January 2004 posts


Previous January 2004  

More January 2004

The Harder Work of Doing Good......spoilers for Harm's Way -- Rufus, 02:04:02 01/15/04 Thu

Harmony: I mean it's not like I have a soul...I have to try a lot harder!


I have to say right off that the beginning of "Harm's Way" I thought back to "Doublemeat Palace". Big difference is that in Doublemeat Palace the person watching the training video is at an entry level and that included Buffy, in Harm's Way, Angel is upper management...hmmmmmmm.

Ostensibly the show is about Harmony and her bumbling towards a resolution to the problem of a dead guy in her bed. She piled up her co-workers like Lucy Ricardo in the chocolate factory while she stumbled to the solution to the mystery that started with a "you look thirsty". There is the story of Harmony managing to survive Mr. Chopper's axe/sword/whatever he gets you with next, aka Angel. Harmony potential victim of the absolute justice of the company "Head Boy".

The question that comes to mind came to me when I heard her speak of having to try harder cause she didn't have a soul. Everyone with a soul in Angel's core group is supposedly there to do good. They now say (in the training video at least) that it's a family, that doesn't stop Lorne's assistant from prefering to be anywhere but near Mr. Chopper. With a soul one automatically does good, or do they? I feel that the test for the person is what creature comforts and security does to someone who is good. We all have the potential to be bad but circumstances and luck tend to keep us good, so what happens when you enter an evil Law Firm with the best intentions but slowly begin to resemble what you thought was the Big Bad for all those other years. If Harmony can do good in the tight spots where the temptation to do what is comfortable is there, what happens to Angel and the rest, does that work in reverse where dumb luck and circumstances added with comfort and securities change ones priorities?

I wonder if straw came with that Camel?

Replies:

[> Re: The Harder Work of Doing Good......spoilers for Harm's Way -- D too zzzz to ( ) S, 20:16:44 01/15/04 Thu

I wonder if straw came with that Camel?

Nah, it came with a lighter and an ashtray.

::ba-dum-bum::

[> [> Actually I was thinking of Nietzsche.....spoilers for Harm's Way -- Rufus, 01:00:16 01/16/04 Fri

From Thus Spoke Zarathustra.....

OF THREE metamorphoses of the spirit do I tell you: how the spirit becomes a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.

Many heavy things are there for the spirit, the strong reverent spirit that would bear much: for the heavy and the heaviest longs its strength.

What is heavy? so asks the spirit that would bear much, and then kneels down like the camel, and wants to be well laden.

What is the heaviest thing, you heroes? asks the spirit that would bear much, that I may take it upon me and exult in my strength.

Is it not this: To humiliate oneself in order to mortify one's pride? To exhibit one's folly in order to mock at one's wisdom?

Or is it this: To desert our cause when it triumphs? To climb high mountains to tempt the tempter?

Or is it this: To feed on the acorns and grass of knowledge, and for the sake of truth to suffer hunger in one's soul?

Or is it this: To be sick and send away the comforters, and to make friends of the deaf, who never hear your requests?

Or is it this: To go into foul water when it is the water of truth, and not avoid cold frogs and hot toads?

Or is it this: To love those who despise us, and to give one's hand to the phantom who tries to frighten us?

All these heaviest things the spirit that would bear much takes upon itself: like the camel, that, when laden, hastens into the desert, so speeds the spirit into its desert.

But in the loneliest desert happens the second metamorphosis: here the spirit becomes a lion; he will seize his freedom and be master in his own wilderness.

You know spiritual transformation in the Belly of the Beast and all.....;)

[> [> [> I have nothing to add. But Rufus' reply is worth preserving . ;o) -- CW, 05:11:57 01/16/04 Fri


[> [> [> Agreeing with CW -- thanks, Rufus! -- Scroll, 09:46:57 01/16/04 Fri

I don't know anything about Nietzsche, but I think you must be on to something here. Clearly Angel is in a kind of spiritual/emotional wasteland and needs to humble himself once again. He's gotten so caught up in his role, in the work he's trying to do, in the prophecy, in trying to forget Connor and distancing himself from his friends -- it's inevitable that he will have to face some kind of spiritual or existential reckoning. Or, that's how I see it, at least. Angel is being set up for a fall.

So Rufus, what happens to the lion, and how does he become the child? I'd be very interested to hear about that!

[> [> [> [> Re: Agreeing with CW -- thanks, Rufus! -- Rufus, 00:55:51 01/18/04 Sun

From Thus Spoke Zarathustra...

All these heaviest things the spirit that would bear much takes upon itself: like the camel, that, when laden, hastens into the desert, so speeds the spirit into its desert.

But in the loneliest desert happens the second metamorphosis: here the spirit becomes a lion; he will seize his freedom and be master in his own wilderness.

Here he seeks his last master: he wants to fight him and his last God; for victory he will struggle with the great dragon.

Who is the great dragon which the spirit no longer wants to call Lord and God? "Thou-shalt," is the great dragon called. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will."

"Thou-shalt," lies in his path, sparkling with gold- a scale-covered beast; and on each scale glitters a golden "Thou-shalt!"

The values of a thousand years glitter on those scales, and thus speaks the mightiest of all dragons: "All values of all things- glitter on me.

All value has long been created, and I am all created value. Verily, there shall be no more 'I will' ." Thus speaks the dragon.

My brothers, why does the spirit need the lion? Why is the beast of burden, which renounces and is reverent, not enough?

To create new values- that, even the lion cannot accomplish: but to create for oneself freedom for new creating- that freedom the might of the lion can seize.

To create freedom for oneself, and give a sacred No even to duty: for that, my brothers, the lion is needed.

Now from Destiny....

SPIKE: Probably should've dusted you. But honestly... I don't want to hear her bitch about it.

ANGEL: Spike, wait. Wait. That's not a prize you're holding. It's not a trophy. It's a burden. It's a cross. One you're gonna have to bear till it burns you to ashes. Believe me. I know. So ask yourself: Is this really the destiny that was meant for you? Do you even really want it? Or is it that you just want to take something away from me?

In Harm's Way, Angel comes face to face with his burden in very real form, and he angrily rejects that burden and this is where he will have to take the form of the lion in how he deals with his next choices. There is rejecting the camel and there is rejecting his burden which the camel symbolizes, and that takes a conscious decision, one he hasn't made as of yet as he seems stuck feeling the despair of feeling he has nowhere to go.

But tell me, my brothers, what the child can do, which even the lion could not do? Why must the preying lion still become a child?

The child is innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a sacred Yes.

For the game of creation, my brothers, a sacred Yes is needed: the spirit now wills his own will; the world's outcast now conquers his own world.

Of three metamorphoses of the spirit I have told you: how the spirit became a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.-

Thus spoke Zarathustra

In the Belly of the Beast transformation is achieved but it isn't as simple as finding a trail of breadcrumbs to lead him to it. Angel now has the work of finding the child in himself that will help him move on to that new beginning, but first he has to become the lion to make that happen....we know he already feels the burden of his Faustian deal with Wolfram and Hart. By the way, this is where Spike should become helpful in ways he never intended..being a foil and all....;)
David Boreanaz directing next week's episode (spoilers) -- Ray, 18:41:58 01/15/04 Thu

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2004-01/15/12.15.tv

Major spoilers.

Replies:

[> Citizen Angel (mild spoilers for 5.10) -- cjl, 11:27:54 01/16/04 Fri

"I had a good time. I kept within the parameters, and I pushed some buttons, and I shot a lot of low angles. I like low angles."

Aw, isn't that cute? DB's been studying up on his Orson Welles.
Watcher's Council and London -- Ann, 12:42:20 01/16/04 Fri

I am almost finished reading London: The Biography by Peter Ackroyd. It is lengthy, 822 pages, so that is partly the reason for the time passage. I have enjoyed it. What this book gets across rather well, is the historical significance and staying power of different neighbourhoods. What occurred in a specific neighbourhood, a trade, a service or whatever, even up to a thousand years ago, still does. The artistic neighbourhoods, the criminal, the healthcare, the jails, have always been in the same places. Even the butcher areas, used to be where animal sacrifices took place a thousand or two years ago. Heathrow Airport is built "upon a site of an Iron Age camp,... with evidence of a neolithic track or cursus extending two miles on the western side of the runways of the present airport." Amazing stuff. The spirit of the city's neighbourhoods manifest in the nature of the buildings over time. Can't wait to finish.
Given the premise of this book, could it be then that the Watchers Council location in London was the original location where the first slayer got her powers? I have just assumed that it was in London because of the British empire's previous world power. But now I wonder. British history does have neolithic people on the island so I guess this is plausable. Thoughts?

Replies:

[> Historical continuity -- Sophist, 13:00:34 01/16/04 Fri

British history does have neolithic people on the island so I guess this is plausable. Thoughts?

You could make pretty much the same argument for any area of the world. Every part of the world was inhabited by neolithic times; every part but the Americas by 35000 years ago or so.

[> [> *ahem* gingerly steps into the debate with irrelevant facts -- angel's nibblet, 15:16:55 01/17/04 Sat

Every part of the world was inhabited by neolithic times; every part but the Americas by 35000 years ago or so.

Sorry, gotta put a word in for my litle country: I'm pretty sure that historians now agree that the Maori didn't arrive in NZ till about the 1300s, and there is no evidence of any previous peoples living here.

Which is all good cause we don't want the Watcher's Council here anyway :-P

Just the fact that you had 'every' in bold type made me want to jump in, even if it is highly irrelevant :-S

Incidentally, whenever I see the letters WC I think of toilets *chuckle*, I try to suppress the immaturity but it always finds a way out...

[> [> [> Fair enough. -- Sophist, 09:57:16 01/18/04 Sun

We'll exclude Polynesia and Antarctica too.

[> Unlikely -- KdS, 13:27:49 01/16/04 Fri

Given that the First and the Shadowmen were very definitely African (which I've always thought was simply inspired by current theories on Africa as the original home of humanity, rather than intending any of the more disturbing metaphors some people read into it).

But it was interesting that in one of the novels WC headquarters is specifically described as being in Bloomsbury, near the British Museum and its now moved library.

[> [> Africans did the migrating -- Cleanthes, 16:05:02 01/16/04 Fri

The first humans came out of Africa. Because skin coloration in humans adapts to latitude only after many generations, those African migrants who first arrived in this or that high latitude place, like Britain, would have had "African" coloration at first and for a good many generations.

[> [> [> So, that's how it happened -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:54:49 01/16/04 Fri

Now, if we could only figure out why an African swallow carried a coconut to England.

*Sorry for the shameless Monty Python reference*

[> [> [> [> Hehee, dang coconuts! -- Cleanthes, 10:08:45 01/17/04 Sat


[> It's a great book -- RJA, 14:10:43 01/16/04 Fri

Funnily enough, I'm going through a Peter Ackroyd phase at the moment. Some very interesting theories, and some great writing there.

That said, I have to agree with those who say it's unlikely that the original Slayer was from England. She, and the Shadowmen, certainly didn't appear as if they were from the area, and I'm pretty sure proto-bantu was never spoken either :-)

But it's interesting that KdS said that in one of the novels the CoW was meant to be based in Bloomsbury. An area that Ackroyd says as always having had some links with the occult and such matters (which arguably the CoW can said to be, in it's own way). So there is a sort of inevitability that they would centre their efforts there. It doesnt have to be so much that the Slayer was *created* there, but the environment and character of the area would some how give rise to the presence of such an institution.

And given the often irreligious nature of the show, I wouldnt be surprised if the Watchers HQ was in the shadow of St George's, one of several churches in London which have been the focus in recent years of an interest which is definitely not Christian in origin. Ackroyd again.

But enough of my yakking...

[> [> Thanks- The Bloomsbury tie is excellent -- Ann, 14:16:27 01/16/04 Fri

I remembered that the first slayer was African but I couldn't remember if the Shadowmen were. I was wondering if she was a slave (of sorts) having this done to her after being taken away from her homeland.

[> Oh, cool, I wanted to read that! Glad to hear you're enjoying. -- Rob, 09:54:13 01/17/04 Sat


[> [> Re: Oh, cool, I wanted to read that! Glad to hear you're enjoying. -- Ann, 05:11:18 01/18/04 Sun

Yes you should check it out. I thought I would be put off by the structure in that each chapter (ex. trading streets and trading parishes, London as theatre, London's outcasts, Blitz, Night and day, Pestilence and flames etc) is devoted to a specific subject and there are thirty one of them. I didn't see how cohesive this could be to give an overall history of London. But while reading, I realized this style makes such a huge subject accessable. It really does give you a certain sense of London. Because the city is so large and has so many areas, the author used this same structure for the book. I am not sure what someone that lives there would say about his view of London. There is a living "spirit" that Ackroyd describes and gets across to the reader using this chapter as neighbourhood method. By the end of the book, and I still have about 80 pages, you can "feel" London. I think Ackroyd was successful with this book and the style he used.

[> Re: Watcher's Council and London -- angel's nibblet, 15:24:58 01/17/04 Sat

Hmmmm perhaps at some stage the Council had branches in many different countries (which I've always wondered about, given the fact that the slayer could come from anywhere in the world, and England isn't exactly geographically central) and the one in London somehow became the most powerful until it became the WC?

[> [> Ooh! mundusmundi and I batted around this very possibility -- d'Herblay, 21:13:55 01/17/04 Sat

Here and here.

I think that had Joss been possessed of a stronger grasp of history, he definitely would have considered at least one definite rival to the British Watchers' Council: the Catholic Church. But Joss seems to consider all Christians Catholic, even the anti-Papist ones. And I'm off riding my old hobbyhorse again.

[> [> [> Oooooo thank you! Looks like an interesting read, even at first glance :-D -- angel's nibblet, 21:33:59 01/17/04 Sat


[> [> [> Thank you:-)! Much food for thought! *ponders* -- angel's nibblet, 22:05:00 01/17/04 Sat


[> Re: Watcher's Council and London -- dmw, 16:58:16 01/18/04 Sun

Given the premise of this book, could it be then that the Watchers Council location in London was the original location where the first slayer got her powers? I have just assumed that it was in London because of the British empire's previous world power. But now I wonder. British history does have neolithic people on the island so I guess this is plausable. Thoughts?



I'd have to go with others and say that the origins of the First Slayer appear to be African like the origins of humanity itself. However, it is interesting to ponder how the WC got from Africa to London. Perhaps it's always been near the center of civilization, where people are sedentary (hard to imagine vampires surviving well among the steppe nomads) and population densities are highest, migrating northwards to Egypt and then Mesopotomia as the center moved, going off to China until the collapse of the Han dynasty, then fleeing back westwards to Rome until it falls a couple of centuries later.

The comparison with the movements of the Christian church is an interesting one. The collapse of the church in Jerusalem after the Jewish rebellions, its later reassumption by Paulian influenced Christianity, and its fall to the Islamic invaders, gives hints of how the other branches of the WC may have disappeared into history. Rome became the center of the church through default more than anything. Three of the five patriarchates fell to the 7th century onslaught of Islam and the fourth (Constantinople) had to continually fight to defend itself against the Caliphate and its successor states. Perhaps London was a tiny outpost which was isolated enough to survive the tumults of history, or alternately perhaps it was the product of a schism like the Protestant reformation.

