away from our own selfish desires and agenda to the idea of feeling/opening yourself up to the feelings of others. It may be why we had all those nameless annoying potentials, and Wood's vendetta, and Andrew's fantasy world - showing how each character progresses from the state of "it's all about me" to the more adult state of - "its about us". The realization that like it or not we live in a world filled with people and the actions and goals and desires of those people do effect us and what we do affects them. And we are connected just by the very fact that we are human. Together - we can find meaning in a world that at times seems meaningless - may have been the final theme of Chosen, and the theme that is continuing in ATS.

Not sure if that adds much. (And I must confess I have not read most of this thread, so apologies if I repeated anything said above.) I just wanted to draw attention to this wonderful post, one of the best I've read in some time, and once again got a bit carried away. Thank you for your thoughts. Hope your head-ache is better.

sk

[> [> [> Lovely posts, Random & Shadowkat.. -- Jane, 21:46:49 01/16/04 Fri

I found the discussion about agape fascinating. Lots to think about now. I agree strongly with your interpretation about the role it plays in both Angel and Buffy. Thanks to you both for some very interesting reading.

[> [> [> [> I second that. Wonderful posts. Thank you. -- phoenix, 11:58:20 01/17/04 Sat


[> [> [> The continuity of love -- Random, 13:48:47 01/18/04 Sun

Very good analysis, especially the examination of the Buffy/Slayer paradigm. The scene between Buffy and Giles at the beginning of Intervention wherein they discuss Buffy and her ability to love is given too little attention as a major thematic turning point in the series. That scene marks the real introduction of the question that would come to dominate much of the rest of the series' run: what is the nature of love? One can almost say that it is the central question of the last 2 1/2 seasons, the exploration of love becoming a means of exploring the very nature of Slayerhood and sacrifice. It is the riddle that must be answered in order for Glory to be defeated (not only in terms of Buffy/Dawn, but in terms of Buffy/Gile, Willow/Tara, Xander/Anya, et cetera. It is, of course, central to the issue of Buffy's disconnect from the world after returning from the dead...and Willow's just-as-profound disconnect after losing Tara as well as her reconnection when Xander confronts her. And it is ultimately at the heart of not only Spike's sacrifice in Chosen, but of the essential impotence of the First Evil, who pines for material body so it can "feel"...yet it would never have been able to understand that the profoundest lack of feeling wasn't a physical phenomenon, but an emotional.

Sorry, still headachey. Just wanted to follow up and say thanks.

[> [> [> [> Re: The continuity of love -- s'kat, 15:04:23 01/18/04 Sun

You're welcome and thank you again for this post.

Have you thought of posting this anywhere else? Like over at Angel After Spike, just taking out the top paragraph and re-titling it from eros to agape? I wish you would. It's seriously a wonderful post and one I'm afraid may get overlooked.

I agree with you on Intervention which I see as a highly underrated episode - in intervention the issue of love and what it means to love is addressed for the first time from numerous angles. It is also an incredibly ironic episode. We have Buffy and the Buffybot and their separate relationships with Spike and the SG. Buffy's insulted when the SG cannot distinquish her from the buffybot. Yet the fact they can't, motivates her to play the Buffybot at the end with Spike to get the truth from him regarding whether he betrayed her and Dawn to Glory. What results is fascinating for several reasons -

First, we've set up Buffy's fear that she's disconnected herself from feeling - that she didn't feel enough for her mother, when her mother died. Hence her whole reason for the vision quest into the desert - she wants to find out if she can love, if being the slayer has cut her off from it. If she's become nothing but a robot.

Meanwhile, Spike has a robot Buffy created for him. He is enjoying having sex (intimate relations with it) and possibly in his mind at least is making love with it. Their relationship is "eros" in the extreem. But it doesn't quite satisfy him and he doesn't really know why...the connection is purely physical. When the others see them together - they see the physical connection. The Buffybot cares about Spike and wants to get him back but is that true feeling or programmed? Just as Buffybot when they are fighting goes to save Giles - is it real or programmed?

The final scene shows us the difference between the robot and Buffy - she shows up as the robot and Spike is completely fooled until...until the moment Buffy does something a robot wouldn't do, which is show compassion.
It's that moment, the moment Buffy tenderly kisses Spike on his bruised and battered lips after he's told, what he believes to be just a robot, why they can't ever tell Glory who the key is. "I couldn't live with her being in that much pain..." That line distinquishes Spike from a robot and shows a glimmer of compassion. And Buffy's response?
Distinquishes her as well. Spike realizes in that moment why he wasn't satisfied with Buffybot and why he loves Buffy. It's very subtle. But what it is - is the difference between erotic love and compassionate love. Caring for someone who is in pain, even if you despise them. Very tough to put in words, and I'm probably doing it horribly here, but I think Espenson and ME and the actors did it beautifully onscreen.

Hope the headache gets better soon.

[> [> [> [> [> Addendum - to clarify -- s'kat, 16:25:52 01/18/04 Sun

The final scene shows us the difference between the robot and Buffy - she shows up as the robot and Spike is completely fooled until...until the moment Buffy does something a robot wouldn't do, which is show compassion.
It's that moment, the moment Buffy tenderly kisses Spike on his bruised and battered lips after he's told, what he believes to be just a robot, why they can't ever tell Glory who the key is. "I couldn't live with her being in that much pain..." That line distinquishes Spike from a robot and shows a glimmer of compassion.

After reading the exchange between sdeve and Random below, feel need to clarify something - which is that while Spike's glimmer of compassion or empathy for Buffy distinquishes him from a robot, it isn't the same thing as being "ensouled". It's important to keep in mind that his compassion in this scene is limited - what he says is "*I* couldn't live with her being in that much pain" or *I* can't bear seeing something I love and feel for in pain.
It's still about Spike here - he cares about Buffy, so won't let Buffy get hurt. The compassion he feels is for anyone who he considers an extension of himself - eros, from my understanding of it, is about loving someone as if they were part of you - hence the need for the sexual union or physical connection. "Your heart beats in tune with mine". Agape is loving someone without that necessity. Compare to Spike's speech in Touched, where he states - it's not about "him", it's about her. He doesn't want anything from her. That's not why he loves her. This is the writers attempt to distinguish between the "I love you, I want to possess you"/"anything that cuts you, cuts me" love in Crush and Intervention and also to some degree Seeing Red. And the more compassionate - I love you because you're you and a human being and you care about others - love in Touched, Showtime, Beneath You, etc. It's not an easy concept to get across. But I think that may be what the writers were going for.

In Intervention - Spike still loves Buffy in a selfish way, as if she were part of him. He will protect whomever she cares about b/c it's all about her for him. He was the same way about Drusilla. She seems to see and acknowledge this in Intervention, yet understands that it does not go beyond her - which is reinstated in Dead Things, when she says -"you can't feel for that girl, you don't get it"..the writers attempt to remind us of the difference.

Robots are similar in a way - they care about who they are programed to care about. The Buffybot will do anything for Spike. April will do anything for Warren. They do not care about anyone outside of that. Hence the reason the Buffybot would tell Glory about Dawn - she's not programmed to care.
Unlike the Buffybot, Spike can see/feel the links between Dawn and Buffy and feel pain if Dawn gets hurt, b/c he sees the link and knows it hurts Buffy. The Buffybot does not feel the links unless someone programms them in. Spike already has that in him. What Spike doesn't have is the connection to the rest of humanity, he does not feel the link Buffy has to the rest of the human race. He's not capable of it without a soul. Instead he feels the link to the rest of the demon race, his link is in the opposite direction. With a soul - he's a split personality in a way, he feels the link with the rest of the demon race simulataneously to feeling it with the rest of the human race. Confusing concept to explore on TV. Got to give them credit for trying.

[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL -- Sophist, 16:37:24 01/18/04 Sun

Ok, s'kat, way to impeach me. Here I go and agree with you just as you back off.

Actually, I'm not sure we're that far off. I would say that Spike's behavior in The Body, Forever, and Intervention shows that he has, for mysterious reasons, formed a capacity to empathize with Summers women but no others. That makes him more than a robot but less than a human, a distinction he seems to recognize in The Gift as a result of Buffy's kiss in Intervention:

"I know I'm a monster, but you treat me like a man."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Exactly -- s'kat, 17:07:40 01/18/04 Sun

Heh, must go read your response below...now.

Actually, I'm not sure we're that far off. I would say that Spike's behavior in The Body, Forever, and Intervention shows that he has, for mysterious reasons, formed a capacity to empathize with Summers women but no others. That makes him more than a robot but less than a human, a distinction he seems to recognize in The Gift as a result of Buffy's kiss in Intervention:

"I know I'm a monster, but you treat me like a man."

I agree with this. Like I said, it's such a subtle distinction.

If Spike felt no empathy at all - he'd be a robot. That's not it. He does feel it, but it is restricted to those that he feels are an extension in some way to himself. I think the reason he emphathsizes to some degree with Joyce, Dawn and Buffy is actually explained in Lies My Parents Told Me.
Joyce resembles the mother he could not save - the sick mother whose illness he had not control over. Dawn may in some ways resemble Drusilla's child-like qualities in his head - also he may see her as an extension of Buffy. He's the only one in the Gift that seems to get Buffy's view that Dawn is her. Remember he's the one that tells Buffy it's in the blood, blood ties us to things.

I think the best way of understanding pre-soulled Spike is looking at him as if he were an adolescent. Children are great mimics, but don't really understand the difference between right and wrong until they are much older. What they understand is what the parent tells them - this is wrong because I'll hit you or punish you if you do it.
I think vampires are a little like that. Big teenagers.
They lack empathy for anyone who isn't in some way, shape or form connected to them or important to what they want.
(Of course I'm generalizing a bit here on teens, some are more mature than others. But I think that may have been the metaphor the writers were striving for.)

You see this in Harmony, actually, she doesn't notice anyone who isn't important to her self-esteem, has something she wants, or is an obstacle. She was like this as both a teenager and a vampire - because that's what teens are like.

Spike unlike Harmony, as a human, was shown caring about others, outside himself, to some degree, but he was older than Harmony was when he was turned. When he gets turned, he regresses to that adolescent state and stays there.
Same thing with Drusilla and Holden Webster. They became adults, yet when they get turned, they regress to the allaboutme state of the adolescent.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Reaching Within -- Claudia, 11:11:24 01/20/04 Tue



I'm beginning to accept that humanity is all about self-congratulation and self-interest. We are told that we need to reach out to humanity or to care about the world. Look at many of the science-fiction/fantasy shows out there . . . Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, etc., which seemed to celebrate this theme and put humanity on a pedestal.

But to what extent do we have to reach out? To the extent that we care more about the world at large and not ourselves? To the extent that our concerns are mainly supposed to be fixed upon society, instead of our own needs?

I'm alway irritated by many complaints about Buffy's isolated tendencies and self-absorption. Maybe she did take it too far . . . at least in regard to her isolation. But I never really had any trouble with her self-absorption. Frankly, I think she needed to be just that. I've also found it irritating that many believe that Buffy needed to have the Scoobies around her to be a good Slayer. Why? Because Xander, Willow and Giles represented the heart, spirit, and mind aspects of the Slayer? Buffy didn't need her friends to utilize those traits. She always had them within her. Buffy's problem was that she was too afraid to do without her friend or too unsure of herself to reach within and be the Slayer she had the potential to be. Yes, there are times when she would need outside help. But there were times when she needed to rely upon herself.

Society seems so concerned with reaching out to others or to the world at large. What about reaching wihtin ourselves? When can we learn to reach within ourselves and see to our needs without being accused of selfishness and self-absorption? When can we learn to maintain a balance between "agape love" and selfishness without facing censure from society? And should we even really care about society's opinion if we decide to make the attempt to maintain that balance?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Reaching Within -- s'kat, 16:38:32 01/20/04 Tue

Well, let me put it this way - what happens if no one responds to you on a discussion board? No one watches your show? No one reads your words? No one talks to you? Because you only care about you. If Buffy hadn't reached out to the potentials or Spike or the SG? She'd be dead and the world with her. Or she'd be just like the First Evil, who cared about no one but itself, only looked within, and only cared about it's own needs. OR Jasmine who only saw her needs and others as puppets who she could make happy and eat in a perfect symbiotic relationship. Jasmine and the First Evil and to a degree Caleb are examples of the extreme "it's just about me". Buffy in the asylum - "it's just about me".

I don't believe anyone is saying that you should just care about others and not yourself, that you should just reach outward.

What people are attempting to convey is you should find a middle ground, we need others to live in this world, to interact (obviously you would concede this point since you post on a discussion board, if you didn't want to communicate outside yourself, why bother coming online? Sounds like a waste of time and a distraction from your ongoing discussion with yourself, doesn't it?)

You can be selfish and selfless. You can care about others and help others and make this world a better place and (shocking I know) better your own life and happiness in the bargain. And you can do all this and become wealthy in the bargain, find a loving partner, and enjoy life. Or you can care about no one but yourself, your needs, your own gratification, surrounded by a bunch of people like yourself. Never certain if anyone loves you or if you love anyone else, since hey everything just about you, isn't it. Your choice. Both are possible. I've learned option number one is more gratifying but that's just me.
From reality shows, there's clearly quite a few people who still think happiness can be found in a mirror, and think looking in a mirror is enough. ME has to an extent addressed this issue through Cordelia who looked in a mirror and got advice from herself - giving birth to Jasmine who similarly looks in the mirror and continues to give birth to herself - metaphorically speaking. Certainly a valid life choice. Not a very positive one. And *not* indicative of the human race as a whole. (Although there are some people I wonder about. You don't want to meet them.)

The "you" is meant in general terms by the way. It does not refer in any way to any pixels on the board.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Reaching Within -- SillyLittleBit, 17:26:05 01/20/04 Tue

"It does not refer in any way to any pixels on the board.
"

That's good to hear, but I'm not a pixel. I'm a figment. ;-)

[Sorry...I seem to be having a day of silliness. :-)]

[> [> Re: What Love's got to do with it. -- sdev, 12:42:53 01/18/04 Sun

Spike's awareness of love was, until he moved past his sexual interlude with Buffy and gained a soul, severely circumscribed. Perhaps you have inadvertently managed to describe exactly what the lack of a soul does -- while the emotions may be present, they can never be anything other than selfish. Hence, Spike could feel eros, for that was a means of satisfying his own desires...but never true agape

How would you reconcile Spike's actions in Intervention with this analysis?

[> [> [> Easily enough -- Random, 14:13:59 01/18/04 Sun

How would you reconcile Spike's actions in Intervention with this analysis?

I don't think it needs to be "reconciled." Spike felt love for Buffy. That wasn't being questioned. Indeed, one can point to his justification -- "'Cause Buffy ... the other, not so pleasant Buffy ... anything happened to Dawn, it'd destroy her" -- and note that he is very much stuck on Buffy. In follow-up, Buffy notes: "What you did, for me, and Dawn ... that was real." Unfortunately, she obviously wasn't paying close enough attention...he never said he did it for Dawn. He didn't. Nor did he do it for the sake of the world at large (excusable, because, at that time, I don't believe anyone was quite aware of the magnitude of the danger to the world.) There's not really that much confusion here. He was quite clear on his motivations, and they were based on love...but a selfish love nonetheless. It was a dramatic scene, but not essentially different from him risking his unlife battling the forces of darkness by her side or impulsively charging a Hellgod and getting bitchslapped for his troubles. Eros is not just the basic act of sex, after all. Certainly it most often manifests as sexual drive (given that Eros was Aphrodite's son and the promulgator of all things sexual, this is unsurprising.) But it essentially describes desire. It is a form of love, after all, and isn't applicable merely because one copulates with another. There must be feeling, sentiment. To limit it temporally and spatially to the act itself does little credit to the intelligence of those who feel it. Spike had a clear understanding of exactly what would happen to the object of his eros if he gave up Dawn. He almost certainly knew what would happen to him two seconds after he gave Glory what she wanted. So he acted accordingly and worked to escape. The episode made obvious that the whole "loosened chains/kicked by a Hellgod and sent flying" thing wasn't entirely unplanned. I tend to look at the events of Intervention as a variant of those of Becoming -- Spike being love's bitch and acting accordingly. Certainly, there is a little more overt nobility and less overt pragmatic self-interest in the former, but the basic impulse is the same.

[> [> [> [> Disagree -- Sophist, 16:27:46 01/18/04 Sun

I think you need to account for this dialogue from the previous episode (Forever):

Dawn: You don't have to be all nice to me. I know why you're doing this.
Spike: Do you now? Enlighten me.
Dawn: (frowns, stops walking) Spike, I'm not stupid. You're, like, stalking my sister. (Spike stops, turns to look at her) You'd do anything to get in good with her.
Spike: (takes a few steps closer; firmly) Buffy never hears about this, okay? (looks around) Found out what I was doing, she'd drive a redwood through my chest.
Dawn: Then, if you don't want credit, why are you helping me?
Spike: (looking at the ground, quietly) I just don't like to see Summers women take it so hard on the chin, is all. (looks up, speaks angrily) And I'm dead serious. You breathe a word of this to Buffy, I'll see to it that *you* end up in the ground. Got it?
Dawn: Yeah. Got it.

I think Spike's behavior with Glory is more complex than your post makes it out. Sure he knew Glory probably would kill him once he told. But at the same time, she eventually would kill him if he did NOT tell her. His best option, then, was to cooperate with her from the beginning and try to ingratiate himself with Glory like he did with Adam. But he didn't. And the reason he didn't is, I think, explained better in s'kat's response to you at 15:04 than in your post here.

[> [> [> [> [> Yep, we still agree ;-) -- s'kat, 23:13:05 01/18/04 Sun

Spike is a tough character to discuss online because he is so complex, just as Angel is actually. He started out simple and became over time one of the most complicated characters on television.

I think you are right, to say Spike lacked empathy is stating he's akin to a robot, no. To say he only could feel for Buffy - is also limiting him to the robot's view.
Spike is a little more complex. It's so subtle but it is there...and it is seen in S4 as well, that battle he has with himself in Where the Wild Things Are, the interactions in Doomed, Pangs, Something Blue, New Man, even Primeval.
He's a bit of an opportunist. The scorpion who tells the frog - take me across the river on your back, I won't sting you, but does because he's a scorpion - it's his nature.
That I think is Spike sans soul. The teen who just does not understand why Buffy would care about someone she doesn't know, which I think is a comment the writer makes on the human development process - when Buffy starts out in S1, she's very much the reluctant hero, why should I care? This has zip to do with me. Over time she slowly learns compassion for people who aren't connected to her. She grows from self-absorbed it's allaboutme and I care about no one but those who are associated with me, to someone who cares about people she's never met and is saving complete strangers and is wracked with guilt over the fear she accidentally killed someone. The writers depict the journey and the struggle to make that journey from why should I give a damn about anyone but me and mine to why you should -partly through the vampires who can't make it -who are perpetually stuck in that adolescent loop of it's about controlling my world and my wants and needs and I'll do whatever is necessary to do them. To make Spike one or the other extreem - doesn't depict that voyage very well. Instead what they did was depict the struggle from teen male to young man through the chip to the soul. In some ways, I think they did a better job of depicting the journey through Spike than they did through Xander, which is odd, since Xander predates Spike in the show. Maybe it was just easier to do with Spike because of the vampire metaphor? Just as it was easier to do with Buffy than say Willow, because of the slayer metaphor? Not sure - that's my subjective opinion at any rate. I just didn't feel Willow and Xander's transistions to adult hood worked as well in S6/S7 as Spike/Buffy's did. Your Mileage May Vary on that.

[> [> [> [> [> Well... -- Random, 13:39:09 01/19/04 Mon

...s'kat explains better than I could above. I would accept your assertion in reply to her on a functional level, with the crucial caveat that it's still All About Buffy. His interest in them spins out from his interest in Buffy. Had he never shown any desire to interact with her -- either as foe or lover -- they would have passed beneath his radar, if they were lucky, or been a nice dinner if they weren't.

[> [> [> [> [> [> That's where I disagree -- Sophist, 16:10:14 01/19/04 Mon

His interest in them spins out from his interest in Buffy. Had he never shown any desire to interact with her -- either as foe or lover -- they would have passed beneath his radar, if they were lucky, or been a nice dinner if they weren't.

Now, if you mean only that Spike became aware of Joyce and Dawn through Buffy -- that he met them in the same sense that, say, Buffy met Tara through Willow -- then I agree. However, I think you must mean something more than this, that you are asserting that Spike acted as he did towards Joyce for Buffy's sake or as a means to get to Buffy. It's on this point that I disagree; such an assertion is simply inconsistent with Forever and Intervention.

My point does have a limit. Spike did not act that way towards any other person, only Joyce, Dawn and Buffy. But any theory of Spike's status has to explain his behavior towards them. Because you limited your original post to Buffy alone, I don't believe you've provided a full explanation.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> How's this... -- Random, 16:37:55 01/19/04 Mon

I accept that Spike liked them a lot. I do not accept that he loved them in any sense that wasn't tied to Buffy. I do believe he gave them special consideration because they were related to Buffy. I know he enjoyed Joyce's company -- but for a fairly selfish reason...she treated him like a man. Dawn? Well, keeping in mind the lack of real dialogue possibilites between them (and the fact that they could both be total hormonal ninnies at times), I would suggest that he hadn't formed nearly as much of a bond of "friendship" with Dawn independent of her status as Buffy's little sister. Sure, he liked her. But had he met her independently of Buffy, one seriously doubts he would have formed the avuncular/adult friend relationship he did. I see no reason to believe otherwise.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're getting warmer..... -- Sophist, 16:58:18 01/19/04 Mon

I agree that Spike may not have loved Joyce or Dawn. "Cared for" them is more accurate. But, then, I might well say the same about Giles.

My biggest remaining disagreement in about Joyce. Sure, Spike liked her because she treated him like a man. That seems a sine qua non for any friendship, human or demon, souled or not. As you'll see from my response to Rah, I'm somewhat skeptical of any essentialist connection between the soul and any of these relationships.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sine qua non isn't as self-evident here... -- Random, 17:08:31 01/19/04 Mon

Spike, after all, isn't used to it. His days at the office basically involved killing the people he meets as his dominant form of social interaction. His workbuddies were: a psychotic femme fatale, a "great-grandmother" who had little apparent interest in him, or a brutally malicious bully who delighted in taunting him. Being treated like a man was an enormous deal for him. His line in The Gift was profoundly revealing. It was, perhaps, the most sincere, exposing thing he had said in 5 seasons.

Oh, and your so-called "superior insight" is, I suspect, just Xander-bashing. I don't know how yet, but I'll find the connection. Can't you stop the playah-hating, man?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Disliking Xander is a sine qua non of superior insight. :) -- Sophist, 18:53:46 01/19/04 Mon


[> [> [> [> Maybe -- sdev, 16:54:31 01/18/04 Sun

I'm missing some subtlety here. If you had made the argument that Spike being motivated only by love for Buffy in Chosen, without being motivated by concern for the world, was too selfish to be agape, I could understand your point. I might then argue as to whether Spike was also motivated by compassion for the world, which I believe he was.

But you acknowledge here that love for Buffy alone without caring for the world can still be agape.

It reached its apex at the end of Chosen...where he sacrificed his life to save the world. One could -- and I have on occasion -- argue that he sacrificed himself simply for one tiny segment of the world, Buffy. But this wouldn't change the basic fact. Agape, after all, is unconditional love for others, and can manifest itself quite handily in a single dualistic relationship. It is, by these lights, superior to simple eros in the fact that it is love without selfishness.

Putting aside then the issue of whether Spike acted in Chosen for the sake of compassion for the world, how then are Spike's actions in Chosen any different from Intervention?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Maybe -- Random, 13:51:46 01/19/04 Mon

I emphasized in my original post that Chosen is a different dynamic. The essential motivation for Spike's actions is not the sames. Intervention is an episode in the context of episodes where he acts with great selfishness to abet gaining Buffy at her expense -- see his interview in Checkpoint just to name one obvious example, or his behaviour in Crush or his treatment of her in Fool for Love or...well, you get the point. One cannot take the two episodes compared in isolation from their seasons. Hence my points in my original post, which I'm not going to bother re-hashing (lazy, yep I am.)