Does Willow have a connection to all the slayers since the spell? -- angel, 19:19:09 01/16/04 Fri

In Chosen she could feel them all. Is it only temporaly or permanent?

Replies:

[> Re: Does Willow have a connection to all the slayers since the spell? -- Mighty Mouse, 06:46:20 01/17/04 Sat

Hmmm ... not sure. Not even sure if they'll ever elaborate on it even with whatever guest appearances she makes. But you could say on some level its permanent, technically shes connected to "all things Earth," and with that lil' spell, she could be connected to all things Slayer now too.

[> [> Re: Does Willow have a connection to all the slayers since the spell? -- phoenix, 15:54:07 01/18/04 Sun

I've been wondering about Willow's connection with all the new Slayers too. If she is still feeling that connection it could prove to be rather wearing after the initial high of that nifty spell dissapates. The new Slayers are going to be experiencing many difficulties,both because of their sudden change in state, and because they are human, which tends to entail angst; if Willow is mystically connected to them, does that mean she is also going to be sharing some of that experience? I can't help thinking about what happened to Buffy in Earshot when she became overwhelmed by hearing everyone's thoughts, could Willow be in danger of experiencing something similar on an emotional level, at least for a while?

I doubt they will go down that road in the show if they ever bring Willow back as a guest, but it is certainly something that the end of Chosen left me wondering about. Maybe I'm just too used to Joss torturing his characters, to envisage a happier outcome...maybe imaginary Willow and the gang are off in Europe having a blast, and relatively angst free. Well, they've earned it (-:

[> [> [> Re: Does Willow have a connection to all the slayers since the spell? -- skeeve, 07:22:19 01/20/04 Tue

Willow is at Oxford, learning and having scones

[> And through her and the spell, are all the Slayers now connected? -- angel's nibblet, 19:05:14 01/18/04 Sun

Through the Slayer dreams perhaps?

[> Re: Does Willow have a connection to all the slayers since the spell? -- MaeveRigan, 13:13:10 01/19/04 Mon

I think Willow is now a Guardian, which would mean that she can indeed sense the other slayers, but probably not that she would be feeling their feelings & experiencing unending angst, if the Guardian Buffy encountered was typical.
Daddy can I Kill the bad Vampire? (Spoilers for 5.09 In Harm's Way) -- Dlgood, 07:43:45 01/17/04 Sat

In a world where Vampires can work for corporations and drink bottled pig, what's the role of the slayer?



We've seen a few things. Vampires need to drink blood to survive. Vampires prefer human blood to animal blood, both in terms of taste and nutrition. Most vampires seem to enjoy hunting for humans to eat, many enjoy the violence of the hunt, and quite a few enjoy playing with their food. As a result, Vampires tend to kill a bunch of people, engage in violence, and generally cause a lot of mayhem wherever they go. By human moral standards, this is considered "evil" and "wrong" - and is largely the justification for why one slays them.

So, what's the deal with Vampires that don't kill people or don't engage in violence and mayhem? Such creatures wouldn't pose a clear and present threat to society. Is it just to slay them? Is it just to slay the newly risen?

For vampires, the procreative act is murder. And it is a primary instinct for the soulless vampire to kill humans and drink their blood. One has to question why a vampire wouldn't do so, and if they'd refrain, for how long?

Reason 1: because it's morally wrong to kill and eat humans. To this point, that's been something soulless vampires have been shown to recognize that humans feel, but do not actually feel themselves.

Reason 2: because it's unwise to kill and eat humans: Soulless Spike refrains from killing and eating humans because he has something to gain. He doesn't kill the cop because he wants Buffy to help him fight Angelus. He doesn't feed on disaster victims because Buffy would disapprove, and he seeks her approval.

Harmony doesn't drink human blood because Angel would kill her. And because she prefers the priviliges provided by W&H to the joy of the hunt. (Which she's not entirely competent at.)

In neither cases, are these soulless vampires shown to be trustworthy. Spike has a chip in his head preventing him from violence against humans. Harmony works under the daily threat of death for drinking human blood. If she could retain the benefits of W&H and still drink human blood, there is no reason to believe Harmony wouldn't follow her instincts. Spike, when he thought his chip was failing, tried to drink a human woman. He had to psyche himself up to do so, but at no point did he see killing her (or his past murders) as "morally" wrong. Ultimately, such a scenario of cooperation requires constant enforcement and external pressure on the vampire to conform to a human morality, as without the soul the Vampire seems to lack an internalized moral compass. Should the slayer spare such a vampire, she would be responsible for some not-unexpected future crimes.

So there's a dilemma. The soulless vampire might not always pose a clear and present threat to humanity. In many cases, they may have interests which are of more value to them than killing and feeding from humans. The soulless vampire might, on occasion, prove a useful contributor to society. So there's less inherent imperative to kill all vampires indiscriminately. But there's also still little ground to trust them implicitly.

What is the modern slayer to do? IMHO, the chief mission of the slayer is not to kill demons - it's to protect the public. Sometimes, slaying a demon would not support the mission of protecting the public. Buffy didn't kill Whistler or Clem. Buffy Summers didn't kill Werewolf Oz - but she also didn't let him run wild either. Oz spent his days locked in a cage, and under supervision for first year. Buffy's treatment of Spike in "Becoming" was not unlike a DA granting immunity to one criminal for turning "State's Evidence" on another. The difference between the werewolf and the vampire, is just one of details - how much trust the slayer should have, and how to implement that trust or lack thereof.

Will that vampire willingly enter the cage? How much supervision is necessary? How much "tolerance" should the slayer extend? The sad fact is, given the number of vampires and the number of slayers, the slayer's job is very hard and puts a lot of strain on them for judgement. A slayer can't supervise and spare every vampire.
Is it morally acceptable to stake a rising vampire? Probably. Is it morally acceptable to slay a vampire on the spot if it attacks a human? Almost certainly. Is it morally acceptable to slay a vampire on the spot, if like Harmony, she's trying to fit within human law? I don't think it is.

But at the same token, I don't think it's morally acceptable for the slayer to let a Vampire walk unsupervised. Spike had a chip. Harmony has daily tests. From the slayer's perspective, it's still on the soulless Vampire to justify the value of their continued existence, given what is still known about their biological drives. Some of them can do so.

As shown on boht BtVS and AtS, working with the Soulless vampire over an extended period of time has heavy requirements. The B-Mod chip fired in Spike's head everytime he intended violence and functioned for over three years. Harmony is tested daily on pain of death. Even after lengthy periods of time, there is no indication that either soulless Harmony or soulless Spike thought killing a human was "wrong" - only that it was "unwise. The equilibrium points for successful Vampire-Human interaction are probably still only Souled Vampire or Dusted Vampire. The slayer's job, is not simply to drive toward those equilibrium points, but to protect and serve the public best.

In the beginning, Buffy was taught that vampires and demons were evil monsters, and that she was supposed to slay them all. Angel being the first case - and even then she defended him before she knew of the soul not simply because of her emotional ties, but on of practical grounds as well (he's helping). Clearly, "slay every demon" was an oversimplification. Over time, Buffy (and Kendra and Faith) learned to spare some and slay others. The future of the Vampire Slayer, lies in determining how to make such judgements - ideally cultivating a body of knowledges and best practices for future slayers to learn from. Not every slayer will have perfect judgement, and such a body of intellectual capital could prove invaluable. It seems to me, the future of Slaying is in going away from the old "Vigilante Hero" archetype and moving closer to the "Military-Police" archetype. I don't think that's a bad thing, or a canon destroying thing at all.

But then, I also don't think "In Harm's Way" tells us anything about soulless vampires and demons we didn't already know in "Becoming".

Replies:

[> I'd like to read other folk's opinions on this (possible ep analysis quotage involved!) -- Masquerade, 15:16:13 01/18/04 Sun

Angel and company have instituted a "zero-tolerance" policy against killing/maiming at Wolfram and Hart. We see a demon employee get killed outright for violating this. Is this right? Should he be given a chance to change (if he can? This ep shows Harmony changing her ways). What happens to human employees who don't follow this policy? Does the policy apply to killing/maiming demons, or just humans?

And what does this say about the good guy's practice of killing (non-employee) soulless demons outright? And of letting other arguably evil demons and humans walk freely through the streets?

[> [> This is made more complicated since demons' moral status has never fully been dealt with on Angel -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:48:22 01/18/04 Sun

On "Angel", unlike on "Buffy", we've seen a large number of more or less good demons. Sadly, the full ramifications of this have never been fully explored.

Consider this: if a demon is evil and kills people, Angel and company kill it, flat out. However, if a demon is good and doesn't kill people, it's spared. That's all well and good. However, except in cases of self-defense, the characters still refrain from killing humans, good or evil. Granted, some more murky killings do occur, but we're still generally expected to see killing evil humans as wrong. This leaves us with a conundrum: if demons can explore the full moral spectrum just like humans, why are evil demons subject to death but evil humans aren't? Neither the writers nor the characters have ever dealt with this issue.

So, what's the answer? Well, I'd suggest not thinking about it, but this is a forum for people who naturally think to much. So you'd better just hope that some day ME deals with this.

[> [> Re: I'd like to read other folk's opinions on this (possible ep analysis quotage involved!) -- Corwin of Amber, 20:03:23 01/18/04 Sun

Angel and company have instituted a "zero-tolerance" policy against killing/maiming at Wolfram and Hart. We see a demon employee get killed outright for violating this. Is this right?

A curious thing about the Buffyverse/Angelverse is that even though knowledge of the existance of rapacious demons/vampires seems pretty general (a police detective gives Angel the info on the body found in Harmony's trash, in a manner that suggests this happens all the time) the society doesn't seem to have any means of dealing with it other than ignoring it or going medieval on the perpetrator. All in all, most people seem to ignore it, but a few seem to take on a role as pseudo-slayers. Gunn's gang, and Justine are just two examples. I would have loved to have seen some demons in the prison yard where Faith was shown last year...it would indicate that society had a means of dealing with such things in other than ignore it/exterminate it terms.

Should he be given a chance to change (if he can? This ep shows Harmony changing her ways).

He was already given a chance to change. How many virgins does he get to dismember?
And I'm not sure if Harmony has "changed her ways", because her fear of Angel decapitating her was coloring all her actions. If she has a chance to kill someone, and knows she has a reasonable chance of getting away with it...and decides not to do it...that's evidence of change.

What happens to human employees who don't follow this policy? Does the policy apply to killing/maiming demons, or just humans?

Human enemies could turn out to be the biggest threat this season, because you can't treat them like soulless demons, at least not in a morally consistant universe. To an extent, you can't "take the gloves off" with human evil, because you have to at least give them a chance to change.

Of course, that's one of the most compelling arguments against the death penalty - it cuts the condemned off from any chance at redemption.

[> [> Law & Society -- Dlgood, 21:13:59 01/18/04 Sun

And what does this say about the good guy's practice of killing (non-employee) soulless demons outright? And of letting other arguably evil demons and humans walk freely through the streets?

In theory, one of the differences seems to be that Human Society is self-policing. There are laws in place, and institutions designed to keep the peace. Demon Society, such as it is, seems to largely lack such institutions or self-regulation as far as we've seen. In a sense, it's more like an outlaw town - kill or be killed - with the exceptions of Demons that throw themselves on the mercy of Supernatural warriors like Angel or the Slayer.

But this is particularly interesting in S5, since at W&H, they are largely in the business of getting arguably evil humans acquitted of crimes. Apparently, W&H now owns the police, so one presumes they are now actually undermining the institutions of law in human society. So, it's really muddled to me.

[> [> The metaphysics of Harmony -- skeeve, 12:08:02 01/19/04 Mon

I think what we're seeing with Harmony is what we saw with Spike and, to a more extreme degree, Darla.

"I have to try harder, it's not like I have a soul."

I think Harmony was wrong, she does have a soul.
More precisely, she has small parts of several souls.
The souls of the humans she hangs out with affect her the same way that Conner's soul affected Darla.
Darla was much closer, so the effect was much greater.
The same thing happened to Spike hanging out with the Scoobies.
It got to the point that he wanted his own soul.

Harmony wasn't refering to not biting humans.
She was refering to doing good generally.
She wasn't worried about being alone with a bitable human.
Until she was framed, she wasn't having any problem with the zero-tolerance policy.

There are two reasons that we don't see more of this.
Most vampires don't hang with humans.
Most of the humans that would hang with vampires have souls that wouldn't change vampire behavior much.

[> [> Harmony -- Jean-Marc Labasitie, 17:04:37 01/21/04 Wed

I think that the entire concept of Harmony being the way she is has to do with the inevitable inclination of a threat of possible death. She knows that, even though she may be a vampire, she isnt really good at doing the whole "grr, arrg" thing. With that in mind, she knows that she could possible die out in the real world. She shows a real desire for belonging (much like her human personality before graduation)and also shows the gratitude and respect (or lack, thereof) that comes with being normal. In Harm's Way, we see Harmony as the carefree human she once was, with the new vampire personality taken over.

[> Angel's reality (Spoilers for 5.09 In Harm's Way) -- Rufus, 01:34:47 01/19/04 Mon

Hard to compare Buffy and Angel when it comes to the new reality that Angel has created for himself. He chose to make a deal with Wolfram and Hart (Faustian) so his son would no longer have the knowledge of he or his world. This deal also meant that the memories of everyone to do with Connor have been sliced and diced with some memories gone and some configured a bit differently. Angel is also currently in the Belly of the Beast aka the EVIL lawfirm of Wolfram and Hart. Things are way more complicated for Angel than if and when he can kill other vampires. Angel now is part of the institution that he once fought to destroy, he is a CEO, president in charge of the LA branch of W&H. As soon as Angel took that deal for the sake of Connor he started making compromises that have begun to weigh heavy on him. He can no longer point a finger at the EVIL lawfirm and say they are the cause of suffering, he now is part of that lawfirm and his behavior is even more hands on than Holland Manners. Angel has looked into the abyss and is beginning to take on some of the darker qualities of his former rivals. So it doesn't look like I'm unsympathetic to Angel I will point out that he has attempted to change the way the company does business but is that change in any way permanent? If he goes won't there be just a new face to shoot for a new publicity vid?

Think of Angel as a shepherd who leads a herd of "employee's" or sheep, they may change what they do to please Angel and to keep alive but if he goes how long will it be before they go back to evil under the leadership of a new shepherd who may not care much about using power for good? Oh yeah notice that it was said that power would be used for good, the word evil never mentioned. Angel has created a new reality for himself with the choice to take the free will away from his son (I can understand his instinct to ease Connors pain) and get into bed with Wolfram and Hart. I wonder how long it will take for Angel to reject the creature comforts of Wolfram and Hart, if ever? As for comparing him with Buffy and her slaying of vampires, when she sells out and gets paid for what she does we'll talk.....;)

[> Killing Humans & Vampires -- Claudia, 10:03:16 01/20/04 Tue

Reading the above post made me wonder . . . why is it morally wrong for a vampire or a demon to kill a human, yet morally right for a human to kill a vampire fledgling, as he or she is rising from grave?

[> [> Several reasons -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:24:19 01/20/04 Tue

First, vampires are evil, not just according to tradition, but by their own admission. Angelus, Holden Webster, Spike, and Harmony have, at some point or another, openly identified themselves as being evil.

Second, vampires, unless given a strong incentive not to, will kill people. As such, fledgling vampires (due to their intention of causing death) are guilty of starting the conflict, and humans killing vampires is a response.