The existence of Spike's soul should not -- indeed, cannot -- be blithely dismissed as a peripheral detail. It is of central importance to Spike's attitudes in S7. I made the point quite strongly that Spike's attitude toward Buffy had changed...and the superficial similarities between the two scenes do nothing to invalidate the essential differences. Spike's love for Buffy is no longer purely selfish. Yes, as I said, there is eros -- but where S5 or S6 Spike would have chained Buffy to a wall or humiliated her as a precursor to sex, S7 Spike has moved past that. Prior to this, no matter how much Spike loves Buffy, no matter how hard he tries to do the right thing for her sake, he is essentially selfish. If he thinks it can slip under her radar, he will act in a manner that one would expect from a demon -- selling deadly demon eggs, or trying to kill a girl when he thinks his chip has finally malfunctioned. Once called on it, he regrets (sorta) but not because of some generalized ethic. He regrets because it costs him Buffy's love. This is a selfish approach -- one could easily argue that true agape love would have led to him never even attempting these things in the first place because he knows the object of his love would disapprove. This would be the altruist approach, symptomatic of agape. But he chooses, repeatedly, the selfish approach, regretting only that he got caught and thus lost Buffy's goodwill toward him. This is not the attitude of agape. This is the Selfish Lover, the manipulator who loves his/her partner, yes, but in conjunction with a rather pervasive self-love

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Maybe -- sdev, 17:12:55 01/19/04 Mon

I believe Intervention stands alone as a marker of the progression of Spike's feelings for Buffy which had become unselfish and moved from the "I" to the "other". It is so clearly different than the episodes before such as Checkpoint. Is this agape? It depends on whether you can ever define agape as human love toward one person versus the type of love depicted by Christ, or apropos to today, Martin Luther King, for humankind.

My contention, is that all love which is selective is not true agape. The self always enters into it because it is personal and exclusive. That is not to say that all love is selfish. There is still room to distinguish between selfish love and agape. To me Intervention falls into that space.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Maybe -- Random, 17:54:23 01/19/04 Mon

I tend to cast off the Christian baggage, as I noted above, because most of it is strictly ideological and the concept of agape predates and survives all that. Selectivity can be agape -- it can be personal as well as universal. But that's just a difference of philosophical opinion and study. Your contention is just incompatible with mine in that regard. It happens. I've already explained why I don't consider Intervention the same sort of turning point you do. Surely it is a powerful incident, and speaks volumes about the extent of Spike's love...but that is merely a matter of degree, not kind.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 'Intervention' -- Claudia, 11:45:23 01/20/04 Tue

[Intervention is an episode in the context of episodes where he acts with great selfishness to abet gaining Buffy at her expense . . .]

Are you referring to the creation of Buffybot? Or his refusal to name Dawn as the Key to Glory? Because if you're referring to the latter, what could Spike have possibly gain from that incident, other than to insure that Buffy would not be devestated by Dawn's capture/death?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Neither ;) -- Random, 13:09:30 01/20/04 Tue


[> [> [> Souls and Spikes and Humanity -- Rahael, 14:54:34 01/19/04 Mon

There's this thing that puzzles me, and I think, contributed to my growing disconnect from the very last season of BtVS.

What constitutes humanity? What constitutes a being that one treats as if it is human?

I saw Spike as fully a 'human' during S4 and 5. No matter that he didn't have a soul. He did some not very good things. He rejoiced in his fallibility, his faults, his 'evil'. "Hello! Evil here!"

All the while I watched, I thought, the writers are really lumbered by this soul thing they did for Angel. Oh, and how ingenious, they've come up with a chip, another way to look at this process of 'reformation' in a way that's really sophisticated. (hence my great liking for S4,5 &6)

By the time I came online, it was the end of S5. I was sure, like many others that Spike was about to undergo that same process that Angel had.

Now I liked S6. And I can understand the idea that one the soul could be a metaphor for inward transformation.

But I am deeply troubled, and I was deeply troubled throughout S7 about the automatic 'right to live' that was endowed by a 'soul'. It starts poking at the fragile warp and woof of the Buffyverse. It starts making certain things troublesome: that there are 'beings' you kill on sight.

Now there are many explanations to get over the place of Spike and his unpredictable behaviour in the souled/unsould canon. (I do not like to accept the "Because he's so special! argument in terms of the show's framework, but will accpet it in the meta sense that the character became central)

But I cannot accept that selfish love is the hallmark of a lack of moral rectitude that is deserving of markedly lesser treatment.

Who gets to judge the quality of love? How unselfish was Angel's love when he looked and saw Buffy for the first time and decided he wanted get out of the gutter?

Is the love that Buffy felt for Joyce, whose loss plunged her world into darkness, is that lesser? Is the love that Buffy felt for Dawn, is that somehow less fine than a disinterested love for humanity? How does one distinguish between the two?

In the Gift, Buffy loved Dawn so much, she didn't want to live in a world where she had to be sacrificed. Dawn was her sister, and yet simultaneously humanity. What is blood? WHat is kinship? THe Gift's central metaphor works because humanity's blood is interchangeable. And Buffy and Dawn stand in for that kinship. Sister and sister, whether one is a supernatural human being and the other started life as a green light.

Does Dawn have a soul? Is she capable of loving without selfishness? Can she love the world as well as she loves her sister? Is it meaningful to ask that question? In a show where loving Buffy means loving this person who is 'just a girl', and yet something more, and loving Dawn who is also a girl and a metaphor.

Angel loved Connor selfishly. And yet no other love moved me as theirs did.

Cordy chose to reject selfish earthly love to move above, into the sky, to save other dimensions. It was a signal, that rejection of earthly love, that she had gone badly wrong. I was bewildered by it, I thought they had contravened every emotional set up in S3. It was only midway through S4 that I realised that it was purposeful.

There are many things that Spike did that are condemnable (and I believe I've listed them all at length!!). But falling for Buffy wasn't one of them. The way he expressed it, and the way he responded was the tragic arc that S6 set up and that I was compelled by. I won't go on to how S7 messed it all up for me. But the souled thing and the way that it was treated plays a central part.

[> [> [> [> 'and the way she responded', not 'he', I meant to say. -- Rahael, 15:05:34 01/19/04 Mon


[> [> [> [> Re: Souls and Spikes and Humanity -- Random, 16:31:02 01/19/04 Mon

To address a few of your points:

I saw Spike as fully a 'human' during S4 and 5. No matter that he didn't have a soul. He did some not very good things. He rejoiced in his fallibility, his faults, his 'evil'. "Hello! Evil here!"

He rejoiced in them, yes. But primarily, he raged against the constraints that kept him from returning to his old, murderous ways. He wasn't somehow "humanized" or "reformed" so much as he was "shackled." One could argue that the hallmark of "humanity" lies in complexity -and self-awareness- but I would consider those shallow criteria. "Humanity" in the Buffyverse isn't a simple phrase. Indeed, as an ad hoc term, it's almost useless. Presumably, it describes some complicated formula of psychological (and, for many, though not me, physical) states and interactions that establish a boundary condition for moving from monster to man, to paraphrase Spike. I'll use it because I assume we're working on a generic definition that boils down to "in the manner of people we generally agree are human -- like the Scoobies. No-one argues that Spike isn't complex, or capable of some very "human" actions. The question is whether there is some natural boundary on the altruistic (as opposed to selfish) nature of his complexity sans soul. "Hello! Evil here!" isn't the battlecry of humanity . It's the credo of a creature who knows his basic nature. Buffy's serial killer in prison metaphor wasn't unapt at all. His joy at the end of Doomed was, perhaps, the truest moment of character exposition we saw in those two seasons. He was able to kill again! Note Spike was a fascinating character precisely because he never hid his flaws -- a trait he shares with Xander. But neither did the Master. Or Angelus. Or Glory. Or Machida the Penis Monster. The distinction with Spike isn't in his openness, I'd say, but in his ability to desire something beyond basic evil. So one could say he's struggling toward a moral compass. But the destination is not the journey. The story of Spike in S4-6 is, I think, the struggle against his basic inalterable nature. The quest to gain his soul was a moment of retrospective irony. He seeks it to become acceptable to Buffy rather than to find a way to atone for his evil and to make himself a better man for his own sake.-- an understandable but still selfish motive. He discovers, however, why restoring Angel's soul was part-n-parcel with a curse. The literal curse was the clause of true happiness. But, as Angel could have warned him, the real curse was the restoration of the soul that is capable of divining beyond mere selfish motive and sentiment. This isn't something unique to Spike, after all. One of the central themes of the Buffyverse has always been the path back from the darkness. From vignettes such as Xander's hyena episode or Buffy's bitch of the week in WSWB to Giles' Ripper reformation, to longer arcs such as Angel and Willow post-Grave and Spike and even Buffy during S6 and 7...we've been given an intimate look at how it affects each person. For Spike, it's a more arduous road than anybody except Angel himself, for he encounters a crucial stumbling block...he cannot seem to move past his basic nature. He may obscure it, may transcend it (and quite inspiringly) on occasion, but without a soul, he lacks the clarity of insight that allows him to truly feel the horror of what he has done.

But I cannot accept that selfish love is the hallmark of a lack of moral rectitude that is deserving of markedly lesser treatment.

No-one is arguing that, I think. I can't speak for others, but my point is that one should examine the causal issue quite in reverse. Spike isn't less-"human" (keeping in mind how useless that word is here) because he's selfish...he's selfish because he's "less human". Important distinction in how one approaches this -- it's not the same Boolean logic. In this, it's clear that I'm using the soul as a convenient hallmark of "full humanity" -- not an unreasonable usage in light of what ME has demonstrated with regards to the effects of the soul on the psyche of both Angelus and Spike. And since it's essential to my theme, it's reasonable to do so. Spike is struggling for humanity, and succeeding in many ways. But certain crucial steps will continue to elude him until he gains his soul. What I am arguing is that Spike has proven time and again that he is highly selfish and untrustworthy in many ways. His love for Buffy (and, in partial concession to Sophist above, Joyce and Dawn) keeps him restrained, and the Scoobies can trust him exactly to that extent. No more. This is not an argument for "lesser treatment," but for rationale treatment. Spike lacks a soul, and all available evidence tends to point to him lacking that portion of humanity that allows him to do the right thing simply because it's the right thing. He can do good. He does do good. He does heroic things for his love. And his love is strong enough that he continues to work with the Scoobies even after Buffy dies. But that doesn't make it any less selfish.


There are many things that Spike did that are condemnable (and I believe I've listed them all at length!!). But falling for Buffy wasn't one of them. The way he expressed it, and the way he responded was the tragic arc that S6 set up and that I was compelled by. I won't go on to how S7 messed it all up for me. But the souled thing and the way that it was treated plays a central part.

I'm not sure anybody was arguing that he should be condemned for falling for Buffy. It's a strawman, really. The question, as I pointed out above, is whether the selfishness of his love at that point occluded the possibilities that were opened up in Season 7. Spike with a soul was -- whether one likes the treatment ME used or not -- a markedly different person. Indeed, vociferous reaction to what have been perceived as OOC moments in that season lend support to the groundwork ME established with regards to the post-souled state. What has to be noted is that the selfish love was not, in and of itself, condemnatory. Indeed, I even noted above that selfish love was crucial to Buffy being able to give herself to Spike completely...without it, agape was enough for Spike to sacrifice himself...but not enough to make him truly happy. Eros alone was debilitating to both Spike and Buffy. Agape alone was insufficient to hold their old relationship together. As I noted, Spike recognizes this in the end. The other cases noted aren't really counterpoints. Selfish love does not innately contraindicate unselfishness. Angel's "selfish" love for Connor led to him bringing all hell on himself at the end of S4. Was his decision selfish? Arguable, but it's fairly obvious that he caused himself considerable pain in doing what he considered best for Connor rather than himself. The fact that it might well have been what was best for him in the long run is inconsequential because we are considering his motives, not the results. As we were doing for Spike. The same logic applies to all the cases mentioned. It's not being argued that agape is somehow the ultimate form of love that obliterates the need for others. Rather, agape is basically a manifestation of a character capable of something other than selfishness. And that is the essential point. It has little to do with Spike -- for Spike was inarguably becoming more complex and more "good" in many ways before gaining his soul. But at no point, imho, did he ever do the right thing merely because it was right. He did it for love, selfish love. There are much, much worse reasons for doing things. But, in the end, selfishness will never mature past a certain point. For many, many people, including most humans, that point is quite good enough. What makes Spike special is that he, by getting a soul, made the decision not to settle. Would that we all had that courage.

[> [> [> [> [> Does Dawn have a soul? -- Rahael, 17:04:00 01/19/04 Mon

And how do we tell?

My question is, is the soul meaningful in anyway except in a) S2, and b) S7?, and even then only as a plot device that allows ME a great way to have their cake and eat it? I would argue that it has more meaning in S2 as a metaphor but it fatally undermines them later on, by constricting what they can do with Vampires who they want not to be evil.

Now you could say that Spike is souless because he's evil where does that leave someone like Lilah? I mean she's admittedly ruthless, amoral and human. How comes Buffy can't touch her, but can dust pre-souled Spike?

Actually I think we the audience see Spike as 'human' precisely because Buffy doesn't dust him. He's not canon fodder, he's a central character, and thus endowed with nearly every human characteristic except a liking for blood (but also eats other things) and aversion to tanning.

Most of the time, when BtVS is being unthinking, we judge a character's humanity in terms fo whether Buffy cares about them and refrains from killing them.

When it is being thoughtful, it talks about what humanity consists of, what 'is a man'. Is Angel a man? no. Is Buffy a human being, a living breathing human being? Not after S6.Once you have this, is such a consideration one basing life and death decisions on? I think BtVS precisely examines humanity where we do not expect to find it. Buffy doesn't stand with humanity, she protects its borders. And the fundamental, most terrifying divide isnt' between man and vampire, but between life and death (S5). Buffy found her gift of life, in death. She found her humanity, when she faced its loss.

Witness how Buffy allows Spike to treat her a certain way because she thinks she is a dirty souless thing. I thought it was brave of ME to so challenge their own canon as they did in S6, blurring the lines between human and non human. As an expression of a state of mind, it was brilliant. As a way of challenging their own thinking, it was heartening.

What fatally undermines the reading of Spike's transformation into a self-less loving person by Chosen, is that S7 Spike is, umm, alarming. S4 & 5 Spike is an appealing and likeable character.

And I think one of the tests of humanity is to recognise that we can't deny those who cry "evil here" their own humanity. If we say those who are evil are not like us, and do not have humanity, what relevance has BtVS to anything? That we can quickly dust them and move on?

But the more one explores this murky and ambiguous territory, of who it is okay to kill, and how one recognises it, and when it's okay to sleep with the evil, the more the contradictions start pulling. I think BtVS started with a great idea and did it with a lot of care and always stepped on the careful side of the line. however, there is only so long you can sustain it before the internal contradictions start to tear down the edifice of my ability to suspend my "hey! what did they just say?" cry.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Does Dawn have a soul? -- Random, 17:49:00 01/19/04 Mon

Now you could say that Spike is souless because he's evil where does that leave someone like Lilah? I mean she's admittedly ruthless, amoral and human. How comes Buffy can't touch her, but can dust pre-souled Spike?

Well, not having said that in any way, shape or form, I'm not sure how to respond. But brushing aside the straw for a second, I'd note that Lilah is at least capable of better. In many ways, Spike is better than her because he tries. But this has no relevance to my points. Spike didn't reach the point he attained in Chosen without getting a soul. It's moot. Both Spike and Angel found that the soul lay in their paths to redemption. Coincidence? Sure. It would be sloppy writing, sloppier interpretation, but one could say that. I prefer to note that neither of them managed to escape selfishness prior to ensoulment. I've made the arguments above, so won't bother re-hashing them a 3rd time.

Actually I think we the audience see Spike as 'human' precisely because Buffy doesn't dust him. He's not canon fodder, he's a central character, and thus endowed with nearly every human characteristic except a liking for blood (but also eats other things) and aversion to tanning.

Well, that's the "argument by default"-- he's human because he still exists and has his name in the credits. So was Angelus human during the latter half of S2? Eh, it's not important cause it's a spurious argument. What is important is that Spike has certain other traits that distinguish him. Just "liking blood" doesn't do justice to one of the most feared vampires in the world, one who casually killed for fun and felt absolutely no guilt that we can see...and that's important, because without evidence of it, we cannot really make a case for it. More importantly, I never said he had no human characteristics. I specifically and repeatedly noted that he did. What I did say was that he had an innate limitation on how far up the ladder he could go sans soul.

Most of the time, when BtVS is being unthinking, we judge a character's humanity in terms fo whether Buffy cares about them and refrains from killing them

I have the same problem with this as with the above "argument by default." It is, of course, an individual choice on how to respond. But I don't consider it a viable philosophical dilemma because it lacks in actual principles. It's a syllogism, or, rather, a set of syllogisms:

Buffy doesn't kill humans
Buffy hasn't killed Spike
Ergo, Spike is human.

False syllogism even if one accepted the premises

So:

Buffy only kills non-"humans"
Spike is human
Ergo Buffy can't kill him...

Hmmm...too many debatable assumptions in the premises...

Perhaps:

If Buffy cares about you, you're human
Buffy doesn't care about the vampire trying to kill a woman in the alley
Ergo, the vampire...no, this syllogism breaks down completely.

The problem with all of these syllogisms is that the premises are not that simplistic. (Oh and the invalid logic in a couple.) The statement of default fails very important contextual criteria, i.e. that we examine the complex motivations that exist within the hermetic confines of the show. Since we are exploring a textual issue, the solution cannot ignore the textual content. The shows take great pains to establish that the monsters Buffy slays are a threat for other reasons. Certainly, the issue of vampire souls is addressed, but it is never, as far as I can tell, her motivation in slaying them. It was her motivation is sparing Spike, that's true. But she spared Spike before he got a soul. It's not quite as black-and-white as all that. Buffy allows Spike to live with chip because he shows traces of humanity, and because, well, he's neutered. She evaluates his threat potential, not his soul-having. The soul itself is an asset in S7, but that doesn't mean that she judges him sheerly by its presence.

As for whether Dawn has a soul...no clue. Not really important to my point. I believe she does, but it can't be proven per se. There's no direct evidence, though the indirect evidence is compelling, and I'd be inclined to say that, given her behaviour and outlook, she has a soul that was somehow formed from Buffy's. Can't prove it. Can't disprove it either. We can discuss that some other day.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> missing my point -- Rahael, 18:22:52 01/19/04 Mon

Thanks for explaining so carefully what a syllogismthingy was. I must have been away from class that day. (I can make a trowel though! Sorry. British-tv related joke)

Angelus wasn't human. He had a human face, and contained human memories for Buffy. That's why she struggles to kill him. But she promises him, she will be ready.

The Lilah point - I was addressing an implication that arises from saying that "I'm evil" is not the battlecry of the human being. In the Buffyverse there are quite a few characters who are human and who act in inhuman ways. Like Lilah, most of wolfram and hart, like Justine, like Holtz, like Warren. Proud of their cruelties and revelling in it. I think it is relevant.

I also think that I'm trying to point out where BtVS creates illogic, and you're saying: "you're illogical!". And I'm like yeah, what I'm describing is illogical. In S4, Spike is portrayed as very human, especially in contrast with Angel, the outsider, peering into the window, watching the feast.

I'm more interested in the not-human who have humanity, of which I count Buffy as their number. I'm interested in the commentary that BtVS provide into humanity, through this perspective. Saying Spike has 'humanity' contains no moral implications, only thematic.

As for the rights and wrongs of killing other characters, human and non human, my admittedly very subjective opinion si below, in reply to Sophist.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay -- Random, 18:52:50 01/19/04 Mon

Didn't actually explain what a syllogism was. I assumed you already knew.

Angelus wasn't human. He had a human face, and contained human memories for Buffy. That's why she struggles to kill him. But she promises him, she will be ready.

I don't consider Angelus human either. I was merely counterpointing the idea that Spike was validated as human by being a central character and not getting dusted and all. She promised to kill Spike on more than one occasion too.


The Lilah point - I was addressing an implication that arises from saying that "I'm evil" is not the battlecry of the human being. In the Buffyverse there are quite a few characters who are human and who act in inhuman ways. Like Lilah, most of wolfram and hart, like Justine, like Holtz, like Warren. Proud of their cruelties and revelling in it. I think it is relevant

Perhaps I should re-word..."I'm evil" is not some battlecry that establishes that, 'Wow, he/she is admitting hir flaws! How human of them!' It can be relevant. But that has no bearing on whether the lack of a soul interferes with anything. Nor does the concept of "inhuman" actions necessarily lead logically to the idea that the actor is inhuman. Never said that. All I said was that the available evidence strongly suggests that lack of the soul inhibited growth of humanity beyond a certain point. For Lilah, et cetera, they revelled in evil as a way of life, as a choice they made...Spike, on the other hand, identified with it as his basic nature.

In S4, Spike is portrayed as very human, especially in contrast with Angel, the outsider, peering into the window, watching the feast.

That's a difference in perception, I guess. I don't see S4 Spike being taken into the bosom of the family, so to speak. He's very definitely untrustworthy, very definitely disliked by the Scoobies. He's more in the spotlight, and more involved in non-violent interaction with the Scoobies. The very storyline of the chip allows freedom to explore him as something other than a Big Bad out to kill Buffy every week. So we see a more complex picture of him. But that doesn't mean he's no longer evil or that the lack of a soul is in any way ameliorated. He stays alive because the Scoobies are wise enough to realize that he's 1) harmless; and 2) a possible source of crucial information. Later, he tries to sell the lives of all the Scoobies and god only knows how many humans once Adam's plan goes into effect...so he can start killing humans again. Not exactly great propoganda for promoting his "humaness". Certainly not if one considers that being "human" means more than inevitably (not "always," since lots of actual humans are pretty consistent about that, but "without possible deviation") acting in self-interest. Hence the fascination of his love for Buffy -- it was a very selfish love, but it was evidence that he could become better than he was. The fact that he lacked a soul was no fault of his own.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It comes down to metaphysics I guess -- Rahael, 04:42:14 01/20/04 Tue

Do I believe in souls? No, and in fact, where I was undecided before, the board has definitely veered me toward a more mechanistic view of human beings. Indeed, I'd attribute a key influence to the Buffyverse here.

Do I believe in the existence of souls in the Buffyverse? I really have a hard time, no matter how many times the writers tell me that someone has a soul. The whole thing about Angelus and Spike being excused their amoral actions because they are unable to do so irks me, because that's when I hit the wall of believability. Not because I can't suspend my judgement, but because it doesn't fit all that well within the Buffyverse. It sits very uneasily.

I regard the soul as a plot device equivalent with drug addiction Willow. Again, here is a convenient way to bring back a favoured character from entertaining evil, and transform them into a 'redemption' story. Except that I don't find it redemptive if they couldn't help it in the first place. There is nothing to be redeemed. And if the entire argument stands on:

"Spike is the most special vampire ever"

It's personally not persuasive for me, nor does it answer my questions.

I can be persuaded by a good and thoughtful fan wank on the issue fo SPike and Souls. (See Foucauldian analysis of Spike, chips and souls) and I could be persuaded by a great analysis of why the soul canon works meaningfully across the board for the Buffyverse.

Why it is the figure in the carpet, rather than the sore thumb that I have to push aside.

But I can accept why it works that Spike was not good because he didn't had a soul and then he got one and he was able to love Buffy as she needs to be loved. And the reason it works is because there are too many troubling questions around if you don't have the soul explanation.

The thing is: I prefer troubling questions. I prefer untidyness. I prefer the lack of a right answer. It's just more rewarding for me as a viewer.

So the question that arises for me from BtVS is: who is human. What do we qualify as 'humanity'. Because, we don't give that quality to every human being. In fact, we frequently say that some humans are 'inhuman'.

For me this has always been the important thematic question of BtVS. It links in Buffy's confusion about her identity ("Just a girl" or "Killer" - The Gift beautifully resolves this conflict and says, you are both, and they are intimately connected). It links in the imagery of S1. The dark half of Sunnydale. The Angel with teh monstrous face. Buffy drinking from Dracula, but he comes from within her, and it is her own blood she drinks and sees the Slayer. The questions raised by Dawn about self identity "Real Me", and she cuts herself and watches her blood drip and asks the viewer: "am I not human"? Buffy in S6, absolutely torn in half about who she is.

So when I'm saying about "is Spike Human", I'm not saying testing his DNA to find out where he belongs.