Third, the writers took many measures to show killing vampires as not being murder (musical score during a vamp's death, the turning to dust effect, their "true" face, the general lack of grief shown by their fellow vamps, as well as the vampires' own casual attitude to their own deaths).

Fourth, if you believe killing fledgling vampires is murder, then "Buffy" sends a very poor moral message, so it's best to not believe so.

[> [> [> Re: Several reasons -- Claudia, 13:39:41 01/20/04 Tue

[First, vampires are evil, not just according to tradition, but by their own admission. Angelus, Holden Webster, Spike, and Harmony have, at some point or another, openly identified themselves as being evil.]

Isn't this simply objectifying a being as "the Other"? You seem to be accepting the one-dimensional explanation of BtVS Season 1. I thought that later seasons, the show AtS, and perhaps the characters of both Spike and Harmony proved that this answer isn't quite so simple.

[Fourth, if you believe killing fledgling vampires is murder, then "Buffy" sends a very poor moral message, so it's best to not believe so.]

Why is it not the best? According to whom? Maybe killing a fledgling vampire is murer. Why should a supernaturally powerful human like Willow be spared, and not a fledgling vampire? Because Willow has the capacity for redemption? What does that say about vampires like Spike and Harmony, who have tried to redeemed themselves (for whatever selfless or selfish reasons), while in a souless state?

[> [> [> [> Re: Several reasons -- LittleBit, 14:15:44 01/20/04 Tue

We have seen at least two fledgling vampires who have had words, and in one case a lengthy conversation immediately upon rising. As the two that come easily to mind are from S7, I feel confident in believing that they do not represent the "one-dimensional" S1.

In "Lessons" the vampire at the beginning is stuck and can't get out. He asks for help, and Buffy provides it. His first action? He tries to kill Dawn.

The other is Holden Webster. He and Buffy have a long conversation, ranging from hey-remember-me to deep psychological discussion. Yet during it Holden never lost sight of the fact that he and Buffy would be fighting, and was fairly confident of his chances of winning.

So, a vampire rising from the grave is an immediate danger. Something we've seen many times without words to 'humanize' them, as it did with Webs. As soon as the fledgling sees 'food' the instinct is there to kill it and feed.

[> [> [> [> Re: Several reasons -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:28:28 01/20/04 Tue

1: It's not that vampires are "Other" (and I'm really beginning to hate that word). It's that popular opinion and centuries of lore say vampires are evil, and the vampires themselves have never really tried to say that they're not. Very few humans would identify themselves as evil, and the ones that do are probably insane, feel inadequate, want to rebel, or just have certain urges (such as sadism) that they also happen to view as evil. It is not in human nature to pursue that which we believe to be wrong, whereas several vampires have clearly stated just such intentions.

4: What I meant by this statement was that, if killing fledglings is murder, than Buffy is a show which advocates murdering certain people. Unless you believe murdering certain people is ethical, or if you just enjoy watching shows you really disagree with, it probably decreases enjoyment of the show to view Buffy's slayings as murder. As such, it is in your own best interest to abandon your current viewpoint, as it will probably allow you to find Buffy more entertaining. Granted, we can't always change what we believe, but it's worth a shot.

[> [> [> [> Re: Several reasons (minor spoilers AtS Season 5.3-9) -- Pip, 16:27:41 01/20/04 Tue

I think that the Buffyverse uses 'demon' and 'vampire' as different metaphors. Demons seem to represent the amoral, or those whose cultures hold different moral standards. Like humans, they might be evil. But they also might be good by their own standards. (Shades of Halfrek's "We prefer Justice Demons").

So demons are probably the area where we see the dangers of objectification as 'Other'. Instead of just saying that all demons are bad, Angel and Co. have to decide whether each tribe/type of demon has standards that can be lived with. Or in the case of sacrificing virgins, not lived with.


Vampires do seem to represent some kind of decision to be someone who does evil. A very nearly irrevocable decision. Not necessarily a planned decision, though. The four main Vampire characters represent a cold calculating decision that evil is more profitable (Darla), a gradual slide into evil (Liam), the one bad decision that ruins your entire life (William) and being deliberately corrupted by someone else (Dru).

It's probably significant that Dru, who had the least level of choice, is insane.

'Becoming a vampire and losing your soul' can be seen as some kind of line that has been well and truly crossed. As long as you still have your soul (like Willow, or even Ethan Rayne), you haven't quite crossed it.

The ambiguity appears because the decision to be someone who does evil things isn't completely irrevocable. It is, with extreme difficulty, possible to make your way back. But Angelus, Darla and William all piled up an awful lot of corpses before they regained their souls (or in Darla's case, shared Connor's soul).

The one person who is in the best position to judge this is Spike, who regained his soul largely by his own efforts. His decision in Season 7 is loud and clear - he asks Buffy to kill him before he can be used to hurt someone. In 'Unleashed' he seems to make exactly the same decision [I'm in the UK, so I'm still working on transcripts and screen shots there] about Nina. It's best for everyone if you kill baby monsters. Before they do something they can never undo.

And so Buffy can stake the fledgling vampire without qualms. They're evil,at some level they chose to be evil, and if she doesn't, evil actions will follow.

[> [> [> [> [> Always seen it from the predator/prey viewpoint -- VR, 20:12:09 01/20/04 Tue

Vamps are evil cause they stalk and feed and kill humans. Humans fight back by killing them before they kill humans. Preemptive measure absolving the conscience of having the guilt for some of killing someone. Throw in the general likes of vamps (torture, rape. killing just to kill, etc.) and the absolution gets stronger.

It's very nice and very simple. Lots of people like simple.

I just keep going back to 'if cows had a physical structure that would let them be bipedal, having grasping hands, could speak and were smart, like humans'. I can see them doing something similar.

And it does keep going back to the prey on stances of morality, like in human/vamp relationships. Both humans and vamps have their places in life. Their own general purposes. Humans just think they've gotten screwed over in the human/vamp relationship and prefer to be more involved in the direction of their fate and if that means staking some vamps right after they get out of their coffins is gonna help, they'll all be for it. Problem for the humans is the vamps fell the same way. They want more control over their destinies and don't want them dictated by humans, so they fight back.

Often the 'sense of morality' many take is from the prey's perspective. Is it right for the predators to do what they do to their prey? What should the prey do when they're attacked? If they do what the predators do, are they no better than the predators?

Of course they're not any better. Many prey just have the disillusionment that they are naturally better than the predator. But, often, predators have this same veil over their eyes, too.

[> [> [> [> [> [> But is vamp/human straightforward predator/prey? -- Pip, 09:53:41 01/21/04 Wed

Well, many existing predators will kill prey for the sheer fun of it (cats, mink, foxes). And humans often kill their prey species for fun.

But I don't think the vampire/human relationship is quite straightforward predator/prey.

Vamps aren't really a separate species. Two vampires will only produce offspring in the most exceptional of circumstances (god-like intervention). Vampire 'offspring' are produced from humans. So vamps are more predatory parasites. Not only do they prey off humans, they can't reproduce without humans. Further, they're not harmlessly symbiotic - vampire survival/reproduction requires human death.

Real world parasites that cause death generally are treated as 'kill on detection'.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But is vamp/human straightforward predator/prey? -- Claudia, 11:23:17 01/21/04 Wed

[So vamps are more predatory parasites. Not only do they prey off humans, they can't reproduce without humans. Further, they're not harmlessly symbiotic - vampire survival/reproduction requires human death.]

But humans prey off other animals and plant life. To them, we might as well be considered parasites. Shouldn't they have the ability and opportunity to kill us out of self-preservation?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Vamps aren't a different species from humans, but Spike may have changed the rules anyway -- Pip, 14:44:21 01/21/04 Wed

No, my point above was that vamps cannot be considered a separate species.

Every species upon the earth feeds on something else's death. Everything - even plants are dependent on sunlight, which is derived from the long slow death of our sun.

The point is that each species preys (the majority of the time) on other species. And trust me on this - animals of other species will most certainly try and kill a human out of self-preservation if they figure out that the human is a danger to them. But vamps in the Buffyverse are not part of this normal predator/prey relationship because they are not a different species from their prey.

Vampires reproduce with humans. Therefore they are part of the human species. Further, they can't reproduce with another vampire - so clearly vampires are not a subspecies. They're humans who have a demon animating them instead of a soul.

In the Buffyverse, people become vampires by drinking their sire's blood. Even poor old Harmony did make some kind of choice to become a vampire, because while she was attacked without warning, she did drink from her sire. So a Buffyverse vampire is someone who has made a choice (possibly impromptu) to become a type of human who survives by killing other humans. And after they've made that choice, they can't change back. So Buffy wanders around graveyards at night with a stake, before these humans who've decided they'd rather kill other people than die themselves start racking up their corpse quota.


Going back to the original thread - it may not have been just Buffy who changed the rules by the end of Season 7, when she created lots of Slayers. Until Spike, vampires were not redeemable. Angel had his soul planted on him as a curse. His soul is not supposed to redeem him, it's supposed to make him suffer. Spike's changed the rules by regaining his soul himself.

It depends which direction ME want to travel in. If Spike has genuinely changed the rules (and currently doesn't understand the larger significance of what he did) then the 'vampires trying to be not-evil' should have started to appear after about Sept 2003. This would be when news might have started to spread that there was a vampire who'd got his own soul back and it is possible for a vampire to be 'not-evil' by their own efforts. We can't really count vampires being employed by the old Wolfram and Hart, btw, as they were an evil law firm who happily employed evil creatures.

If so, the Slayers won't yet realise that the rules have changed.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Predator/prey and species and stuff. -- VR, 18:19:31 01/21/04 Wed

From merriam-webster online

Predator:

1 : one that preys, destroys, or devours
2 : an animal that lives by predation

Prey:

1 archaic : SPOIL, BOOTY
2 a : an animal taken by a predator as food b : one that is helpless or unable to resist attack : VICTIM
3 : the act or habit of preying

Animal:

1 : any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation
2 a : one of the lower animals as distinguished from human beings b : MAMMAL; broadly : VERTEBRATE
3 : a human being considered chiefly as physical or nonrational; also : this nature
4 : a person with a particular interest or aptitude
5 : MATTER, THING ; also : CREATURE 1c


Predator/prey, while can be thought of, as being applied to consumption of nutrients to continue living, or, at least, continuing to function at optimal levels, isn't limited to that.

Vamps may prey on humans and lower mammals for food, but psychlogical "nurishment" for vamps can be derived from inflicting pain and suffering on any species.

Whichever the type of being, they're gonna get their needs met somehow.

The definition of a species is open for much debate.

The question, if people choose to become vamps isn't entirely clear cut. Some may, like Ford. Others may not and are forced to drink, like Darla after her resurrection.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Preying for fun -- auroramama, 18:27:36 01/22/04 Thu

I have to speak up for animals that appear to kill for sport. They hunt and sometimes kill for reasons other than food, and they certainly seem to enjoy it - it is a kind of play for them. But to me there's a huge difference between a cat tossing a mouse in the air and a vampire playing with a victim. As far as I know, there's no evidence that the cat is getting pleasure from knowledge of the mouse's suffering. This is no comfort for the mouse, but it makes a difference to the metaphor. Cats are willing to play with bits of string, which don't experience fear or pain. They play-hunt and practice for the real thing and keep in shape; they exercise in ways that they're designed to find pleasurable. They don't cause pain for the sake of causing pain.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Except, in this case, there's nothing requiring vampires to kill people -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:00:26 01/21/04 Wed

Vampires need blood to live; it doesn't have to be human blood. They could just as easily kill pigs or cows, beings who don't seem to have much in the way of sense of self.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, however... -- VR, 18:31:36 01/21/04 Wed

Why would they make it harder on themselves? When living in suburban and urban areas, you don't come across that many pigs or cows. There are many more humans around to easily find food in better quality and quantity.

[> [> [> [> [> What About Humans? -- Claudia, 11:15:14 01/21/04 Wed

[It's best for everyone if you kill baby monsters. Before they do something they can never undo.

And so Buffy can stake the fledgling vampire without qualms. They're evil,at some level they chose to be evil, and if she doesn't, evil actions will follow.]

What about humans? We also have evil within us. And have the ability to commit acts just as horrendous as those committed by vampires and demons. Should the same be done to potentially evil humans? Kill potential monsters like Warren Mears, Ethane Rayne, Andrew, Gio, the human lawyers at Wolfram & Hart, . . . and Willow, while they are still young?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thing is, humans might go on to kill people; vampires will -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:42:28 01/21/04 Wed

The only circumstances in which a vampire will never kill people are if they're given reason not to (see Spike and Harmony), if they're completely unsuccessful in their murder attempts, or if they're killed before they have a chance.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thing is, humans might go on to kill people; vampires will -- Claudia, 14:34:41 01/21/04 Wed

[The only circumstances in which a vampire will never kill people are if they're given reason not to (see Spike and Harmony), if they're completely unsuccessful in their murder attempts, or if they're killed before they have a chance.]

Sounds like a human.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I can only speak for myself -- RJA, 14:48:51 01/21/04 Wed

But the reason I have never killed anyone is not because I have been given a reason not to kill, but that I have never been given a reason to kill. Or maybe that's too simple and glib.

However, if humans were just like vampires, then newborn babies would make for the midwife's throat within minutes. Rather than years, if ever, which is how real life tends to be more like.

I think that if children were such a danger, and on the whole likely to kill others the world may be very different. But its not. Humans on the whole tend not to kill each other. It's by no means a given. With vampires, we're coming from the opposite angle. Their first impulse is to kill. Ours isnt.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What About Humans? -- Corwin of Amber, 19:35:16 01/21/04 Wed

And here's where we part ways, philosophically. Humans are not born evil. They LEARN evil. If you kick a dog often enough, it gets mean, and eventually you have to put it down. Whereas vampires were never born - they are a parasite upon the dead, an interloper animating a body that isn't theirs. They are an abomination, which is the fundamental reason why it's considered good to kill them. It's not murder to kill a vampire - you are simply returning that stolen body to the dust from which it is made.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Kill All Humans! -- Bender the Robot, 12:03:00 01/22/04 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What About Humans? -- Claudia, 13:43:49 01/22/04 Thu

[And here's where we part ways, philosophically. Humans are not born evil. They LEARN evil.]

How do we know that vampires and demons are not the same? What? Just because ME said so? Isn't AtS's changing portrayal of vampires and other demons a hint that maybe they are not inherently evil, any more than humans? Did you know that Wiccans generally believe that beings are not inherently evil? Which is probably why they don't believe in the Devil, etc.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What About Humans? -- Corwin of Amber, 16:25:01 01/22/04 Thu

Isn't AtS's changing portrayal of vampires and other demons a hint that maybe they are not inherently evil, any more than humans?

In the case of vampires - no. We haven't seen any evidence that vampires are not inherently evil, just that they can adapt to changing circumstances, when their survival is at stake. And that doesn't change their status as abominations, in my mind. I just feel a body should not be walking around after death. :)

Did you know that Wiccans generally believe that beings are not inherently evil? Which is probably why they don't believe in the Devil, etc.

No, I didn't know that, thank you for teaching me something.
As for the devil...well they don't believe in the Judaeo-Christian God, either, so yes, I kind of assumed they don't believe in the devil.
Wes, Lilah and 'Blood Money' -- Felicia, 15:10:35 01/17/04 Sat

I just re-watched AtS Season 2's "Blood Money" and was amused by a scene in which Lilah, Lindsey MacDonald, and the employees and guests of Wolfram & Hart were watching a video tape that Angel had provided of Cordelia badly practicing her acting and Wesley doing a hilarious impersonation of James Bond.

I cannot help but wonder if Lilah had ever mentioned Wes's bad performance during their 6-7 month affair, nearly two years later.
Comments on the Wolfram & Hart publicity video.....spoilers for AtS 5.9 Harm's Way -- Rufus, 23:38:03 01/17/04 Sat

Teaser: Wolfram and Hart Publicity Short

Narrator: Welcome to the Los Angeles branch of Wolfram and Hart, the oldest and most powerful lawfirm in the city.

Founded in 1791 on ground deconsecrated by the blood of mass-murderer Mathias Pavayne. Wolfram and Hart has put roots down in this glamerous city that grow deep, and branches that reach right into the heart of every major corporation including; Yoyodyne (Buckaroo Banzi), Wayland Yutani (Alien), and Newscorp (Rupert Murdock and Fox). That Captain of Industry, we own his soul. That fabulous Movie Queen, she owes us her first born.

But times change and Wolfram and Hart is changing right along with them. Under our new CEO, Angel, we're focusing less on power and more on using that power for good.

We have a Zero Tolerance policy for killing, and that includes you vampires (cut to vampire with red circle with line through it covering his face)....that better be pigs blood mister (shot of man who could be just as easily be drinking coffee as blood). Yes, our esteemed President has made it clear this is a new company for the new millenium, and he wants to work with you.

Angel: If you don't kill, we won't kill you. (behind Angel are a sword and horn)

Narrator: That's right, no more employee sacrifices. At Wolfram and Hart, you're part of a family now. You can work your way up the ladder, and there'll always be a hand to help you up. Every life and unlife is as important t our new management as their own.

So, go ahead, relax and enjoy your new Wolfram and Hart family....because at our firm everyone matters, YOU matter, Buddy...you're going places.


I found that Publicity short to be the thing that I compared the rest of the episode with. It appears that Wolfram and Hart have made some cosmetic changes but that idea of branches 'growing' into the 'heart' sounds a bit like Holland Manners speaking to Angel about evil being in everyone's heart, and that the reason Wolfram and Hart will continue on. Have to wonder if ground can be reconsecrated?

Employee sacrifices may have ended but there seems to be as much or more blood flowing from the employee's of Wolfram and Hart...could it be a transition between how the power is used? Then there is working together, it's clear that by the way Harmony is ignored and discounted that the "working together" comment is debateable. Also debateable is the idea of Security of Tenure, the only thing that has changed for the average employee is why they will be terminated as we see next with the exchange between Harmony, Eli, and then Angel and Gunn.


Harmony: Eli, hi! (it's clear she knows him and he doesn't remember her)

Eli: Hey, hey, hey.....you! I just got called up for a meeting with your boss man.

Harmony: Really? I didn't.....

Eli: Don't want to count my hatchlings, but I think the honchos are finally starting to recognize my work in accounting.

Harmony: Hey! Good for you.

Gunn: Eli - come on in.

Eli: Wish me luck kiddo.

Harmony notices that Angel has left his #1 Boss mug on her desk and goes to give it to him. As she walks into the room she see's Angel slice off Eli's head in a way that a boss would practise a golf swing.

Harmony: Angel....you forgot your....(gasp)

Angel: Get that cleaned up would you?


Harmony, Gunn, and Angel...

Harm: I just, I don't get it. Why'd you kill Eli?

Angel: Didn't much like what he was doing in his off hours.

Harm: Well, that's not right. What Eli did on his own time....

Gunn: Is dismember virgins...

Harm: Oh.....Well a person's religious beliefs is no cause...

Gunn: He did it for his own amusement.

Harmony: Oh....well, okay....still couldn't you have given him a stern warning or something first?

Angel: Called a Zero Tolerance Policy not a "maybe this once" policy. Nobody in this office gets away with murder, not anyone.

Lorne: Mmmmm let me guess, position just opened up in accounting.

Gunn: Hardest part of the job...terminating an employee.

Spike: Once again keeping Corporate America safe from evil.

Funny that Harmony would be arguing moral relativism from the soulless perspective with Angel and Gunn who are more into moral absolutism which of course leading back to the Free Will argument with Jasmine. This brings to mind other kind of absolutism that holds that order can only be maintained by one absolute ruler. Jasmine also argued the idea of absolutism from the position of a Power (that be) saying that there are no absolutes while in a position of absolute power. Now it's Angel who is the absolute ruler/CEO who thinks in moral absolutes, or does he? I don't think it's looking good when you have him in that Publicity video with a sword and horn behind him.

Just for the fun of it...the symbolic meaining of the Sword and Horn...

From Herders dictionary of symbols.....

Horn: Because of its important function in the animal kingdom, it is a symbol of strength and power in the physical and spiritual senses. Consequently Dionysus, Alexander the Great, and Moses are often depicted with horns (although much epictions probably stem from an error in translation, namely, the consufion of facies coronata (haloed) and corunuta (horned).

- Horns were used by many peoples as AMULETS.

- The sacrificial altar of the Israelites bore horns pointing in the four cardinal directions as sign fo the omnipotence of God.

- The horn having a shape similar to the moon sickle is associated with lunar symbolism.

- Horned animals are often considered fertility symbols; the horn itself is a phalic symbol.

- In a negative sense, the symbolic significance of the horn appears in many depictions of the horned Devil.

- Jung referred to the ambivalent symbolic significance of horns. Because of their form and power, they embody the masculine, active principle; because of their lyrelike, open form, however, they also represent the feminine, receptive principle. Horns therefore may symbolize spiritual balance and maturity.

- The horn of plenty, which is the attribute of Fortuna or of the personification of autumn, is a symbol of the superabundance of good fortune and of rich harvest; originally it was thought to be the horn of the GOAT Amalthea or of the river god Achelous, whose horn Heracles had broken off in battle.


Sword: It is often a symbol of military virtues, especially of manly strength and bravery; thus it also occurs as a symbol of power and the Sun (with reference to the active, masculine principle as well to the sun's flashing, swordlike rays.) In a negative sense, it symbolizes the horrors of war; many war and storm gods have the sword as their attribute. It is sometimes also a phallic symbol.

- As sharp, cutting instrument, it is a symbol of decision, separation into good and evil, and justice; in many representations fo the Day of Judgement a sword, often, double-edged, comes from Christ's MOUTH.

- According to the medieval two-swords theory, which formulated the ecclesiastical (primacy of church over state) and the imperial (equality of both church and state) conceptions of power, one sword symbolized the mundane and the other sword the spiritual power.

- The flaming sword that drives ADAM and EVE out of paradise symbolizes both power and justice.

- The sword can also be regarded as a symbol of LIGHTNING, as in Japan and India (where the sword of the Vedic sacrificial priest is called the "lighting of Indra").

A sword in its scabbard symbolizes the cardinal virtue of modernation or prudence (see Prudentia).


Could we get anymore phallic than the symbol of the horn and sword? Wolfram and Hart may be selling a family, warm and fuzzy environment but the truth is the dry&carpet cleaners are still getting rich off the joint. When to worry would be if Angel gets to be a bit too comfortable in his position of power that he forgets the reason he took the job in the first place. Can one use evil power to do good or is that power only going to taint anyone who wields it?

Replies:

[> Re: Comments on the Wolfram & Hart publicity video.....spoilers for AtS 5.9 Harm's Way -- skpe, 07:38:36 01/18/04 Sun

I wonder why W&H would have picked LA for an office in 1791.
LA was then only 10 years old, the history book say "Under the orders of King Carlos III of Spain, a 'pueblo' was founded in 1781 to grow food for the soldiers The pueblos were inhabited for the most part by poor settlers from Mexico whom the Spanish had induced to go to the California region." what would a law office do in a backwater ranch like this

[> [> Who says... -- drivebyeposter, 07:42:58 01/18/04 Sun

They had to start out as a law firm? Wells Fargo used to be a stagecoach operation. From what I understand, it was much later they became the bank they are now.

DBP

[> [> [> Re: Who says... -- skpe, 08:21:18 01/18/04 Sun

It seems kind of a jump from chicken ranching to law,(but then maybe not)

[> [> [> [> Relevant if you think about how things worked under Spanish rule.... -- Briar Rose, 16:41:20 01/19/04 Mon

Wolfram and Heart were also active in Pylea as we saw in the "Plat - zer....." eps. Pylea certainly wasn't a center of commerce as we think of it now either.

But Wolfram and Heart are more than simply legal services, they also offer convenient Pacts With The Deamons and Blood Sacrific Rituals For Success! When you have an oppressed and tortured citizenry that would love to be able to get out of the servitude that they have been tricked/forced into, you have a public ripe for WH services outside of trials and torts.

ANd since Wolfram and Heart have nothing against working both sides of the fence? I'm sure that many of the Spaniards took advantage of a ritual or two to keep that reigning power and control over the slaves they had imported to cultivate the area.

Even trials and torts would be needed as far as criminal charges brought against citizens that were being prosecuted for crimes against the Spanish Troops....

I'm sure that WH had plenty of ops to use their Universal Connections as early as the founding days of Los Angeles, CA.

[> [> Prophecy, investment, and proximity to the Hellmouth -- Ray, 11:16:10 01/18/04 Sun

Maybe Wolfram and Hart picked a random town close, but not directly on, the Hellmouth and then helped it develop into a major city.

[> [> [> Re: Prophecy, investment, and proximity to the Hellmouth -- Mighty Mouse, 20:01:52 01/18/04 Sun

I'd have to agree. Similar to how the Mayor had built Sunnydale on the basis that it was a Hellmouth, and a good place to gather the forces of evil, no doubt Wolfram & Hart chose to "invest" in Los Angeles as it may be a source of power in one fashion or another (one must assume that the Senior Partners were not always Lawyers, and that this is merely Wolfram & Hart's modern incarnation) for them.

[> From a purely PR perspective: spoilers for AtS 5.9 Harm's Way -- Ann, 08:15:44 01/18/04 Sun

Most companies when making a commercial want to make their CEO look good. W&H value their reputation and their historical strength. If they are using Angel and he is so bad in the commerical and he comes across so bumbling, it could mean that they are sending a signal to all the demons and clients not to worry about the content of the video. The phallic symbols are the real strength behind the CEO. Business as usual and they are "allowing" this video to be made just like they are "allowing" Angel to be CEO.

Or

W&H realize they have lost complete control and are allowing the video to be made while they regroup. Lose one battle while they still will win the war. Take a loss and move on. I wonder which it will turn out to be.

[> [> Re: From a purely PR perspective: spoilers for AtS 5.9 Harm's Way -- Rufus, 18:24:35 01/18/04 Sun

Or....no matter how Angel looks the 'firm' will go on, after all there will always be evil in the hearts of man, and that is the ultimate plant food for the W&H branches..;)

[> i'm not sure that's a horn (no, not like in the picture dawn saw--eeewww!) -- anom, 23:12:28 01/19/04 Mon

Looking at the tape again, I paid more attention to what was behind Angel in the shot ('cause of your post--thanks, Rufus!). And that looks more like a tusk than a horn to me. It also appears in a later shot (later in the ep, not the PR video) from the side of Angel's desk, & there's what looks like another (larger, more curved) tusk a little farther over. Now, tusks are somewhat similar to horns, but is their symbolism any different (assuming I'm right about their being tusks, which I don't)?

"Consequently Dionysus, Alexander the Great, and Moses are often depicted with horns (although much depictions probably stem from an error in translation, namely, the confusion of facies coronata (haloed) and corunuta (horned)."

In the case of Moses, the translation error comes directly from the Hebrew. Keren means "horn," but it also means "beam"/"ray" (as well as "fund," a use that may be related to the "horn of plenty" concept). Moses is described in the Torah (Exodus 34:29-35) as having beams coming from his face when he comes down from Mount Sinai w/the 2nd set of tablets; this was translated as his having horns, & some depictions of him (most famously, Michelangelo's statue) show him w/horns. And I find it fascinating that such a similar translation error can come from Latin, although in that case the other word actually is a different word, w/a root that means "crown."

[> due process, spoilers for AtS 5.9 Harm's Way -- skeeve, 07:42:47 01/21/04 Wed

It was several seconds from the time Eli went into Angel's office expecting a promotion until Eli lost his head.
I wonder if there was time to read him the charges.
Harm's Way is Destiny Lite (Spoilers thru 5.9) -- sdev, 02:32:10 01/18/04 Sun

Opening sequence: What does this mean about Angel killing humans? Are they subject to the new one strike rule too? Is this the new merciless Angel alluded to in his line from the season opener Convictions?

ANGEL: There is one thing more powerful than conviction. Just one. Mercy.

(Angel kicks Hauser's gun upright & it goes off)

FALLEN AGENT: What happened to mercy?

ANGEL: (walking out) You just saw the last of it.

The one strike rule shows more conviction than mercy.

Harmony: This episode addesses a lot of people's questions as to how a soulless vampire stays off the juice. The Buffyverse is no more. Long live the Angelverse where legions of Demons have their demon under control for the sake of what, their job? Interesting premise. I can see the studies now. How does capitalism affect the demon drive for destruction? The corporate hierarchy: How demons climb the corporate ladder. Do demons make better managers? The culture of fear in the demon friendly corporation. Well, you get the drift.

Here's my point, can this work? Is channelling demon "prey drive," sublimation into productive work, effective? Can Angel really tame the demons and evil humans in W&H with retirement plans and fear of decapitation? Or is W&H set for an explosion?

Is Harmony or any other soulless being or evil lawyer reformation reliable? Harmony herself believed she had slipped up and killed her date. Also take the guy demon they decapitated in the beginning of the episode. How many virgins did he dismember before they stopped him? Do you give demons a chance when society is paying the tab in human lives? There is a social issue here.

Angel: It's called a zero tolerance policy, not a maybe this once policy.

The Buffyverse was simpler-stake them graveside.

Back to Harmony. Her struggle for recognition seemed like a minor, more real world, image of Spike's quest in the prior episode Destiny. He wanted recognition for saving the world, acting heroically. Harmony wants the same thing. She wants respect for acting above and beyond her role as "grunt". She wants recognition for her extensive research resulting in her amazing decision to order what? Yup a camel delivered to the middle of the glitzy W&H lobby! She wants to be included by her peers of the secretarial pool. She wants not to have her achievements ignored. Isn't that what Spike said when Angel belittles his sacrifice:

SPIKE: Here we are, then. 2 vampire heroes... competing to wet our whistle with a drink of light, refreshing torment.

ANGEL: Is that what you think you are-a hero?

SPIKE: Saved the world, didn't I?

ANGEL: Once. Talk to me after you've done it a couple more times.

Harmony is pathetically unsure of herself. She can't get anyone to pay her any attention even her fellow workers, even when she has the higher position of being the CEO's executive secretary, even when she is privy to the inside scoop on Fred's love life. We are given a visual on her lack of self-awareness at the beginning when she casually lifts the entire clothes cabinet to rescue an errant shoe as she dresses. The way the camera moves in on that scene from the bottom as she casually and unexpectedly lifts the cabinet effortlessly with one hand visually suggests that she is strong but oblivious and unappreciative of her power.