If we were to base humanity not on the ability to reason and think, on the ability to listen to appreciate and create things like music or art, but on the lack or possession thereof of mature emotional/moral development, or capacity, would we not be in a very troubling place, even within the Buffyverse?

First, Buffy would have to check whether the 'person' in front of her had a set of fangs hidden (or you know, check out their dated fashion sense), and then say: okay, have you got a soul recently? And then make her decision to kill them?

She obviously can't make a judgement based on the person-who-might-be-a-vampire on what they were doing at the time, cuz souled vampires are easily found brutally beating up humans/demons/vamps.

The fact that in S6 we are meant to see all our 'human' characters behave in immature and morally suspect ways made this come to the forefront of my mind. And SR did not solve any of these questions, cuz I'm not seriously thinking "yes, with a soul, that possibility is completely eliminated from his future scope of actions, it's a purely vampire crime!"

These are interesting questions and I'm trying to find answers that do not involve "it's okay, he got a soul".

Once again, I reiterate that I see perfectly why the soul answer works for most people. I just posted on the board in the expectation that it's okay for me to say why it doesn't. Of course, there always exists the possibility that my reading of the Buffyverse is completely wrong. I think I see more possible interpretations and ambiguities than that.

For me, there is a very thin line between: human & evil Vampire. It's a thin red line of blood. Blood which could be kinship or death or life, or signify passion. These motifs have been visited again and again. It's the Blood thing which is why Vampires are the enemy Buffy has to slay. It's because they have the most humanity, it's because they are so close, that's why she si the Vampire Slayer. I tend see those kind of readings - that's the thing I see on my screen. I've never imagined that my interpretation is authoritative in any way.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Please good missus a soul cake -- Sophist, 09:17:50 01/20/04 Tue

The whole thing about Angelus and Spike being excused their amoral actions because they are unable to do so irks me, because that's when I hit the wall of believability. Not because I can't suspend my judgement, but because it doesn't fit all that well within the Buffyverse. It sits very uneasily.

I regard the soul as a plot device equivalent with drug addiction Willow. Again, here is a convenient way to bring back a favoured character from entertaining evil, and transform them into a 'redemption' story. Except that I don't find it redemptive if they couldn't help it in the first place. There is nothing to be redeemed.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I've always believed that making sense of the Buffyverse requires one to believe that the souled and unsouled Angel/Spike are separate and distinct. In that case, you are quite right in recognizing that the theme of redemption breaks down. That may not be such a bad thing; given the general lack of agreement we've had here on what "redemption" means, perhaps we should let go of the concept.

On the other hand, redemption can make sense from a psychological POV. It's understandable that Angel would feel that the acts of Angelus are in some sense his own. The shared memories alone make this almost inevitable. The felt need to atone is common enough that it makes good psychology even if an outsider judges it unnecessary.

Finally, one reason I liked Spike's arc in S6 was that I thought they would address the redemption issue in a context that made sense. Without a soul, Spike DID need redemption. By giving him one, they reverted to the problem you've identified.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Please good missus a soul cake -- Rahael, 14:32:50 01/20/04 Tue

Hehe, yes, Redemption. I have to agree there. I've been thinking about that in the context of Mayor of Casterbridge. Henchard falls all the way down, and yet it is clear, in the midst of his tragedy, he is redeemed within himself. No rewards. Just the drama. I could find that compelling. But I need to find a word that's not 'redeemed'!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Being able to ask for cake -- sdev, 17:31:35 01/20/04 Tue

I am also really enjoying this discussion.

Sophist said:
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I've always believed that making sense of the Buffyverse requires one to believe that the souled and unsouled Angel/Spike are separate and distinct. In that case, you are quite right in recognizing that the theme of redemption breaks down. That may not be such a bad thing; given the general lack of agreement we've had here on what "redemption" means, perhaps we should let go of the concept.

This is a problem I have as well. The vampiric acts are involuntary and thus how can guilt attach which requires redemption? The most basic criminal concept is that of mens rea or at the least some kind of negligence. Neither exist with vampires. There can be no responsibility, moral or otherwise, absent volition. To dump a lifetime of culpability on a being because for the second of their siring they chose unwisely yet also unknowingly, and maybe even unintentionally as well, is not justice in my book.

Thus I don't see either series as redemption stories as much as reclamation stories. How do you go on and have a meaningful unlife? That is where Angel's story interests me. I see his struggle as overcoming his present guilt not his past life. Where he has gone very wrong is when he attempts to remake the past as in the Darla arc. It can't be done. In the process of trying to redeem himself by saving Darla he causes more harm. Guilt is not necessarily a good thing or productive.

Rahael said:
So the question that arises for me from BtVS is: who is human. What do we qualify as 'humanity'. Because, we don't give that quality to every human being. In fact, we frequently say that some humans are 'inhuman'.
------------------------------------------------
If we were to base humanity not on the ability to reason and think, on the ability to listen to appreciate and create things like music or art, but on the lack or possession thereof of mature emotional/moral development, or capacity, would we not be in a very troubling place, even within the Buffyverse?

Maybe the question is simpler. Who is in control? Can the soul be seen as a tool of volition and moral comprehension? But only volition is a prerequisite to staying alive in the Buffyverse. Clem, though perhaps morally incompetent, hurts no one. Spike till the chip is stake bait. Even prior to the soul, as long as he was not a threat, ie under control, he got to live. The ability for moral comprehension may be a requirement for Buffy's love but not to keep your life.

Putting aside for the moment the psychological guilt that may drive a being who has regained volition, via the soul or some other means, to seek redemption to compensate for the evil they have done, what obligations does the now volitional being have? To live morally now. There is no redemption needed absent responsibility. And there is no guarantee that their volitional acts will not now require redemption. Souled Angel locked the lawyers in a room with Darla and Drusilla. Souled Willow flayed Warren. Here there is responsibility.

Maybe this explains some of the difference between Angel and Spike's attitudes toward what their current responsibilities are now that they are both volitional beings. One thing they have in common. In their volitional states-- both recognize their danger as involitional beings and ask to be destroyed if they revert or pose a risk (Spike in NLM; Angel numerous times).

Sophist says:
On the other hand, redemption can make sense from a psychological POV. It's understandable that Angel would feel that the acts of Angelus are in some sense his own. The shared memories alone make this almost inevitable. The felt need to atone is common enough that it makes good psychology even if an outsider judges it unnecessary.

Can the difference between Angel who is tortured and seeks redemption or atonement, not actually the same thing, for his prior bad acts and Spike who does not seem to feel the force of that drive be the psychological difference between the way they regained their volition and their volitional actions since? Angel had his volition thrust upon him unwillingly. It was unearned and despised. His first reactions were attempts to reject and overcome the effects of the soul. AYNoHYEB (that can't be right?)show his first reluctant and abandoned attempt to help people in need in his volitional state. He also fed on humans. These were volitional and added to the guilt baggage he already carried for his remembered involuntary acts.

Spike acted to regain the soul. As a result his psychological guilt is greatly diminished from his taking control of his state. Also the torture he underwent to regain the soul must have felt like punishment of a sort. He views his involuntary acts as just that, outside his control. He says it in the much despised LMPTM, I was a different being. Nevertheless he must also feel some sense of owing the world, despite his words to the contrary, if one views his sacrifice in Chosen as larger than just for Buffy's sake.

Angel to some extent tortures himself often to unproductive purpose. I hope this season Angel learns to forgive himself which is a human need.

Sorry if this came out incoherently.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree with this. Will I still have my cake if you eat it? -- Sophist, 18:19:27 01/20/04 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Since you agree with me I'll share -- sdev, 18:24:44 01/20/04 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmm...interesting, have only a few questions/quibbles -- s'kat, 20:35:49 01/20/04 Tue

Maybe the question is simpler. Who is in control? Can the soul be seen as a tool of volition and moral comprehension? But only volition is a prerequisite to staying alive in the Buffyverse. Clem, though perhaps morally incompetent, hurts no one. Spike till the chip is stake bait. Even prior to the soul, as long as he was not a threat, ie under control, he got to live. The ability for moral comprehension may be a requirement for Buffy's love but not to keep your life.

Not sure if I'm misreading this...forgive me if I am. Are you saying that Spike's ability to morally comprehend gained him Buffy's love but did not protect him from the stake after he got the soul? Because, I'm not sure he earned Buffy's love per se, well maybe he did. That's debatable. But I do know that he earned her protection, she refuses to kill him after he is triggered by the first to kill several people - the most people we've seen him kill on screen. Her rational is oddly reminiscent of her refusal to kill Angel when he returns intact from hell - "it wasn't you" or "you were being controlled by something else".
Her friends, specifically Anya, claim that Spike gets the "get out of jail free card" because Buffy cares for him. (Which was certainly what Xander believed in Revelations about Angel). This argument is in fact visited twice in Season 7, first in Selfless, where Buffy,Willow and Xander argue about whether Anya should be spared after she's willingly killed 12 people. Xander defends her using as examples: Willow, Spike and Angel. Buffy defends her position using Angelus as an example - someone who killed, showed no remorse or shame in it and seemed eager to do worse damage - and she had to kill. Same thing happens with Anya - it's not until Anya shows remorse and shame that Buffy backs off. Same thing happens with Andrew - Buffy doesn't back off of him really, until he cries for his friend. She states in NLM that the reason Spike is alive is she saw his remorse, she saw him upset about the killing and saw how much he despised himself for doing it, even though he was triggered at the time. The unsouled vampire shows no remorse - Spike chipped never showed remorse for killing people or anything. Spike soulled seems to care. LMPTM is a weird episode and contradicts certain things in Sleeper and NLM. Think about what Spike says for a moment, in each episode.

1. Sleeper - I feel everyone I killed. They haunt me.
2. NLM - Buffy: That wasn't you
Spike:There's no one else, it's me. I feel them. You have to kill me. (not exact, I'm paraphrasing)
3. LMPTM: Vampire/Slayer - that's how it works. I'm a vampire, she's a slayer - I killed her.

Now rewind to Fool For Love:
Spike to Buffy: Slayers are the boogie man to vampires.
Nothing can stop us but one girl. Was I scared? No, I sought her out. Death is your gift baby, part of you wants it, like she did. (He's describing Nikki here.)

Now it's important that you remember something while analyzing this - Spike is telling us *his* point of view.
He has no clue what Nikki wants or doesn't want. No more than he has a clue what the Chinese slayer wanted. He didn't understand her last request when he killed her. To Spike - they were slayers - a challenge. Soulled Spike does feel remorse for the people he killed as a vampire before he got that soul - we see that guilt in Lessons, Beneath You, Never Leave Me, Sleeper, Get it Done, etc, but he separates slayers from that category for some reason. Maybe for the same reason he was obsessed with them? Maybe for the same reason he sought them out? Maybe for the same reason he fell for Buffy? What does he say to Buffy in S6?
You belong in the darkness with me...you're like me, because you came back wrong and your a killer like I am.
I think Spike and Angel both have an odd relationship with slayers, all vampires do. They seem to perceive them differently.

So, I think, that Spike while feeling guilty for killing all those other people, doesn't feel guilty for killing slayers - it's weirdly ironic, considering the fact that he was crushed when Buffy died and actually did give his life for her and the world. So here's this vampire, who doesn't feel guilty for killing slayers, who would give his life for the current slayer, gets a soul for the current slayer and would literally turn himself inside out for her. Why?
What is it about slayers that motivates or controls or even influences Spike's actions? And why can he be empathetic/sympathetic with everyone else, feel guilty regarding other pains, but not regarding Nikki or the Chinese slayer? It's the one piece in the puzzel that doesn't quite make sense, yet the writers deliberately emphasized it and put it there. Perhaps Spike like Angel has found a way of justifying or dealing with the crimes he used to glory in. Angel disassociates himself from them.
Spike disassociates the crime, making it a lesser crime than all the others - sort of the way a solider might disassociate killing other soliders in horrible ways. Or a hired gun disassociate killing his hit. Gaining a soul may create the need to disassociate. My question is - why of all the crimes, Spike has done, did he feel the need to justify those to himself and not feel guilty about them?
And why did the writers decide to do it?