Even a small dog in her building is unafraid of her and growls every time she passes. Her coworkers talk over her or around her. She clumsily bumps into the vampire who will later frame her to get her job. Angel is listening to a headset as she babbles on about his schedule wholly unaware of his obliviousness till she reaches the end of her speech. At a meeting Wesley finally turns to her and says "I'm glad you're here." As her hopes rise he asks her to order lunch. Spike turns to leave without even saying goodbye. She finally breaks down in tears over the camel fiasco. The story lays on indignity after indignity.

Finally we are ready to accept that she has snapped and bitten her date. Even she thinks she has had a moment of weakness which nevertheless breaks the zero tolerance rule.

Fred and Spike; Fred and Harmony. In case we forgot who tried to help him, Spike reminds us in his departure scene and his thank you to Fred. Basically he ignores everyone else who had ignored his ghostly predicament. So too with Harmony, everyone ignores Harmony except Fred. Fred goes to a bar with her to cheer her up, and Fred puts in words in her defense, "maybe you slipped," much as she did for Spike. Is Fred becoming the heart of this group, the compassionate one? Fred single-handedly seems to represent the missing mercy this season. Everyone else is all business.

Harmony really reminded me of Anya in this episode. The tactful compliment to Fred:

I just wish I was more like you. You know except for the part about being all into science. And not having a lot up front.

After the murder of the demon negotiator planted in Harmony's bed she comes into her ditzy own. Bodies start piling up in the closet. What exactly was Harmony's plan-to fill it till she ran out of space? She placed them there so reluctantly. And apologizes:

I'm totally sorry I have to do this

Harmony's fight with the other vampire, Tamika, for the position of Angel's secretary is a parody of the other vampire battle in the prior episode, Destiny. What are the stakes and are they worth it? Ironically, Harmony's reward is the greater one than the Cup of Perpetual Mountain Dew.

Like Spike, Harmony had no idea who she really was. In the end she saves the peace treaty between the warring demons. Spike initially also had no sense of having acted the Champion and having saved the world till he heard it from Fred. And Spike at the end empowers Harmony by pointing out to her that she mattered to somebody enough for that vampire to want her dead so she could take Harmony's job. Also, and maybe more important to Harmony, she was the talk of the firm. If someone wants you dead you matter.

Angel does not present a heroic image in this episode. He looks deflated, worn down by the poor fit of the corporate world. That's the meaning of the opening montage. He's a poser. This isn't his world. He doesn't get his new role. Of the four, Angel seems to have no place. This is emphasized by his colossal blunders with the rival demon factions as Gunn proceeds effortlessly and has to cover Angel's mistakes. Is Angel a male Harmony here?

The demons call Angel "Whore Man." Who did he sell himself to? Or worse as Harmony says in her simple style:

He's not a helper. He's a chopper. He'll cut my head off before I get two words in.

Harmony's words to Angel are important for Angel to remember especially in his current environment.

It's not like I have a soul. I have to try a lot harder.

Some self-reflection by Angel might make him consider that his soul makes his life easier and closer to human if he would only permit the connection.

Spike's end of the episode explanation of his decision not to go see Buffy seemed out of character. Until I remembered that Spike never does what he says. He acts impulsively for motives he barely understands. I am thinking here of the S5 episode Family where twice Spike acts contrary to his own stated intentions. First Spike goes to the Magic Shop to watch Buffy get trounced by the Lei-ach Demon, but unexpectedly intercedes on her behalf when she is in danger. Second Spike declares he doesn't care what happens to Tara and then he suddenly punches her letting the chip hurt him to prove she isn't a demon.

He is also prone to sudden reversals of thought and plans. In Lover's Walk he does a sudden about face on the love spell to regain Drusilla and instead he decides "I've just gotta be the man I was, the man she loved," and heads off unarmed with magic means to win her back. Even his decision to get the soul was a sudden impulsive change of heart. Spike of the ephemeral mood.

So I expect, that after Spike's comment to Wesley and Angel about abandoning the Shanshu,

You're welcome to that heroic destiny whether you deserve it or not. Me I've got better things to do than wait around for the four bloody horsemen.

he had an inexplicable change of heart. Maybe he decided that Angel was right and he hadn't done enough to be a real Champion.

Maybe he hadn't finished competing sufficiently with Angel to prove himself either in his own eyes, or Angel's or Buffy's eyes. Maybe like Harmony he needed to matter too. Or maybe he just needed some pocket money. With Spike you just don't know.

Replies:

[> Re: Harm's Way is Destiny Lite (Spoilers thru 5.9) -- chronochromie, 11:28:46 01/18/04 Sun

Isn't Spike's change of heart about going to find Buffy a tacit admission that he's not entirely sure she's in love with him and that his appearance might not be welcome in her life (especially since, as she's no longer the one and only slayer, she's probably on a bit of a soul-searching mission that needs to be done alone [becoming a cookie and all], and his intrusion might not be appreciated and would ultimately be self-serving)? Him going would assume that he knows/thinks that he is best for her at this time in her life. He might not be.

[> [> Re: Harm's Way is Destiny Lite (Spoilers thru 5.9) -- Rachel, 12:02:12 01/18/04 Sun

He is propaply not going to Europe because he isn¥t sure if he¥s welcome. Bt he does not know what she feels for sure.And if he¥s wrong it is just cruel to let someone who loves you believe you are dead. Also, for a Slayer who is used to being the one who get¥s sacrificed in a battle it is even harder to accept that someone else had to give up his live.I¥d feel guilty about it. So I think it is selfish of Spike .I mean, to call and say:I¥m alive ! is not to much to ask.

[> [> [> Re: Harm's Way is Destiny Lite (Spoilers thru 5.9) -- Dllgood, 12:49:29 01/18/04 Sun

So I think it is selfish of Spike .I mean, to call and say:I¥m alive ! is not to much to ask.

Technically, we don't know that he didn't call Buffy, or that Buffy doesn't already know that he's back. Granted, one would imagine that such a scene should be shown, rather than not - but it's not outside the realm of plausible speculation.

[> [> [> Re: Harm's Way is Destiny Lite (Spoilers thru 5.9) -- chronochromie, 13:37:50 01/18/04 Sun

I rather assume her exact whereabouts are unknown and that she can't be reached at will. That he would have to search for her. Also, it would be a huge emotional upheaval for her to find out he's alive...perhaps something she's not prepared for as of yet. She's still recovering from her ordeal, I'd imagine.

[> [> [> Re: Harm's Way is Destiny Lite (Spoilers thru 5.9) -- Mighty Mouse, 19:59:43 01/18/04 Sun

Actually, I think Spike is rather being considerate, if not his usual self. Soulless Spike was a romantic, but a selfish one. He always assumed that Buffy loved him in some way, and sought out that love no matter what. Technically, the lack of soul made him a blithering idiot (in my opinion). It was obvious that Buffy did not love, but merely felt a connection / feelings (and a strong appreciation for the fact he was THERE for her when she came from the dead). Soulled Spike, however, was able to not just think about himself ... but think about Buffy. He loves(d) her, and came to realize she did not (and maybe could not ever) share the same feelings for him. Buffy does care for Spike, but I do not think she loves him. Spike knows this (hence his comment "No you don't, but thanks for saying so" in "Chosen"), while non-souled Spike probably would have taken her literally (that is, if the same situation would have come up. I dunno, I have my doubts soulless Spike would have sacrificed himself in such a manner). He probably just isn't ready to meet with Buffy yet, and the poet inside him is finding excuses to prolong it (no matter how much he might want to). Besides, like someone else pointed out, while it is known Buffy is in Europe, it isn't like he can simply look her up. Considering how little Angel 'n co. are offering him, I don't think he currently has the resources to track her down from L.A.

[> [> [> [> Re: Harm's Way is Destiny Lite (Spoilers thru 5.9) -- sdev, 02:37:10 01/19/04 Mon

Considering how little Angel 'n co. are offering him, I don't think he currently has the resources to track her down from L.A.

Why is that?

Angel is openly hostile to Spike and indifferent to Harmony. His gang, particularly Fred and Lorne, have shown a different attitude. Is Angel a self-hating demon? Is this just a reflection of how little belief he has in his own ability to be a worthwhile member of society?

I think Angel is suffering from an inability to forgive himself and thus anyone else.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Harm's Way Opinion (Spoilers thru 5.9) -- Claudia, 08:55:35 01/20/04 Tue

I was very surprised to find out how much I would enjoy this episode. It was a great exploration of Harmony's character and it also provided another peek into the backbone of Wolfram & Hart -namely the secretaries, assistants, etc.

Watching Angel in this episode made me realize how strongly he resembled his father. Watching Spike and Fred in this episode made me wonder why she is so focused upon acknowledging that both Knox and Wes are hot. Also, I found myself pondering on what it must have been for Harmony, working as Angel's assistant. Apparently, not as thrilling as many have been led to believe.

And why couldn't Spike drop a line to Buffy that he was still alive? Seems to me that he still believes that she doesn't care for him, and is now acting out of fear.

[> [> [> [> Assumption??? -- Claudia, 09:15:51 01/20/04 Tue

[It was obvious that Buffy did not love, but merely felt a connection / feelings (and a strong appreciation for the fact he was THERE for her when she came from the dead). Soulled Spike, however, was able to not just think about himself ... but think about Buffy. He loves(d) her, and came to realize she did not (and maybe could not ever) share the same feelings for him. Buffy does care for Spike, but I do not think she loves him. Spike knows this (hence his comment "No you don't, but thanks for saying so" in "Chosen"), while non-souled Spike probably would have taken her literally (that is, if the same situation would have come up.]

I think you're making a big assumption that Buffy was never really in love with Spike. The problem is that no one really knows. Not even Spike, who had just earlier spied upon Buffy kissing Angel in "End of Days"/"Chosen". I also have the feeling that after her lukewarm attitude in Sunnydale, Angel is no longer sure, either.

Everyone seems to assume that since Buffy didn't openly express her feelings about Spike, the same way she did about Angel or Riley, deep down she never really loved him. Only cared about him as a friend. But we don't really know how Buffy felt about Spike. Remember . . . the 21 to 22 year-old Buffy was a lot less demonstrative than she was during her teen years. I don't think that anyone knows or that we'll ever know for certain.

It is possible that Spike had decided not to pursue Buffy in Europe, because he FEARED that she never really loved him and that he might be wasting his time.
My analysis of 'Harm's Way' is up -- Masquerade, 22:56:13 01/18/04 Sun

Nuke a cup o' blood and read it here.

Replies:

[> Make mine cocoa! -- CW, 06:49:17 01/19/04 Mon

Thanks for the efforts. Harm's Way is one of those eps I just sit back and enjoy, and not think about too deeply. You really don't get any episodes off. Hope people flipping through your site have some inkling of how much work you've put in over the years. ;o)

[> [> Thanks! -- Masq, 07:29:41 01/19/04 Mon

If I try hard enough, I can find philosophical depths in just about any episode. Luckily, analyzing this episode was fairly straight forward because other than a few unanswered questions about Angel and co's new policy, there wasn't much metaphysical, moral, or philosophical depth here.

[> Re: My analysis of 'Harm's Way' is up -- Rob, 09:23:03 01/19/04 Mon

Just a follow-up to Finn's comment in your analysis: "if demons can explore the full moral spectrum just like humans, why are evil demons subject to death but evil humans aren't? Neither the writers nor the characters have ever dealt with this issue."

I think they have dealt with the issue, and the answer is the same thing that was said about Faith (forget the episode and paraphrasing): you can't keep a Slayer incarcerated who doesn't want to be incarcerated (and of course we see when Faith does escape how easy it would have been for her at any time she wanted to, to have done so). It would be impossible to keep a demon in a jail cell against his will for too long, even if it could be accomplished for a short time (for example, The Initiative). And despite some ambiguity issues with some demons, the number of evil demons far outweighs the good, and all of the millions of evil demons can't be jailed. Nor can they all be wiped out. Which is why our heroes do it on a case-by-case basis.

Rob

[> [> Except, what about humans who have other ways of getting around the law? -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:30:38 01/19/04 Mon

For example, what of humans who use magic in order to accomplish evil acts? I mean, using a curse or raising a monster to kill someone isn't a crime; people like Ethan Rayne or Professor Seidel, while human, can't be punished by human laws as they currently stand. Yes, a black ops government team eventually took Ethan, but what about before that? And, while Seidel was killed, the way people acted about it was that it was something they really shouldn't have done. So, while the example you draw works for normal humans, it doesn't apply to those whose crimes are supernatural in nature.

P.S. Masq, thanks for the quote!

[> [> [> you're welcome! -- Masq, 18:29:58 01/19/04 Mon


[> [> [> another consideration about resorting to human law -- anom, 20:17:22 01/19/04 Mon

From Masq's analysis:

"Are human employees killed as well, or are they turned over to human justice?"

Any investigation of crimes committed by human Wolfram & Hart employees carried out by the human authorities could lead them to uncover things about W&H that even the new management would rather stayed covered up. So how would they deal w/a human employee who violated the zero-tolerance policy, short of execution? (That could make an interesting plot for an episode, huh?) Of course, we did learn in Harm's Way that W&H owns the LAPD; on the other hand, we found out in Conviction that the California justice dept. has its own shamans to do things like protect juries from tampering. I suppose Angel & co. would either take care of such an employee in-house (they do have cells, like Nina's 3-day-a-month home away from home, & facilities to confine people like Pavayne) or just instruct the LAPD to restrict their investigation. Maybe the latter would be enough...but it seems so mundane.

[> [> [> [> Human Death in the new Angel -- RadiusRS, 12:59:33 01/20/04 Tue

Thanks for bringing up "Conviction" Fin, it reminded me of something that has been there since episode one that I had failed to notice. With all this talk about what happens to humans in the new Angel paradigm, we have to look no farther than Episode 1, namely, Angel's killing of the Squad Leader. The gang has kind of had a don't kill humans, even evil humans policy all along, but that doesn't mean they've completely avoided it. I'm sure some members of Holtz's gang, and various human assasins and kidnappers from the time of Connor's birth didn't walk away. Another example is the guy in "This Gang Of Mine" who was hyping up Gunn's old gang to kill demons, and while the gang didn't kill him, they made no attempts to stop the demon who did, and didn't discipline that demon either. And a big deal was made out of Seidel because it was Gunn and Fred, two relative innocents, who committed the crime. On Buffy, she surely killed a couple of the Crusader guys, and Giles killed Ben, who turned kind of evil at the end perhaps due to Glory's influence as well as his own self-interest, and was never punished for it except with less and less character development. But Angel killed the Squad Leader, some might say in cold blood, but it was ok because the guy had just expressed his heartfelt belief in the cause of evil? He and his gang were going to kill a kid (and Angel took some of those guys out too) but Corbin Friese was the bastard who put the bomb in his kid, and he got off scott free. Then in "Unleashed" we saw the human doctor, who ok had been bitten by Nina, handed over to the rich folks to be next month's meal. It seems to be that the paradigm is now kill evil humans when you can, and if you can't, then just keep an eye on them. And as for the Necromancer in "Just Rewards", as far as I know, it's never been established that wizards and witches are other than human. Sure they're supernatural, but by no means demonic even when evil (Willow is a prime example, the First Evil made a point of this when trying to convince Andrew to kill the Potentials). You could argue self-defense in that case, and the squad's, but it still doesn't justify it. Buffy never killed an evil human opponent if she had an alternative. The gray is getting grayer in the Whedon/Angelverse. And I don't think we've been given any strong examples other than Dr. Phlox in "Unleashed" about where the human employees in W&H stand due to the fact that they are afraid of the same thing Harmony is: the Boss' temper. And even Lilah, who killed her boss (and karmically got punished by Jasmine/Cordy) became even more sympathetic and almost good as last season progressed. In the flashback in "Oedipus", we even see a souled Angel kill a man when he could have gotten help. So Angel's lack of mercy/Zero Tolerance policy is maybe exactly where W&H wants him: killing evil humans.

[> [> [> Re: Except, what about humans who have other ways of getting around the law? -- Kenny, 08:40:18 01/20/04 Tue

It's good that you bring up laws, because I think that's actually an important part of this discussion. From a purely practical standpoint, it makes sense to let the humans live while killing demons. If the police find a dead human body, there's going to be an investigation, and that's going to bring trouble to our heroes (Kendra, Mayor's aide). On the other hand, if they run into a demon body (if there's even one left...quite a few don't leave any evidence behind), they'll just dump it and ignore it.

Besides that, the presence of a soul is important in the Buffyverse. Buffy's soul went to heaven when she died, indicating that souled beings will live an eternity in hell or heaven. At death, though, the decision is made and, one assumes, cannot be reversed. Killing a soulless creature just means that you made it cease to exist. In that sense, second chances don't matter because, at most, the best they can do is make the creature feel better about itself while it's "living". They'll probably die eventually, and that'll pretty much be it. But if you kill a souled creature, it doesn't cease to exist; you send it to eternity. There's enormous responsibility that goes along with that, because you are in fact judging that it deserves to spend the rest of forever in torture and torment. You're not condemning unsouled creatures to that fate, and I think that makes all the difference in the world.

[> [> [> [> this is an amazing point. but that means... -- Seven, 15:41:59 01/20/04 Tue

We need to ask the question; "Does Lorne have a soul?" And if he doesn't,and he happened to screw up and get someone killed, does the zero-tolerance rule go into effect? Probably not, because it's Lorne, but you see my point? Does an "innocent" demon have a soul? Is it worthy to be eternal? Or is Lorne all good-natured for no reason? Souled beings have two possibilities, good or evil. This is where I agree. If they choose evil they will go to hell and if good will be rewarded. I love the explanation but that would suck for Lorne.

I hope I made some sense, I sleep too little.

7

[> [> [> [> [> I think we all know Lorne's got soul. ;o) -- Rob, 00:59:46 01/21/04 Wed

Whedon's Commentary on Objects in Space, (insight into Ats and Whedon's Existentialism) -- s'kat, 08:04:34 01/19/04 Mon

My dear friend pumpkinpuss, who does post here, gave me permission to post this. She did all the work in transcribing it - I'm just posting it.

Here's the bit about Whedon taken from his Objects in Space Commentary on the Firefly DVD. (This part isn't really off-topic since it does tell you something about the writer and gives us a strong sense of where he may be going with Angel the Series.) If you want to see the full commentary - I'm posting it on the Firefly board. Rufus is also posting it on Angel After Spike and Trollops, I think. Pay particular attention to the parts in bold!

*************

Now let's go back in time, to me when I'm 16. It was at that age that I became old enough to realize that I had no faith. And very soon after that I had what I can very pretentiously describe as an existential epiphany. And I had it, sort of, almost embarrassingly yet somehow appropriately during a Spielberg movie. I was in London by myself during a school break in the fall when I watched Close Encounters of the Third Kind, the Special Edition and something in me kind of snapped. I started to think for the first time in an adult fashion about life, about time, about reality, about dying, about all of the things that are right there in front of us every day, but that as children and often as adults we take for granted or find some easy explanation for if we can. In my case, I was presented with the totality of things, but with no coherent pattern to put them in. I just suddenly understood that real life was happening.

Friend of mine, soon after, when I got back to school and tried to describe this experience, gave me the most important book I ever read, which was Jean-Paul Sartre's Nausea. And apart from that and a little bit of the myth of Sisyphus by Camus, I really haven't read extensively about Existentialism or Absurdism, I don't want to paint myself as an intellectual. I really don't know anything about philosophy. But I did know that this book spoke to what I believe more accurately and totally than anything I had ever read. And what it talked about was the pain of being aware of things and their existence, outside of their meaning. Just the very fact of objects in space. That we cannot stop existence and we cannot stop change, that we have to accept these things. And again, if we see no grand plan in them, we have to accept them as existing completely on their own and existing totally. Part of what that means I can't really explain. I do know there's a passage in the book that says nothing can exist only slightly. And the protagonist is so overwhelmed by this fact, the fact that every piece of paper he picks up off the ground exists so completely, is so much there, it actually makes him nauseous, it makes his stomach hurt, it's too intense. For me, it has a kind of rapture to it and I find meaning in objects to be a beautiful thing because I have no plan to put them in. I find the meaning of the object to be within the object, both in however it's functional and the fact of its existence. A ball is to be thrown, but it's also just a round thing. The reason I pointed out the planet at the beginning is because we're going to see that again at the end. The image is mirrored with the superball that the girls are playing jacks with. I did that very deliberately as a sort of classic object in space, a ball, a round thing in motion, going through the frame.

Now right here, we're going through the ship again, to what is my favorite shot, River listening. This shot here, the Batgirl shot as I call it, I had to shoot four times before I found the right angle. The point of the scene, storywise, is that they are being listened to, below and above, by two people who are outsiders, who hear everything they're saying, but, and can understand it on a level that even they can't, since she is psychic and he is so intuitive as to be nearly psychic, yet they also can't understand a great deal of it because it is just, there's a synapse in them that is broken. And again I mention the fact that we go through the ship, and I mentioned that at the beginning. The reason for that, that's something people can do now and they do it alot. You see it in y'know CSI or Panic Room or anything like that. We have the technology. But it's not something I would ever have done on Firefly -- except in this episode and that's because I wanted to connect the reality of the ship with particularly River and the people in it. Because as it becomes apparent later, River assumes the identity of the ship. She actually becomes the object. Now, the god ship is a concept that's been in science fiction, Frank Herbert, even 2001, the ship that is more powerful and perhaps more knowing than the people in it. It's a great science fiction theme, but what I'm trying to do with it is obviously something a little bit different. I'm just trying to get the audience to see people who are relating to the space, the objects only on that level, because ultimately what I'm saying about them is that they do have meaning and it's the meaning we bring to them, and that's what makes us so extraordinary. What makes objects so extraordinary is the fact of them. The very fact of them, it's mindboggling. I believe that whether you have faith or not, to think about consciousness, our ability to understand these things exist and to think about the fact of existence. But what's equally extraordinary, is our ability to, and I use this word specifically in the show, embue them with meaning. And not just with function. That is to say, we make a gun, a gun is for a thing, that's something else that Early himself brings up. But to embue them with meaning, the way River embues the gun with a different meaning than Early does. And I didn't notice when I was writing it that they were both dealing very specifically with guns. I don't like guns myself, obviously this is an action show and it's also a western and people shoot at each other. And it's really cool, for them. Summer herself, that first time she got to shoot those three guys, she had quite an out of body experience. What the hell, it's fun. But the fact of the matter is that they are grotesque in their function. So the idea that River sees in them something beyond the idea of a weapon makes her a good person and ultimately that's what this episode does with her and Early. It says these two people aren't the same. They're outsiders, they experience things the same way, they're not these guys. I mean Kaylee, who breaks my heart in this scene, every time, because she's so the person who just believes and has faith and gets hurt and is decent and you feel what she feels. River and --- thank you very much Book, way to ruin the kiss. Y'know we got cancelled, they never got to kiss! Okay fine whatever --- Kaylee is an emotional in for us, she's like the narrator, we feel what she feels. Not the same for River, but this episode was designed to show that even though she may have been designed for killing, because she clearly killed those three guys, what separates her from somebody like Early is her heart. That she takes the meaninglessness of things or the disassociative way of looking at them and embues them with a kindness. Even though she may be violent and strange and unpredictable. Whereas Early, who also appreciates things on a very tactile, a very tactile level -- also Early's feet gettin' some play, just what we're walking on -- very important, even though he does that, he brings pain, brings evil. [End of Act One]"

Snippet 2 - on how Whedon views Angel and the PTB:

"So, some of you have gotta be saying, what's the point? So, great they look at objects differently, that's a great thing, that's an important thing for people to be able to do...who cares? And apart from the no touching guns, that's repeated from the beginning and the fact that she devises her entire plan so that nobody gets hurt. There's no shooting, even though it doesn't work that way, so there is a kind of morality inherent in what she's doing that is a part of it. The other thing is that, uhm...that there is no moral. That like an object in space this episode exists -- it has an emotional arc, it's a story to be told, I'm not gonna sit there and lecture the audience although I am right now, but, hey, you listened, it's not my fault! -- but that it itself is also just an object.

Now, on Angel, I made a very similar statement when I had him say -- realize that he couldn't count on The Powers That Be, that maybe there's no grand plan -- and Angel had said if nothing we do means anything, then the only thing that means anything is what we do. Now that is the moral implication of a universe that has no meaning. This is more the physical implication, and the ability we have to again embue it with meaning and how glorious or terrifying that is. "

So what do people think? Please respond, hate to see this dive into archive hell in minutes. sk

Replies:

[> Well I tried to post it on Firefly board...(Whole thing here, OiS spoilers) -- s'kat, 08:28:46 01/19/04 Mon

But it wouldn't post, dang it. All I got was internal server error messages.

So here's the whole thing:

I'm highlighting the bits on philosophy. Enjoy.

Spoilers for Objects in Space of course:

"
[Teaser]
Look at the planet, on the right, going down in frame. Look at the ship, as we're going through it. Look at the girl, as we hear Early's voice. I'm going to do commentary on the episode for you here, but I'm not gonna to do it exactly the way I've been doing it. I'd like to try and explain how this episode came to be a little more specifically than I usually do, since it's kind of an odd one. It's one of my favorites that I ever shot, but uhm, not normal. So, hopefully there will be some extremely witty anecdotal stuff about what we did on that day, and how that guy messed up his lines, and how Nathan split his pants, again, but in the meanwhile I may go off picture sometimes just to take you through the process of coming up with this episode and what it means to me.

The first thing I need to talk about is Summer, who luckily is on the screen right now as I say that. Summer Glau who I met when she did Angel. She is a ballerina and played one on Angel and that's how I got to know her as an actress.

Summer in this is very much, almost a formal device and nothing is more important in this episode than her feet because we're going to be talking alot about the way she relates to this ship physically. And as a dancer you can see very well how she moves and how she expresses physically with her entire body what she's feeling emotionally and the connection between those two things is very important. I'm enormously impressed by what she did in this...things like coming down the stairs here which I had not even noticed when I was shooting, I only saw it in the edit, how she experiences coming down those stairs, it's a very big deal.

She's also important because this episode was designed to be about River, to start dealing with the story of River. What we're seeing obviously are psychic visions of things we've either heard or don't yet understand. We're seeing the teaser through her perspective, which is somewhat disassociative from reality. That's very important for what I ended up trying to say with this episode, but first let's just talk about how this episode came to be at all. Which was me knowing that I wanted to do an episode where River became a part of the group and really had no ideas. Just an embarrassing lack of ideas or a thundering ton of ideas that frankly didn't come together at all. Spent a long time working on it, nothing, nothing, nothing. Finally called Tim Minnear in the morning, I said Tim, I'm dying here. I've got this idea, I got that idea, what do you think, is this good, is it fun? He said Baba Fett. And I'd like to stress that he didn't say Boba Fett. This is a man who has dressed up like Logan at conventions, still couldn't say Boba Fett right. In fact we started calling him Bobbie Fett after awhile because we were all so embarrassed about Tim's mistake. However, those two words, mispronounced though they may have been, brought me to this episode in a way that I -- hey, feet! -- never thought possible because like Our Mrs. Reynolds, all he did was throw the pebble in the pond. Give me the ripples. And those are the best episodes of a show like this. Take one extraordinarily strong element, in this case a preternaturally cool, nearly psychic bounty hunter who is able to board their ship from the middle of space and mess with the entire crew and see what it has to say about our people when you add that element.

Now, to get back to River and her feet. Summer, of course, can do a shot like that, which is one of my favorite shots I ever shot, because she's a ballerina. (River bends down from the waist into the shot) And the idea of creating a balletic sort of whimsical space is another example of her mind. Now she's talking about an object. And what's interesting about that object is a, that she doesn't recognize it for what it is, so she has taken the meaning of the thing away from the thing. To the world outside, that means that she's like a child with a gun, but it actually means a great deal more than that which she is unable to explain to them because she's a little crazy. But it's very important that her experience of that gun, was that it was something benign and not even a weapon, not even anything except y'know part of the nature of her brain. She is very much a part of everything she touches, even while she can't seem to experience it or explain it exactly, much as I can't seem to explain her! So what I'm going to do, after our delightful opening credits, is go back even further than the history of trying to make this episode, to talk about my favorite thing, the history of me! (in silly Masterpiece Theater accent) But first our delightful opening credits!

[Opening credits]

And I will tell you something anecdotal that I don't believe I've mentioned before here which is that this song I actually wrote before I wrote the pilot. The day I pitched the show I went home and wrote this song. Wanted to write a little blues song about what it was like to lose the war and either die, be taken up into heaven or go out into space and abandon humanity which is sorta what Mal did. So that's where the song came from, it informed the show I was gonna write before I'd ever written it, which was a lot of fun. It helped crystallize things for me, it helped me break into the script. And there it is. [Credits end]

[Act One]
Now we're going to see the great bounty hunter, with his great musical theme that Greg (Edmondson) wrote very specifically. And it was like let's go Once Upon A Time in the West. She has a theme, we agreed on violin. He gave me either a bassoon or an oboe for Early here to make him y'know... I was looking for Once Upon a Time in the West, I kinda got Peter and the Wolf. It gives him like kinda almost a fairy story quality which I like very much.

Now let's go back in time, to me when I'm 16. It was at that age that I became old enough to realize that I had no faith. And very soon after that I had what I can very pretentiously describe as an existential epiphany. And I had it, sort of, almost embarrassingly yet somehow appropriately during a Spielberg movie. I was in London by myself during a school break in the fall when I watched Close Encounters of the Third Kind, the Special Edition and something in me kind of snapped. I started to think for the first time in an adult fashion about life, about time, about reality, about dying, about all of the things that are right there in front of us every day, but that as children and often as adults we take for granted or find some easy explanation for if we can. In my case, I was presented with the totality of things, but with no coherent pattern to put them in. I just suddenly understood that real life was happening.