Putting aside for the moment the psychological guilt that may drive a being who has regained volition, via the soul or some other means, to seek redemption to compensate for the evil they have done, what obligations does the now volitional being have? To live morally now. There is no redemption needed absent responsibility. And there is no guarantee that their volitional acts will not now require redemption.

I generally agree - but I'm wondering if it's really redemption so much as a need to atone. There's something Giles says in I Only Have Eyes For You that strikes a cord here - "Buffy people shouldn't be forgiven because they deserve it, but because they need it." I think redemption works the same way. Perhaps if you think of redemption as another word for the phrase: second chance, it works better?
People want to be forgiven. But can we forgive these types of crimes? Reclaiming a life isn't that easy, you first have to believe that your life is worthy to be reclaimed, that you can do good, you also have to take responsibility for what you've done (Angel - his past crimes soulled and unsoulled, Spike - the killing of the slayers), and finally show a desire to do things differently not to fall into the same patterns. I think, and I might be wrong here, the writers are once again comparing soulled and unsoulled to sober and drunk - the alcoholic who can't remember what he did under the influence (as seen partly in Harms Way) and the reformed alcoholic who finally does. It's a tricky comparison.

Outside of those two quibbles or rather uncertainities(??) on my part, I generally agree.

(PS: it is Are You Now or Have You Ever Been that Angel
tried to help then gave up in the 1950s. You got the episode right.)

sk

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Meta and physics -- Random, 12:53:57 01/20/04 Tue

Before I start, I might as well offer the disclaimer that nothing I've said is necessarily reflective of how I view the mechanics of the real world. I don't believe in vampires in the real world world either. But I don't consider their actions excused. Accounted for to some extent, yes. I consider Liam and William to be victims, but the vampires that resulted from their victimization to be evil. There is a definite disconnect from the former to the latter -- obvious enough when one considers that neither Liam nor William seemed to be heading for careers as the Scourges of Europe prior to vamping, and the fact that their behaviour, and to a large extent, their personas shifted dramatically after regaining their souls. The "convenient plot device" is damnably inconvenient if one decides that there is no soul, cause then one has to come up with an alternative explanation for the severe disconnect between pre-souling actions and post-souling ones. Willow's "addiction" may have been a convenient plot device too (one I despised), but that still requires we account for her actions. We might not like the direction ME took, but it's difficult to negate it without offering an alternative explanation.

Is Spike "the most special vampire ever?" He's special, that's apparent. The most special? No clue. We haven't been given enough evidence. Not that it matters from my perspective: my argument, as I've said several times, is still essentially that no matter how "special" he is, he requires something more to achieve true humanity. Hence, the soul. Unlike many people, I don't see it as a redemption so much as a tool of salvation. One cannot restore mortalWilliam -- time marches onwards and we can never return to that state of grace. But one can at least rescue some part of him that was lost, give him a second chance. One that he could still very well screw up. That's the beauty of it for me. I'm highly ambivalent about Spike simply because I don't see him as a figure of desitny and redemption. I see him as a man being given a 2nd chance, and (excepting, you know, the fact that this is TV still, even though ME is several cuts above niormal fare) possibly failing dramatically. Nothing is written in stone.

So the question that arises for me from BtVS is: who is human. What do we qualify as 'humanity'. Because, we don't give that quality to every human being. In fact, we frequently say that some humans are 'inhuman'.

Disagree with interpretation of Buffyverse ethics. We may call some humans "inhuman" -- but when all is said and done, the ethos of the Buffyverse is that even the most monstrous humans are still human. When we refer to their "inhumanity," as I said before, it is a reference to their behaviour, not thier basic existential nature. Or possibly a reference to the fact that they just transformed into a giant demon snake.

If we were to base humanity not on the ability to reason and think, on the ability to listen to appreciate and create things like music or art, but on the lack or possession thereof of mature emotional/moral development, or capacity, would we not be in a very troubling place, even within the Buffyverse?

Somehow, most things can be troubling, not just in the Buffyverse. But this isn't really a point that cogently addresses the issue of humanity. The issue of humanity is not, and has never been in the Buffyverse, the crucial factor for who lives or dies. We need only look at Clem amd Lorne as immediate examples. So the question of who can be killed is basically irrelevant -- especially since the scenario you posited -- First, Buffy would have to check whether the 'person' in front of her had a set of fangs hidden (or you know, check out their dated fashion sense), and then say: okay, have you got a soul recently? And then make her decision to kill them? -- simply doesn't occur in that manner. She knows they don't have souls. She doesn't rationalize each and every slaying on that basis. She rationalizes on such bases as, you know, whether they are evil and innately so, and whether they are an immediate threat. The metaphysics of soul-having as related to evil are fascinating and all, but we're examining Buffy's motivations here. Certainly, one could go "Oooh, lookit! Buffy said in S7 that he has a soul now..." But she wasn't speaking so much of slayability -- though that was an issue primarily because people trying to kill Spike forced the crisis in the first place -- as of responsibility and basic nature. It's not even a subtle distinction.

Once again, I reiterate that I see perfectly why the soul answer works for most people. I just posted on the board in the expectation that it's okay for me to say why it doesn't.
Um, it's perfectly okay. I just replied in the expectation that you would welcome dissent and debate.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Meta and physics -- Rahael, 14:24:54 01/20/04 Tue

I just realised - I can talk for ages about what I see in the show, but no one else really seems to see it. What I take from the show, the idea of selfhood, of humanity, of what constitutes this - I apply it to life. It absolutely interrelates. That's why it drew me.

But I'm feeling a little lost in this metaphysical landscape that is setting the parameters of the discussion. I have to ask myself, did the show ever contain these things that inspired me? Or did I just imagine it?

Maybe I should just go back to reading. And watching Alias, WW and B5 for fun.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh and -- Rahael, 14:38:06 01/20/04 Tue

Um, it's perfectly okay. I just replied in the expectation that you would welcome dissent and debate.

Nah, not really directed at you. When one posts on the board, one talks to everyone. Anyway, the more I listen to other people about the Buffyverse, the more I tend to believe what they say. It's not really what I see, but I always kind of end up thinking "well, you totally see more than that's there". My reading is for my pleasure only. THere are many things I debate, because I passionately believe in them. Buffyverse storylines aren't really among that category. They may raise issues that I feel strongly about. But as to the soul canon and what not? I'm happy having non-credible readings. I make my own interesting fun with the eps.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Does Dawn have a soul? YES!!!!!! -- tam, 12:11:37 01/20/04 Tue

if all humans have souls, then dawn has a soul. according to the monk, when buffy asked "what is she?" he replied "she is human"

[> [> [> [> [> Selfish Love -- Claudia, 14:32:07 01/20/04 Tue

[He can do good. He does do good. He does heroic things for his love. And his love is strong enough that he continues to work with the Scoobies even after Buffy dies. But that doesn't make it any less selfish.]

Why is that a problem? Why must Spike's love be selfless in order to be considered redeemable? I consider his "selfish" love as speaking from the heart . . . at least from his perspective. Spike is acting upon what is important to him, or his heart. Why must that be considered wrong?

[> [> [> [> [> [> I've given my actual perspective repeatedly in other posts. Happy reading! ;) -- Random, 14:38:11 01/20/04 Tue


[> [> [> [> Re: Souls and Spikes and Humanity -- Sophist, 16:44:52 01/19/04 Mon

Ah, the soul canon.

As you know, I was VERY disappointed they chose to give Spike a soul. I agree with you on what we were shown in S4, 5, and 6. However, I don't agree with a couple of your succeeding statements.

I was deeply troubled throughout S7 about the automatic 'right to live' that was endowed by a 'soul'. It starts poking at the fragile warp and woof of the Buffyverse. It starts making certain things troublesome: that there are 'beings' you kill on sight.

Right coin, wrong side. I don't believe a "soul" conveys any automatic right to live. The treatment of Warren in S6 pretty well answers that. In any case, the soul never conveyed a right to live so much as (generally) immunity from Buffy's jurisdiction. I would phrase it this way: Buffy exercises no jurisdiction over souled humans as long as they avoid using mystical power for evil.

Nor do I believe the show ever went so far as "kill on sight" for the unsouled. Again, the counterexamples are too common: Clem, for example, or the demon with the Books of Ascension in Enemies. In S7, Anya went untouched until she crossed the line in Selfless.

I cannot accept that selfish love is the hallmark of a lack of moral rectitude that is deserving of markedly lesser treatment.

Nor can I. But I'm not sure that's what's being advocated. I think the assertion is that selfish love is a hallmark, not the hallmark.

The debate above demonstrates to me just how problematic this assertion is. The participants haven't yet agreed on which acts demonstrate which love. Random has a very limited view of Spike's love. Reading between the lines, sdev interprets as agape what Random asserts as eros. I have identified other acts by Spike as examples of agape, yet Random hasn't yet acknowledged my superior insight. If Mal were here, I've no doubt he'd cite Willow as selfish in her love, just as I would cite Xander. At the end of the day, Tina Turner had it right: What's love got to do with it?

To me, the connection between love and the soul canon became problematic in S2:

Judge: You two stink of humanity. You share affection and jealousy.

For this reason, while I was disappointed with the souling of Spike, it never affected my interpretation of S7.

[> [> [> [> [> The right to Kill (& jurisdiction in the court of the heart) -- Rahael, 17:29:17 01/19/04 Mon

See, that troubles me. The right to award oneself such a jurisdiction over others. I understand your point that you award this jurisdiction to Buffy where no other law exists, no other means of bringing people like Warren to justice.

But I can think of real life situations where there is no recourse to civil justice. And I would not welcome any Buffys or Dark Willows there, deciding that in a place where the police and the courts could not stop, they would step in. The problem I have, is that they become the very people you need to stop.

Not straight away. But inevitably.

And to address more general points re selfish-selfless love. I guess it comes down to definitions. According to my personal definitions, I don't personally know anyone who loves humanity and others in a selfless way. I know people who love selfishly and yet manage to care for people they don't know, even turning away from those they care most about, in order to take care of others. Doesn't reduce the intensity of their love for those they care about. Doesn't reduce the sincerity of their compassion for others.

Maybe I'm employing straw men distinctions, but these dichotomies just don't ring true.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Loose canons -- Sophist, 18:41:33 01/19/04 Mon

And the soul canon is as loose as they get.

I understand your point that you award this jurisdiction to Buffy where no other law exists, no other means of bringing people like Warren to justice.

But I can think of real life situations where there is no recourse to civil justice. And I would not welcome any Buffys or Dark Willows there, deciding that in a place where the police and the courts could not stop, they would step in. The problem I have, is that they become the very people you need to stop.

What you stated is not my position; your pronoun usage is confusing. If you mean the position taken by the show, I might agree up to a point.

As far as I'm concerned, Buffy had no jurisdiction over Warren (at least not for killing Tara) because that was a human crime. I only cited Warren as a counterexample to your assertion that the soul endowed a right to live. In fact, I believe the show violated its own doctrines by allowing Willow to kill Warren as she did. I strongly oppose vigilante "justice" and the implicit endorsement of that is one reason I hate the ending of S6.

But the show itself is premised on some form of vigilanteism. If there is a problem on that score, it begins in WttH. In order to make Buffy's existence and behavior defensible, the show did 2 things: it adopted the soul canon to isolate those subject to Buffy's jurisdiction; and it (usually) showed that Buffy considered actions in addition to essence before she slayed. The latter avoids the problem you mention because it allows the audience to evaluate the justice of each slaying.

To me, the second criterion was always more important than the first. Some people may see the first as cause in and of itself to slay. I don't; I consider it irrelevant. I'd rather dispense with it and debate the individual justice of each act.

According to my personal definitions, I don't personally know anyone who loves humanity and others in a selfless way. I know people who love selfishly and yet manage to care for people they don't know, even turning away from those they care most about, in order to take care of others. Doesn't reduce the intensity of their love for those they care about. Doesn't reduce the sincerity of their compassion for others.

Agreed. My basic view of it is this: if a doctrine appears in Greek metaphysics, particularly Plato, it's worthless, wrong, and harmful. I find it a useful rule of thumb.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for clarifying! -- Rahael, 00:42:36 01/20/04 Tue

I admit I should have listened to the voice saying "Sophist wouldn't be saying that!"

Am rushed for time so will return to the discussion later today.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Souls and Spikes and Humanity -- sdev, 17:52:40 01/19/04 Mon

I don't believe a "soul" conveys any automatic right to live. The treatment of Warren in S6 pretty well answers that.