Friend of mine, soon after, when I got back to school and tried to describe this experience, gave me the most important book I ever read, which was Jean-Paul Sartre's Nausea. And apart from that and a little bit of the myth of Sisyphus by Camus, I really haven't read extensively about Existentialism or Absurdism, I don't want to paint myself as an intellectual. I really don't know anything about philosophy. But I did know that this book spoke to what I believe more accurately and totally than anything I had ever read. And what it talked about was the pain of being aware of things and their existence, outside of their meaning. Just the very fact of objects in space. That we cannot stop existence and we cannot stop change, that we have to accept these things. And again, if we see no grand plan in them, we have to accept them as existing completely on their own and existing totally. Part of what that means I can't really explain. I do know there's a passage in the book that says nothing can exist only slightly. And the protagonist is so overwhelmed by this fact, the fact that every piece of paper he picks up off the ground exists so completely, is so much there, it actually makes him nauseous, it makes his stomach hurt, it's too intense. For me, it has a kind of rapture to it and I find meaning in objects to be a beautiful thing because I have no plan to put them in. I find the meaning of the object to be within the object, both in however it's functional and the fact of its existence. A ball is to be thrown, but it's also just a round thing. The reason I pointed out the planet at the beginning is because we're going to see that again at the end. The image is mirrored with the superball that the girls are playing jacks with. I did that very deliberately as a sort of classic object in space, a ball, a round thing in motion, going through the frame.

Now right here, we're going through the ship again, to what is my favorite shot, River listening. This shot here, the Batgirl shot as I call it, I had to shoot four times before I found the right angle. The point of the scene, storywise, is that they are being listened to, below and above, by two people who are outsiders, who hear everything they're saying, but, and can understand it on a level that even they can't, since she is psychic and he is so intuitive as to be nearly psychic, yet they also can't understand a great deal of it because it is just, there's a synapse in them that is broken. And again I mention the fact that we go through the ship, and I mentioned that at the beginning. The reason for that, that's something people can do now and they do it alot. You see it in y'know CSI or Panic Room or anything like that. We have the technology. But it's not something I would ever have done on Firefly -- except in this episode and that's because I wanted to connect the reality of the ship with particularly River and the people in it. Because as it becomes apparent later, River assumes the identity of the ship. She actually becomes the object. Now, the god ship is a concept that's been in science fiction, Frank Herbert, even 2001, the ship that is more powerful and perhaps more knowing than the people in it. It's a great science fiction theme, but what I'm trying to do with it is obviously something a little bit different. I'm just trying to get the audience to see people who are relating to the space, the objects only on that level, because ultimately what I'm saying about them is that they do have meaning and it's the meaning we bring to them, and that's what makes us so extraordinary. What makes objects so extraordinary is the fact of them. The very fact of them, it's mindboggling. I believe that whether you have faith or not, to think about consciousness, our ability to understand these things exist and to think about the fact of existence. But what's equally extraordinary, is our ability to, and I use this word specifically in the show, embue them with meaning. And not just with function. That is to say, we make a gun, a gun is for a thing, that's something else that Early himself brings up. But to embue them with meaning, the way River embues the gun with a different meaning than Early does. And I didn't notice when I was writing it that they were both dealing very specifically with guns. I don't like guns myself, obviously this is an action show and it's also a western and people shoot at each other. And it's really cool, for them. Summer herself, that first time she got to shoot those three guys, she had quite an out of body experience. What the hell, it's fun. But the fact of the matter is that they are grotesque in their function. So the idea that River sees in them something beyond the idea of a weapon makes her a good person and ultimately that's what this episode does with her and Early. It says these two people aren't the same. They're outsiders, they experience things the same way, they're not these guys. I mean Kaylee, who breaks my heart in this scene, every time, because she's so the person who just believes and has faith and gets hurt and is decent and you feel what she feels. River and --- thank you very much Book, way to ruin the kiss. Y'know we got cancelled, they never got to kiss! Okay fine whatever --- Kaylee is an emotional in for us, she's like the narrator, we feel what she feels. Not the same for River, but this episode was designed to show that even though she may have been designed for killing, because she clearly killed those three guys, what separates her from somebody like Early is her heart. That she takes the meaninglessness of things or the disassociative way of looking at them and embues them with a kindness. Even though she may be violent and strange and unpredictable. Whereas Early, who also appreciates things on a very tactile, a very tactile level -- also Early's feet gettin' some play, just what we're walking on -- very important, even though he does that, he brings pain, brings evil. [End of Act One]
[Act Two]He thinks of himself as above the pain that he inflicts, but in fact as River points out later on, he's bringing the darkness, he's enjoying it. So what he brings to the party, however his perspective may mirror River's, is the opposite of what she does and it's through understanding that that the crew finally accepts her. And one of the interesting things about how Early deals with people, and this was something that I didn't even realize as I was writing it -- my wife pointed it out as she often articulates things that I've done and don't know I've done -- is that Early has a very specific way of dealing with every character on the ship. He has listened to their conversations and so he understands, he knows enough about them. And he understands that when you are with Mal, you have to take him out instantly, because Mal is a physical threat that is very real. And then y'know he closes up Jayne and Zoe and all the threats. Kaylee's -- I loved decorating Kaylee's little bunk, I thought that would be so great. Kaylee is someone that he approaches a different way, through a really horrible form of sexual intimidation. This is one of those scenes that y'know...you write and then you worry that maybe you're not as good a person as you hoped you were. You film this scene and everybody kinda wants to avoid you for the rest of the day. It really is just as creepy as possible.

Later on, we'll see him dealing with Book. And we'll see him dealing with Simon. He deals with Book: again, this guy has to be taken out, which gives us a little insight into Book's character. That isn't something I realized when I wrote it. And of course he deals with Simon with logic because he understands that the best way to deal with Simon is through logic because that's the kind of person he is.

Richard Brooks, and I'll come back to him as a performer, right here, this bit, when he says, "maybe I've always been here" -- one of the great things about making a show is the collaborative effort that you have with actors. And Richard was, because I'm talking about him now, extraordinary! And understood what I was trying to do, which I explained to him and to Summer, just the way they were going to relate to the space, the why they were talking about it, or the way they were in it. And he gave that line "maybe I've always been here" in a different way than I wrote it. He said it as though he wasn't sure he hadn't always been there. And my heart nearly stopped when I saw that, because I hadn't meant to do it that way. He was just supposed to be talking, but his belief that maybe he had was so perfect for the character, it was a great example of the work extending beyond what you hope.

Now, I wanna talk about Jewel again, because how can you not. She did this scene beautifully two times, and then I went up to her and said, okay, those were great, now give me everything, go too far, put it all right on the surface. And she said, "great" -- actors don't get that note alot, that's fine. And the last take is the only one we used, because, her version of too far, of putting everything on the surface, especially that moment there, is so achingly perfect and beautiful and painful, I can't say enough about her as a performer. I really just was amazed by what she did there. Y'know, that she had that in her and she was keeping it back because she thought I wouldn't want all of it.

So, let's go back for a sec to the process of writing this. Having figured out that I was going to put Bobbie Fed on the ship, I was having some trouble figuring out what would happen. It's a very simple story, it means quite frankly not that much happens. So, every moment, his journey through the ship is kinda crucial. So what you just saw, him sliding down, what you're about to see, him getting all spidery on the top of the ceiling, these are all things I went and did because I was having trouble figuring out his progress through the ship. And the great thing about tv, another one of them, is that you have the sets and very often you can just go onto the set and write there. I'm not going to point out that Sean looks really good with his shirt off, but y'know I'm sure some of you may have noticed that. I got many, many, MANY thanks for adding this shirtless scene to the show. But, y'know I'm not above some cheesecake. But, I, having had some trouble, went on to the set, which as you know is built contiguously. The entire top half and the entire bottom half exist, so when you're on that ship, you're really on that ship. You go down those stairs, you're really going down those stairs. And so I sort of worked the physicality of where he would go, which I've done before on the Buffy set but what was different in a sense then anything that had ever been. This is a very important point he's bring up about the room, about the meaning of the thing, if she's not using it does it have the same meaning. Of course he's leaving Simon well behind, this concept, just because it's a little odd to bring up at such a desperate time, but that's Early's whole thing. Walking through the set for me was a very tactile experience. It was about climbing up on things and using the set. In a way, y'know that bannister wasn't made to slide on, those ladders weren't made to hide on. The bannister that River earlier on is standing on so that she can get near the ceiling and listen to what's going on upstairs, wasn't meant for that. These people don't take objects at face value
and that's what I was starting to talk about when I talked about the myth of Sisyphus by Camus. He talks about the walls coming away, reality revealing itself beyond our understanding of what we've shaped those walls to be, my house, my room. In this case, the walls, he mentions how they go out, they literally go away. They do create a particular open feeling and being on that set, you have that feeling. And for the artist, I know that it's a set. And that it's, beyond it, is just a stage. So it has a kind of fragility and I want the audience to have that same kind of fragility because beyond it is space. And so, one of the things that I learned, and this was also pointed out by my wife Kai, the extraordinary fragility of things is revealed by how we go through them so specifically. It's also revealed, that is to say, him going ship to ship, breaking in, we understand, y'know how trapped these people are. How these walls are open to them, yet, y'know god forbid they should actually open. To them it would mean death, to me it would mean the intrusion of reality on my fiction.

So, to go on a little bit more about Early. This is an example of what I love about the character of Early: his knowledge "that's not a Shepherd", not based on y'know anything he read in a file, not even having actually really seen the guy very carefully, just intuiting that this was a man, and we've seen Book beat up a cop, that needs to be taken out physically. And what he says here to Simon is I think kind of valid. He has interesting perspectives on things, which I really appreciate.
***
Early
You ever been shot?

Simon
No.

Early
You oughta be shot. Or stabbed. Losea leg. To be a surgeon, you know? Know what kind of pain you're dealing with. They make psychiatrists get psychoanalyzed before they can get certified, but they don't make a surgeon get cut on. That seem right to you?
***

Now writing this character...y'know you bring in a sort of larger-than-life, or in this case, stranger-than-fiction kind of villain, y' know you have to find their voice. And for me that process took a few things. It took obviously, the idea of matching him with River. That was one thing. I have to say, a big influence, I had recently watched The Minus Man, with Owen Wilson giving I'd say the only convincing portrait of a serial killer I've seen since Michael Rooker's. And he had a very serene kind of cheerfulness about him as he went around killing people, but there was something horribly violent in him. And this obviously, by the way, is the sort of the heart of the piece in terms of the meaning and I just think it's beautifully, beautifully shot. Good old David Boyd. But, anyway, that was sort of in my head to an extent, that kind of again, disassociative, but not angry, violence. And another portion was that while I was walking through, on this very platform, trying to figure out these pieces, including this which is, y'know, one of my other favorite moments in the show. Because when I say that he and River experience things in a more tactile fashion I take it to a completely absurd level here and I love that. While I was doing this, a security guard came and we sort of ran around the ship for what was literally five minutes trying to find each other because it was all so closed off. He didn't know why I was there on a Saturday, so I had to explain. And I had never met him. Great big fella. And he just kind of started talking about the show, "They gonna let you finish? How's it going? Y'know it's a pretty interesting show," and as he was leaving he was just, "Y'know, just have faith in yourself. You'll be fine." Kind of walked off. It was bizarre. It was a little, sort of...it was a little bit of Early. He just kind of, sort of, walked through things. And that kind of was the last thing to click. Y'know with everything else that I had in my head, he sort of helped me find that character. There was one more thing to be found and that, of course, was Richard Brooks, who is extraordinary. And the moment I heard he was auditioning I got excited, but to watch him do it...the conviction with which he does everything, the extraordinary dry wit, the way he gives things like "am I a lion?" and lines like this...he was just a treasure. We got very lucky with our guest stars, Nathan and I have said that. Never moreso than with Richard, who y'know, owns the screen for a good portion of the time. And he and Sean had a great time together. 'Cause it was a side of Sean we hadn't gotten to see, really. He's very sardonic and witty, and kind of, in control of the situation. And so, I can't say enough about the two of them, and particularly about Richard, who also knew all his lines, which believe it or not, is also a big factor with a guest star. But y'know, ready to try and when I walked him around the ship, as I did with Summer, and she said previously -- I love Nathan going all cross-eyed there, he's always completely in the moment, our Nathan is -- she's mentioned that I played her some music. Which may have been the last factor in sort of figuring out this episode, it was the score to Gattaca, which I listened to incessantly while I wrote. I happened on it, I'd used it before but hadn't listened to it for awhile. And I actually played some of it for Summer, while we were shooting, as a way of expressing how she as an actress was making me feel, as a director. An extraordinary amount of emotion that I couldn't quite define and my inability to define what it is that I'm dealing with is kind of the most important part of it. And I apologize for that but there it is. [End of Act Two]

[Act Three]
I love this sequence because it creates a lovely arc, for the two of them, however much Jewel may have hated lying on the grating, because River, of whom she was afraid, now gives her the strength to confront something more fearsome. And that's how we get them back together, which I love. The very first time River speaks, we hear her voice as though she's in the room with them, and that was done --and then the second time you can hear it's the intercom-- that was Lisa Lassek, the editor. She said I tried a little something, I hope you like it. And Lisa always brings something to the party and that was a brilliant idea because, again, the idea of experiencing an object and the idea of becoming an object work really well together. And this was early in the series. A lot of people were able to watch this and actually think that she had become part of the ship. Because they didn't know...we'd talked about being psychic, they didn't know how far in science fiction we were gonna go. And the fact of the matter is, psychic was exactly as far as I was prepared to go, she wasn't going to become a ship. But the idea that you might believe it, makes you look at the ship in a new way, makes you understand her in a different way, and that's what I was y'know, trying to get at in a large way, besides just having alot of fun. So I bring up the fact that the editor Lisa made it sound like she was in the room, the fact is, she was. When we shot all these scenes, for all of her off-camera she was sitting on an apple box, right on set, giving the lines so they would have something to react to. Richard did the same thing for her when we go to his ship, he did all his off-camera for her right there. It really helped especially when things get emotional to have her right there. And then we had to re-record some of it, y'know we had her go through all of her lines. The fact is she's just off-camera during all of these shots, there with us. And here's where we see Early start to lose control of the situation in a meaningful way. When he actually begins to believe she might be the ship. And y'know this is, uh, this is y'know, my, my big problem, is when I try to make a show about a bunch of people and that isn't about an adolescent superhero, and I inevitably make a show about an adolescent superhero, at least this episode was. And the fact that the captain is peevish with her, yet a little intimidated by her in one of the cutest changes when he gives that look and she calls him on it. And then ultimately does what she says, just as Kaylee does, the fact that the captain is willing to do that shows that both she's being accepted and that he's cool and decent. And y'know turns this into y'know, one of my classic stories. This is possibly one of my favorite exchange that I've ever written, I'm not even going to talk during it.

***
EARLY
You know, with the exception of one deadly and unpredictable midget, this girl is the
smallest cargo I've ever had to transport. Yet by far the most troublesome. Does that seem right to you?
SIMON
What'd he do?
EARLY
Who?
SIMON
The midget.
EARLY
Arson. The little man loved fire.
***

Sorry. I just loved that! Gotta give it up for Richard Brooks again, because his dry wit and his hypnotic voice, such a huge part of this episode.

So, some of you have gotta be saying, what's the point? So, great they look at objects differently, that's a great thing, that's an important thing for people to be able to do...who cares? And apart from the no touching guns, that's repeated from the beginning and the fact that she devises her entire plan so that nobody gets hurt. There's no shooting, even though it doesn't work that way, so there is a kind of morality inherent in what she's doing that is a part of it. The other thing is that, uhm...that there is no moral. That like an object in space this episode exists -- it has an emotional arc, it's a story to be told, I'm not gonna sit there and lecture the audience although I am right now, but, hey, you listened, it's not my fault! -- but that it itself is also just an object.