What are you saying here? Not to assume, but I doubt that you mean here that Willow's killing of Warren was justified? Are you speaking in some sort of karmic sense?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Absolutely not. Poor writing on my part. -- Sophist, 18:50:31 01/19/04 Mon

Since both you and Rah misinterpreted my intention in the same way, I obviously expressed it poorly. I think I explained it better in response to Rah, above, but I'll do it again to be sure.

Rah asserted (describing the morality of the show) that having a soul gave one immunity from being killed by Buffy. I cited Warren as a counterexample within the confines of the show. There are others as well (Knights of Byzantium).

My counterexample was not intended to demonstrate my personal moral approval. To the contrary, I strongly disapprove of what was done with Warren. See my post above.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Justice, blindness, Selfhood -- Rahael, 05:00:24 01/20/04 Tue

I think the interpretation of Villains stands and falls on whether you think ME endorses what Willow does, and there, mileage varies. But I'm more than willing to say "yes, perhaps they do" because I was rather surprised by teh reaction to the flaying, and the satisfaction it engendered. I thought it was terrible and horrifying. I thougth that was the reaction ME wanted me to have but then you know along came Lies and I no longer trust my reactions to the show!!

But Buffy doesn't kill Warren and it's instructive she doesn't kill Andrew either. Willow kills Warren. It's important because it is Buffy who proclaims she is hte law, and then finds herself being forced to act with fairness, even if it's having to restrain her grief stricken best friend. I think it informs her reaction to Spike after SR. She takes on the mantle of "I am the law" to the extent that she shuts down her personal and private reactions. The pain might be too much. The symbolism of impartial judgement, of the blindfold, could that be reflected in the S7 imagery of eyes?

Willow engages in private vengeance - Buffy pursues Public Justice but that leaves her alone and drains her, of her emotions and her humanity. Up on that pedestal wielding the sword of justice, ready to strike Anya in the heart. Anya, who feels 'selfless', who also represents vengeance and the lover betrayed. Perhaps Selfless is as important a commentary on Buffy herself as it is on Anya.

This is probably why Buffy ends up taking on such an impersonal and self-destructive model of leadership, because her role leaves her standing above everyone, disconnected, always having to put her personal issues aside (like the King's Two bodies, Buffy is both the hereditary institution, and the private person). With the destruction of the idea of the 'two bodies' and the hierarchical hereditary notion of Slayerhood, Buffy in Chosen takes on a different model of leadership.

There's more I could say but I'm wandering off - topic.

But I stil think that one of the major themes of S7 is "Justice" and "Trial".

[> [> [> [> Wanted to say how much I've been enjoying this discussion -- Pony, 20:22:10 01/19/04 Mon

Many thanks to Random for starting it off!

Personally I believe it's almost impossible to explain and categorize love. Terms like agape and eros are useful and fascinating but the actual emotion is fluid, it ebbs and shifts and changes shape. Its quality and its quantity does change, part of the problem so many of us face is trying to hold it always in one particular form.

The shows have given us various unreliable narrators on the subject of unsouled love, Angel and Darla claimed they could not feel love, but then we have Spike who obviously did, and Drusilla's word that vampires could love. I remember in NLM Spike never claims to understand love any better, with his soul he could though appreciate self-loathing.

For myself I don't think the vampires are limited in their capacity for love anymore than they were as humans. They are without judgement, without regret and without consequence which makes their love very dangerous indeed, but I don't think there was an end point to it. Did Luke not love the Master in a way that could be considered agape?

The problem is that denying someone's capacity to feel love or a kind of love is a common way to make them Other, somewhat less. I was actually reminded of Drusilla's line today when I was reading the amazing memoir Reading Lolita In Tehran. The author, who had spent years teaching Western novels in Iran after the revolution, encountered a former student and member of a militant Islamic group who had been a vocal opponent of the texts taught in the class. The author was suprised to hear her student say that she remembered the class fondly, that she had connected to the characters, I didn't know you were allowed to have a heart in your group. She said, Believe it or not, we fell in and out of love all the time.

BtVS in many ways created and encouraged its own problem. It gave us the soul as a handy dividing line between kill and not to be killed, but then it encouraged us to see the humanity in the soulless and the greyness of the souled. It asked questions about judgement and superiority/inferiority but backed away from any answers. To borrow a term from Joss it was an incoherent text. Yes, redemption is possible but sometimes it's just really cool to kill the monsters.

So now on AtS we have demons and vampires on the payroll of W&H. They have all killed before but as long as they never do it again they are accorded the same status as humans, to live in the not killed category. Is this a good solution? Well, no. And all the talk of judgement and mercy has made me hope, albeit without a lot of certainty, that the questions of what it is to be human and who deserves to be saved may be, if never really answered, at least asked again.

[> [> [> [> [> Okay you may have said that better -- Rahael, 00:45:26 01/20/04 Tue

This is what I was trying to say.

[> [> [> [> [> It's an interesting perspective -- Random, 01:32:30 01/20/04 Tue

I see your point about Luke, for instance, though his devotion to his Master strikes a resonance that seems more fanatic than devout, recalling the brainwashing of martyrs. But it's all arguable. Hence the arguing in this thread ;}

However, I'm not certain that the act of "denying" a vampire anything is strictly relevant. If one sincerely interprets the evidence as pointing to a lack of some capacity, then it denies them that only in the sense that one could say "vampires can't fly" and thereby deny them areodynamic ability. Certainly, the technique of forcibly removing a group to the status of Other has been used for horrific purposes throughout history. But this is not grounds for a blanket injunction against a reasoned attributing or denial of traits in any given case. The misapplication of critical thinking does not invalidate the proper application of the same.

The real question here is who presents the most effective case, I think. If one can attribute such things as being "without judgement, without regret and without consequence" to them with sufficient evidence or reasoning, I find no problem with attributing a lack of traits -- for instance, denying them the capacity to regret the murders they commit. It's simply an obverse of attribution, and all attribution can be paralleled (however clumsily) with a corresponding negation.

Spike, I think, is an exceptional vampire. In the early stages of his SunnyHell experience, he is patently unusual, his love for Drusilla and his individualistic nature distinguishing him from his more blandly somber predecessors on the show (even the Master, who, for all his quirks, was the very picture of a fanatical religious leader.) The Judge tells him he stinks of humanity -- yet he is able to touch the Judge without adverse effect. Nor is the Judge adverse to working with him after the initial distaste. What this means is unclear, but when Dalton -- who is clearly less evolved than Spike, even with his book-larnin' -- goes up in a quick burst of flame, it implies to me that Spike's "humanity" has certain very real limits that can be stretched, tested, but never exceeded...without a soul. He is incomplete in some capacity, and his realization of this mixed with his drive to supersede his limitations is what drives him to his soul and to his final sacrifice.

One thing that I think I need to bring into the game at this admittedly rather late stage is the fact that I consider vampires to be essentially, not just peripherally, different from humans. Aside from the numerous references on the show to the loss of something essential when the soul is gone and replaced by a demon, I consider the thematic equation to be balanced in favor of vampires as beings of actual evil. It makes sense when the Jossverse, after all, makes little bones about the existence of true evil and true good, and regularly addresses this divide. Even in the real world, I would eventually label certain horrors and atrocities as viscerally "evil" even as my logical mind qualified the statement by noting that, barring a theophanic intrusion of morality, all judgment is perceptual. So I have little difficulty with the basic premise that certain beings or forces are essentially evil (call it a minor suspension of disbelief when watching the show, though much less minor than, say, my conviction that Sauron was essentially evil.) I may be mistaken, but I think that this particular issue is an essential underpinning in understanding the different perspectives on vampiric morality and love. I really appreciate your line about the incoherent text. I'm not sure I believe that the text is as innately incoherent as you do, but I sould say that there is clearly a case of external influences of the interpreters of the text (you, me, everybody) increasing the incoherency external to the text. This isn't a new idea -- it's been bruited about in lit crit for quite a while (and having spent 3 1/2 years of graduate school studying lit crit, I can tell you that these ideas are like Oz's popcorn sometimes.) But greyness exists, and much of it is deliberate. Without it, the issue of redemption wouldn't have developed into a subject for debate anyway. But I don't consider it to be something that must necessarily be extended to all beings, and in all cases. Ultimately, there is no injustice in observing that each case is unique, and that what limits one case doesn't apply in another. And vice versa.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Tolkien weighs in -- Sophist, 07:43:02 01/20/04 Tue

my conviction that Sauron was essentially evil

Yet Tolkien has Gandalf say, "Nothing was evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so."

Tolkien undoubtedly has in mind the Christian tradition of the rebellious Satan. But note the difficulty of essentialist reading even there. Fate, foreknowledge, free will; vain philosophy all says Milton.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, I know...heh, trust me... -- Random, 12:06:44 01/20/04 Tue

Having been steeped in Tolkienania since I was very young, I am perfectly aware of Sauron's origins and his corruption into evil. Not going to bother going over it all (Rob or Bit can do that if they want), just observing that Sauron is evil now. Which is my point -- not that certain things are by nature evil now, then, and forever, but that in the context of the LotR, evil does exist.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Two interesting perspectives, here's my take for what it's worth -- s'kat, 08:31:11 01/20/04 Tue

Incoherence of text...interesting.

I find myself agreeing with both Random and pony on this one.

What I think the writers were trying to do is something quite difficult to pull off without being a little incoherent. There's also the fact that their text unlike the texts we find in a film or a book, was an ever-evolving one, never set in stone, always shifting and changing and about as pinnable as jello to a wall. That's what sucessful serialized tv texts can be like, the characters and tale shift on the teller.

From numerous interviews, it seems to me that Whedon did not know who the characters of Spike, Darla, Drusilla, or Angel were until three years into BTVS. Oh he had an idea of where he wanted to go with them initially, but his original concept changed. In S1-2 BTVS in Whedon's head vampires were going to be evil, horrible monsters - *not* romaticized, hence the ugly bat-faces. The character of Angel wasn't supposed to survive more than one season. Then, as can often happen in a televisized show whose chapters are written as they are being aired - the audience went nutty over Angel, and especially nutty over the Buffy/Angel chemistry. Being an old veteran of TV, Whedon knew to go with what *worked* and ditch what didn't. The ugly evil Master story wasn't as interesting to audiences, the murkier good/bad duality of Angel was. So he brings in two sexy vampires who are a little murkier than the Master was, again not expecting to let them live long. Probably killing Spike off mid-season just as he had done Darla in S1. Once again, magic happens. The actor playing Spike makes the role more than it was written to be - the audience goes nutty over him, and so do the writers. Whedon changes his mind. By the time Becoming rolls around, Whedon has changed his mind about how to portray vamps in the show. Which makes everything just a tad more complicated, and to me at least far more interesting. Why? Because by making the vampires murkier, letting Spike help Buffy in Becoming, Whedon introduces an interesting question - is Buffy and the Watcher Council completely right in this? Are they the good guys? OR is it just a little more complicated than that? Note how he makes fun of "white hats" at different points - The Wish and in Lie to Me. Lie to Me introduces the idea that you just don't always know. Whose the bigger monster in Lie to Me? Buffy's ex-crush, the human dying of brain tumors who selfishly sacrifices a room full of people including Buffy to become immortal or Spike who is willing to let the roomful of people go in order to save Drusilla's life? Whedon does it again with Faith, whose the more evil? Faith who kills the volcanologist with no other motive than the mayor told her so, or Trick who keeps coming up with ways to kill slayers to promote his own career? Or the Mayor, a human who signed a deal with a devil and will do anything to become a demon himself?
And what about Buffy? Isn't her motivations a little on the gray side as well? Angelus is going on a killing spree, but she neglects to stake him - due to the possibility he could get his soul back. Is the insistance that Angel or anyone with a soul is good and anyone without one is bad, that unsouled Angel isn't Angel - Buffy's means of justifying her actions? It could explain some of her difficulty with Spike just as it explains Angel's difficulty with both Spike and Harmony, because what it does is remind Angel, that Angelus was possibly *not* a separate entity. It's certainly an issue Faith brings to Buffy's attention more than once, as does Kendra, Xander and a degree Angel himself, although he backs away from it (in Dopplegangland).
Oh and least we forget, the writers revisit this issue in Orpheus where Angelus makes a point of showing Faith that he is always part of Angel. So why did Whedon and writers feel the need to introduce this issue? Particularly when it throws into question the status and motivations of their own heros? The SG doesn't look quite so heroic when we start asking these questions do they? Yet, they become a lot more interesting.

I think the reason Whedon and his writers decided to pursue this murkier area is they saw it as interesting way to explore the difference between teen evaluation of morality and adult evaluation of morality. Remember Whedon has stated on more than one occassion that BTVS is a coming of age story. About the journey to adulthood. Teens or children tend to look at the issues of love, death, morality in very black and white terms and in terms that center on them. They lack the experience or knowledge to really see beyond themselves or see a broader spectrum. (Or at least that's the general view.) Buffy in S1 sees vampires as ugly faces and bad fashion choices, kills them because they are *evil*, as the season progresses she discovers one vampire who is actually *not* evil and is helping her. She also discovers that people can be bad.
In Season 2, she discovers a vampire can be helpful or care about someone other than itself, even without a soul, as well as discover that someone she loves can betray her.
In Season 3, she finds out that humans can be a heck of a lot worse than vampires - a theme that re-occurs in S4.
In S5, she finds out that a vampire without a soul can love and give himself for someone he loves and help her save the world yet at the same time be incredibly dangerous and chain her up in a cave, she also discovers that people can die and there's zip you can do about it. In S6, she finds out that humans can at times be more demonic than demons and sometimes your worste enemy can be your best friend. Or even yourself. She discovers that she could be as much a danger to her friends as any vampire. That it is not black and white any more. Or even really that clear. This throws her off balance...if you can't define the bad guys clearly what do you do? Become a law in of yourself? S7 - enter the First Evil, and the exploration of just how good a judge are we? Instead of normal vamps - we get vampires who are nothing more than puppets of an incorporeal evil that wears our heroine's face. The First Evil has set itself up as the judge, the ultimate controller. And it's not until Buffy lets go of control and allows others to choose and share her heroism and leadership, that the First Evil's control is ended.

As you wander through the seasons of BTVS you see a progression from vampires or soulless creatures/demons= evil, to uhm maybe not exactly the way we thought they did.
Humans can be really evil too. ATS, the adult show, which is about redemption and second chances not growing up, note
always showed demons and vampires as being greyer in character and not always evil. Harmony was always shown as less evil and more well rounded on ATS. Humans likewise are shown as being far more complicated and capable of acts as evil if not worse than the demons. Lilah, Holland Manners, Gavin, Holtz, Justine, Lindsey all come to mind as incredibly complex characters capable of great acts of evil. Also we see far more shades of Angel, Wes, Faith, Connor and Darla on ATS than we ever did on BTVS. Why? Because we are no longer in the point of view of a child or teenager or someone who has just reached adulthood. (unbaked cookie dough, if you prefer). In ATS we are in the point of view of adults and the world is just a tad murkier. We no longer have a clear idea what if any distinction there is between soulled and unsoulled. It's more confusing. And I could be wrong about this, but I think it is a deliberate move on the writers part.

Regarding love? I think Tim Minear put it best to David Fury in a Succubus Club Interview - "evil people can love, the ability to love someone does not make one good or evil." It does however affect how the person loves. How they express their love not that they love or feel love. The feeling should be separated I think from the expression or action. In S6, Spike expresses love the way an immature teenager would as wanton desire - pure desire, pure want, wanting to devour someone, possess. (This is actually very similar to how Buffy and her friends express love in high school.) In S5 he also expresses love at first through possession or desire, later he does it with protection. In S7, Spike expresses love in a different way, he does it through concern, compassion for Buffy, helping the fight,
remorse, and a desire to change. He also expresses love by giving his life. Spike's *love* for Buffy has not changed, what has changed is his *expression* of it. He still loves her, he just now expresses it in a more mature manner. The soul didn't make it easier for him to understand love per se, what it did was help him understand how to express his love to another - because it gave him the ability to understand what Buffy was feeling. Whedon discusses this connection in a different way in his Objects in Space commentary, which I posted above, there he explains the bad guy Early and good girl/adolescent River are different from the adults on the ship Firefly, because while they understand what the others are saying, they don't quite understand the emotional undertone to the relationships, a synaspe is missing there. I could be wrong here - but I think that's what lacking a soul means to Whedon, that its the lack of a synaspe, you can love quite well after all but not *wisely*. What does *wisely* mean? It refers to the expression of love. Not the fact that we love. But how we show it. Without a soul neither Angel nor Spike can understand the emotional undertone, they don't get how to express their love without being cruel. With a soul, Spike understands and sympathizes with Buffy's own self-loathing, her frustrations, he sees the best way of expressing his love for her is not with sex but with compassion. Something he would never have understand sans soul. I honestly think the soul is that missing synaspe that grants us the ability to understand the emotional undertone or emotions and feelings others have and how to express those in a positive manner. It does not mean we will. It just grants the understanding of how to do so. And the pain that comes with not doing it.

Not sure that made sense or not, so hard to find the correct words to explain this.

sk

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Disagreeing on a couple points -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:50:29 01/20/04 Tue

I've got no problem with the "humans can be evil" angle, but, if you're gonna have demons actually be less evil than humans, I must wonder why demons are being used in the first place.

Also, "Angel" has actually been far less generous towards unsouled vampires. Harmony and possibly that guy from "Heartthrob" are the only cases of sympathetic soulless vampires on "Angel". And, even then, we've got Harmony returning to evil at the end, and Angel criticising James's type of love. Take Darla as an example: there was no indication that she could possibly care for her baby without its soul affecting her. Compare this to Spike on Buffy: if he turned up pregnant (how I don't know) I think the treatment would have been different. In fact, on Angel, I find the vampires often tend to be more sadistic than the Buffy vamps, who have often been portrayed as just schmucks who also happen to drink human blood.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Disagreeing on a couple points -- s'kat, 15:49:26 01/20/04 Tue

Well..lets' talk about the nasty humans shall we?

1. Lilah and Wolfram and Hart who hire a shaman to torture Cordelia with visions in order to free a half-demon half human misogynist from hell. Billy's wonderful talent is bringing out the worst in other humans. Demons seem to be immune. Ats S3 Billy

2. Holtz takes Connor to Q'Torth and tortures him. Tying him to a tree for days in a horrible demon dimension.
(referred to in The Magic Bullet.)

3. Wesely takes hostage of Justine (who had slit his throat in Sleep Tight) keeps her in a closet with nothing but a bucket and bars in front. And forces her to find Angel.

4. Justine and Connor imprison Angel in a box with a window and sink it to the bottom of the sea. Ats S3 Tommorrow

5. Angel (ensouled) locks the human attorneys of W&H in a room with two vampires and *doesn't* stake at any time either vampire. Hmmm - sounds like humans were worse than vamps in that episode to Angel doesn't it? Ats S2 Reunion

Why are demons being used in the first place? Ah, interesting question - why do sci-fi shows have aliens?
I think they have demons for several reasons.

In BTVS - demons were used as metaphors - for lust (Spike and Dru), for greed (Trick, Balthazar), for envy, etc.
As the kids grew up, the demons became less metaphors and more actual characters symbolizing broader issues such as racism, prejudice, being an outcast, immaturity, etc.
Note in Hell's Bells - the racial barbs flying back and forth between Xander's monsterous relatives and Anya's demonic friends. Or the comments nice clean cut Rick in OAFA makes about Clem. In ATS, we have the episodes Hero, Are You Now, That Old Gang of Mine and the whole Pylea arc discussing these issues as well. So demons in an odd way are the writers way of exploring the issue of the demonic other - this may be what both ponygirl and Rah are objecting to, it certainly bugs me a little - because if demons are meant to represent the "other" than what does that say about Buffy and the Scooby Gang? I think this may be where the text gets murky or the writers commit the sin of trying to have it both ways?? No, not really. What they are doing is exploring the spectrum - no one is essentially born all evil or all good, the fit within a spectrum of light to darkness. For humans a series of actions can over time turn you into a monster - think Speagol to Gollum. For the demons it may be the reverse a series of actions can over time make you more human. Lorne for example or Clem who aren't evil, they aren't necessarily good either. Same with soulless Spike. Actually ensouled Spike and Angel are still somewhere within the mid-way part of that spectrum, two ass-holes (if you'll excuse the term) who can be incredibly heroic and sympathetic. It's not black and white, which is where we're struggling - we want to put demons in the bad category and humans in the good category, and I'm not sure the writers are letting us. In Conviction it's the human that Angel kills. In Villians and Seeing Red it's the human Warren who does the most damage. In Home its the human Connor that Angel has to deal with. In Just Rewards, Unleashed, Hellbound - it's humans or a ghost of a human that are the bad guys, the demons are being protected.

So, I'm not sure you can say one is more evil or worse than the other, especially considering that some of the humans we've met make vampires look relatively nice in comparison.
Granted Angel hasn't necessarily been nice to unsoulled vamps, but how many have we seen in ATS? He only stakes the ones he sees attacking someone. He does not hang out in graveyards like Buffy, killing them as they rise and he avoids killing either Darla or Dru, when he should have staked them both and more than one clear opportunity.
He also avoids staking Harmony and Spike (prior to his ensouled status).

[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, I agree with everyone -- Pony, 12:18:16 01/20/04 Tue

I agree with Random that we have to see vampires as different from humans. In fact I find the explorations of the differences pretty fascinating. My favourite example of a demonstration of how a soulless being loves is in Forever. Spike cares about Dawn, he wants to help her and he does unselfishly and at great risk to himself (motivations are arguable I know, but that's the way I see it). However what he is helping her do is so fundamentally wrong that it boggles the mind. That to me sums up what love without a moral compass looks like. And I accept that vampires are not simply morally neutral but have that connected to a vast all-encompassing evil skew.

I think when it comes right down to it there are three facts: Our heroes need something to kill, that's the way the shows are structured, but they can't be in a moral agony over every death they inflict so we have the idea of souls. The second fact, which shadowkat discusses, is that well-rounded, complex characters are more interesting to watch than cardboard villians. That's just how story-telling works. The third fact is that it's very difficult to see well-rounded, complex characters without feeling empathy for them. We may not like what they're doing at all, but the more we understand them the more we're going to feel for them. I think that the tension between the three facts creates a lot of interesting drama and discussion... and sometimes incoherence.

It is very difficult to look at two characters and say that one's life has more value than the other because of this intangible thing called a soul. It's hard to grasp that a soul can change so much about a character yet still needs to be seen as a starting point not an end to redemption. When we see so many characters wandering back and forth between souled and unsouled, demon and human and half and half I wonder if I can remember where all the lines are and if I'm supposed to.

I see your point about Luke, for instance, though his devotion to his Master strikes a resonance that seems more fanatic than devout, recalling the brainwashing of martyrs.

Not disagreeing, but noting that the labels - fanatic instead of devout - are something that you are applying, again we are left with the problem of judging the quality and value of love.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, I agree with everyone -- shadowkat, 15:58:02 01/20/04 Tue

I think when it comes right down to it there are three facts: Our heroes need something to kill, that's the way the shows are structured, but they can't be in a moral agony over every death they inflict so we have the idea of souls. The second fact, which shadowkat discusses, is that well-rounded, complex characters are more interesting to watch than cardboard villians. That's just how story-telling works. The third fact is that it's very difficult to see well-rounded, complex characters without feeling empathy for them.

I think that's the writing challenge in a nutshell. How do you create complex villians, feel empathy for them, and kill them without making the heros look like villians themselves or suffer in moral agony? Add to that how do you do stories where they do kill a bad person but feel upset about it? ME wants to do both. So how? The soul distinction gives them a nifty way out. I can feel horrible about killing Lilah but not all that upset about killing Jasmine.
It gets a little murky when you introduce people like Harmony and Lorne - who are soulless, (I think Lorne is)
yet the heros would feel really bad if they killed them.
I think ME's flaw here is in being overly ambitious and complicated in the writing - not such a bad flaw when one thinks about it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Really goin' out on a limb, huh? Next you'll be coming down squarely for motherhood. :P -- Sophist, 16:14:58 01/20/04 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's important to take a stand - especially when there are no seats -- Pony, 18:58:44 01/20/04 Tue

Current board | More January 2004