Now, on Angel, I made a very similar statement when I had him say -- realize that he couldn't count on The Powers That Be, that maybe there's no grand plan -- and Angel had said if nothing we do means anything, then the only thing that means anything is what we do. Now that is the moral implication of a universe that has no meaning. This is more the physical implication, and the ability we have to again embue it with meaning and how glorious or terrifying that is. This little sequence by the way -- we shot the entire sequence of him listening and then I said, okay, Richard, it's not in the script, but I want you to do me a favor, I'm gonna go around with the camera again, go crazy, react to everything she says as intensely as possible. And he just went to town, it was wonderful to watch, 'cause he kind of was like oh, that's a little strange. I'll go there and he went there, and then he went there even harder. And intercutting those, y'know, is again, it fits the way we make the show. Again it's something people do all the time nowadays, sort of things not connecting, but in our case for the specific purpose of showing a fractured mind. The first time I ever did anything like it, again was in such a banal and literal sense as this was, which was with Faith in episode 16 in season 4 of Angel, Who Are You, when she's played by Sarah, when she's freaking out after being told "I love you" by Riley. I started using different footage and kind of editing it oddly, y'know, (in funny voice) in NYPD Blue kind of fashion. To give the sense of a fractured mind. So you'll find that while apparently I'm this big philosophical guy, what I am is an incredible pedant. I'm very literable, literal about everything I do. Or literable, if that ever becomes a word and I'll be sure to be that, too. We do find emotion, which by the way, Alan sells really well. Whenever he gets sad, I think "oh no!" And the first time Summer was just sitting on an apple box on stage, giving this speech, Jain Sekuler, the script supervisor and I looked at each other with tears welling up in our eyes. She kills me with this, her little strength, and her decency and her aloneness. Aloneness is, and not loneliness, but aloneness, is the most common theme in everything that I feel and do, and hers is so painful and...then there goes Simon, ruining her plan. But then we get to have some nice violence. Well, it's an action show, y'know. [End of Act Three]
[Act Four]
But that speech is a sham after all. She's lying, she's trying to get Early off the ship. But at the same time she's speaking the truth and everybody knows it. And it just kind of breaks my heart. Y'know, she is an extraordinary performer in her own right, and y'know, I've gone on about it, probably can't enough. This is a callback to the first time we ever saw the wall of guns in the pilot, and the big...y'know...always adding a little Jayne moment is good. He never does the right thing, always loved that about him. Of course, the pilot hadn't aired when this aired the first time, so, but people still got the idea.

Can't say enough -- I believe Ron Cobb helped designed that ship. We spent a long time on it. On the ship and his suit. Really wanted that Buck Rogers kinda feel, I mean the strip, not the tv show from the '80's. Really wanted something awesome and colorful, yet at the same time believable and that worked out beautifully. This is one of my favorite scenes of Summer's. I could never understand why -- first of all, she looks like she's filled with joy, she loves space, in fact she was in a really painful harness that she'd had on through lunch, but she still managed to make it seem fun. I couldn't understand why I loved her in that suit so much, until somebody explained it's like a snowsuit. It's just too big on her, it's like Willow in the Eskimo suit on Buffy. But as much as Kaylee is for the audience, Mal is our audience proxy, so when he loves her and accepts her, we do, even though we already do.

Now, starting right there, from that screen, this is a great big Steadycam oner (as in one-shot). I don't use a lot of Steadycam on the show. This was partially caused again by the score to Gattaca, which takes you along so hypnotically that you wanna do shots that go on for a long time, but it's also here for a very specific reason. And the reason is very simply, now the crew is connected. Everybody is connected and they're all connected to River. And so I wanted to do a shot that encompassed everybody. Showed what they're going through here. This is y'know...she's (Inara) said she's leaving the ship, they're (Mal & Inara) in a very weird space, and just watch the two of them, it's a subtle thing. They're both...just, oops, I can't, I shouldn't, I...I...too much, too much emotion. I love that. Needless to say, this take took a lot of takes because it does encompass everybody and having to go up those really narrow stairs and alot of difficult Steadycam work. And every time...a couple of times we got to the end and Summer forgot her line or made a mistake, and Nathan just blew up "Summer!" And we did another take where Nathan blew it right at the beginning, I yelled cut and he yelled "Summer!" Oh, he picked on her, he picked on the girls terribly, he's the worst big brother anybody ever had. But now we've gone through that entire shot and seen that at the end of it is River, meaning she's a part of them now. And here, we get to the match for the ball, uh for the planet that is, with the ball. Held up in frame, to really just take a moment to experience it. And feel the connection between it and the ship and the world they're in. And there's no better statement about mankind's fate or quite frankly, the fate of this show --

***
Early
Well, here I am.
***

-- and how we felt, while we were filming it than what he just said. So that really worked on two levels. I had something very specific I was trying to do and I really wanted to share it with you. So, I'm sorry that was probably repetitive, incoherent, and not that anecdotal, but I will say just at the end, how grateful I am to every single person, every single castmember. They came through and gave me, not just one of the happiest filming experiences I've ever had, but the chance to say something truly abstract in a story filled with emotion. And well, that's the best. Thanks. Hope you didn't turn it off. "

sk

[> Thanks for posting this! -- Pony, 08:36:05 01/19/04 Mon

Objects is my favourite episode of Firefly and Jubal Early is my very favourite Jossverse villian. His line at the end "Here I am," is just one of those really simple things that seems to sum up so much. We are all of us objects in space, and the meaning we find in that, whether we see Early's statement as despairing or strangely hopeful, gets to the heart of all Joss' shows.

[> Existentialism in Angel (insight into Ats and Whedon's Existentialism) -- Rufus, 08:37:09 01/19/04 Mon

Now, on Angel, I made a very similar statement when I had him say -- realize that he couldn't count on The Powers That Be, that maybe there's no grand plan -- and Angel had said if nothing we do means anything, then the only thing that means anything is what we do. Now that is the moral implication of a universe that has no meaning. This is more the physical implication, and the ability we have to again embue it with meaning and how glorious or terrifying that is."

then...

"The idea of the show was redemption, and what it takes to win back a life when you've misused yours terribly," Whedon told the gathered crowd on Stage 5 at Paramount Pictures, where the show is filmed. "It's gone through a lot of different permutations. A lot of characters. A lot of different styles. But ultimately that has never left. Angel, to me, is so important, because it's about how an adult faces what they've done with their life, goes forward with it, overcomes it.


now a quote from Sparknotes.com....

http://www.sparknotes.com

Self-overcoming - According to Nietzsche, we are both creature and creator. We are both the animal with its instincts for cruelty and aggression and the overman with his self-made will and set of values. In order to become more noble, to approximate the overman, we must turn our animal instincts for cruelty against the creature in us. In a painful process of self-examination and inner struggle, we must make ourselves deeper and stronger. Nietzsche calls this self-punishment "self-overcoming."

Ironic that an immortal creature such as Angel keeps having to learn how much things change. He's even mentioned that he's very old, and that seems to have made him resistant to change. He had an epiphany where he realized that what really matters is what he does instead of just what he has done. In order for the Angel of this season to evolve he must go through that process of "self-overcoming". Angel has lived many lives and is left with the baggage of the worst he has done and the things he does to attempt to atone for them. This is evident in the way he has taken charge at Wolfram and Hart. He must feel that if he can change an evil lawfirm that things will be better, but it's hard to change others when you have so many things that trouble you in the now. The thing is to, like Sisyphus, continue to roll that rock up the hill, trick being to understand why such a burden is worth the effort.

Joss speaks of a universe that has no meaning but I have to wonder about that. Meaning is what you make of it even if the only power you have is to show the smallest of kindness, therefore easing someone's suffering. Sounds simple but that's where the choice comes in, do you want the meaning you make to be based upon creating suffering for others or easing that suffering? Angel can't change the past but he can change what he does about the present and future. The redemption of Angel won't be an end result but a continued effort to make the life he has meaningful.

[> [> Re: Existentialism in Angel (insight into Ats and Whedon's Existentialism) -- Night, 09:39:15 01/22/04 Thu

[Joss speaks of a universe that has no meaning but I have to wonder about that. Meaning is what you make of it even if the only power you have is to show the smallest of kindness, therefore easing someone's suffering.]

I think that was his point in Epiphany, honestly. That you've got this big, endless universe, and ultimately there's no moral, no point, no meaning. That being the case, the only meaning anything has is what a person imbues it with, as he stated in the commentary. I get the impression this applies just as much to life as it would a baseball or a ship.

[> can't read it all right now, but... -- Seven, 10:21:11 01/19/04 Mon

I find this incredibly thought-provoking S'kat. It's really strange that you post this now as I am stuck in some deep self-reflection. I promise to read it all later, but right now just preserving.

7

[> More preserving, (insight into Ats and Whedon's Existentialism) -- s'kat, 16:16:26 01/20/04 Tue

Very interesting episode to watch, highly recommend watching the commentary as well. I think Objects in Space may actually be the best Joss Whedon piece since The Body and it reminds me a great deal of what he was attempting in that episode which is how we deal with the physical nature of reality.

[> [> I have a mighty roar -- Pony, 08:39:58 01/21/04 Wed

One of my fave bits of Joss dialogue is that exchange between Early and Simon when Early mishears a word as lion. Objects and words all with multiple meanings and interpretations. Who is Early? Is he Alliance? Is he a lion? Each are equally meaningless and equally important to the question of what Early is.
Marie had her baby!!! -- Masq, 08:32:57 01/19/04 Mon

Here are the details of our youngest future board poster:

===
Boy

Born Sunday, 4th January at 3.40 p.m. after a three-hour labour (hee-hee!)

Weight: 7lb, 10oz

Name: Donovan (after Liam's dad) Morgan ('cos I like it)

Mother and Baby fine, father ecstatic, uncle not too fussed!

Replies:

[> yaaaaaaayyy!!!!!! mazel tov to marie, liam, & donovan!!! -- anom, 09:34:51 01/19/04 Mon

I'm glad everyone's fine & (it sounds like) it wasn't a difficult labor, as such things go. Much happiness to the 3 of you!!

[> Happiness! -- mamcu, 10:20:47 01/19/04 Mon

Wonderful news! Much happiness to Marie and Liam, and welcome and happiness to Donovan.

[> Three cheers! -- CW, 12:04:49 01/19/04 Mon


[> Congrats :) -- Giles & Nick, 12:27:12 01/19/04 Mon

We are glad everything is ok :)

[> Yay!! Congratulations to everyone! -- LadyStarlight, 16:58:37 01/19/04 Mon


[> Well done, Marie!! -- dub ;o), 18:16:14 01/19/04 Mon

...and welcome to little Donovan Morgan. Best wishes and love to all of you!

dub ;o)

[> Congratulations Marie! -- OnM, 20:07:56 01/19/04 Mon

Donovan, eh? For some reason I'm thinking of...


You can just sit there thinking / On your velvet throne
About all the rainbows you can / Have for your own




But then that's probably just the old hippie rising up out of the back parts of my mind. (He does that sometimes.)

Best wishes to you and yours!

:-)

[> Awww! -- Rahael, 00:49:03 01/20/04 Tue

well done to all!

[> Welcome to Donovan Morgan! -- MsGiles, 02:00:59 01/20/04 Tue


[> Now, again, I feel old. Congratulations and best wishes! -- Tchaikovsky, 03:53:00 01/20/04 Tue


[> Congratulations, Marie! Love the name Donovan.... -- cjl, 07:09:10 01/20/04 Tue

Looking forward to the little guy performing at his first folk festival (2022).

[> Mazel Tov! That's wonderful! :) -- Rob, 10:47:41 01/20/04 Tue


[> Congratulations! -- KdS, 12:21:29 01/20/04 Tue

Fast and healthy. What more can one ask for?

[> Cograts to Marie and hubby! -- Random, 14:06:25 01/20/04 Tue


[> Congrats! Like the name Morgan too. -- s'kat, 16:13:38 01/20/04 Tue


[> Hope everyone is well. Congratulations! -- sdev, 23:05:57 01/20/04 Tue


[> Congrats, Marie and Liam! Welcome, Donovan! -- Scroll, 09:16:39 01/21/04 Wed


[> congratulations -- deacon, 17:55:47 01/22/04 Thu


[> Welcome to the world, Donovan! Best wishes to you all. -- Jane, 18:40:23 01/22/04 Thu


[> Congratulations, Marie! -- Arethusa, 22:00:13 01/22/04 Thu

Be well, and get lots of rest when you can!

[> Congratulations -- Celebaelin, 19:35:10 01/23/04 Fri


[> Congratulations! Love the name. -- DorianQ, 01:49:42 01/24/04 Sat

Emma Caulfeild (I Want to Marry Ryan Banks) -- Wolf Breeze, 17:45:12 01/19/04 Mon

Please support Emma, she was your favorite ex-demon, Xander lover. If you have time please watch her latest production, ABC Family's I Want to Mary Ryan Banks. It's a view behind the scene of ABC's The Bachelor. It brings Emma and Jason Priestley back together on the small screen(Beverly Hills 90210). Chick flick and romantic comedy. Still I'd like to support her.

Replies:

[> Re: Emma Caulfield (I Want to Marry Ryan Banks) -- Wolf Breeze, 18:51:39 01/19/04 Mon

Disney does know what it is doing! Nicholas Brandon was in a commercial during this telecast. In March he is acting as some designer/dresser (man who likes pink and combs his hair very artisticly) in another ABC Family production. I think it was called Celest in the city... base line: dork becomes fashionable in New York City. Thanks!

[> [> Re: Emma Caulfield (I Want to Marry Ryan Banks) -- Brian, 11:08:55 01/20/04 Tue

Watched the show on Sunday. Nice light entertainment. Missed the NB commerical (Rats!).

[> [> Celeste in the city -- pellenaka, 14:57:07 01/20/04 Tue

Not dork; gay guy.

More info: http://www.suntimes.com/output/television/cst-ftr-abc16.html

[> [> [> Re: Celeste in the city -- Wolf Breeze, 15:39:44 01/20/04 Tue

Just cause he is flamboyant and style savy doesn't mean he is gay. I'm just trying to not be stereotypical.

I missed Miss Charisma's production... "See Jane Date" in August. But then again I haven't been watching television that much. Without Buffy was is the reason?

BTW, Chicago Sun Times website... that was HARSH!
don't visit!

Slay ya' Later
~Billy, Wolf Breeze~

[> [> [> [> Re: Celeste in the city -- Rob, 16:03:28 01/20/04 Tue

While flamboyant and style savvy doesn't always have to mean gay, in this case it does, because Nick is playing a gay character in that movie, who is flamboyant and style savvy!

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Okay... -- LittleBit, 17:43:25 01/20/04 Tue

Is anyone else having visions of Xander and Larry...?
Everything I Want In Life Exists in the Joss Whedon Universe -- AngelVSAngelus, 18:28:36 01/19/04 Mon

I'm posting here my erratic thoughts at the moment in hope that perhaps putting these words into textual form will be cathartic and maybe convince me that someone understands and is listening.
I'm hoping that someone here may feel the slightest smidgen of similar perspective regarding this world and the figmentary one in Buffy and Angel.
I hate so many things about this place, and when using that phrase I'm generally referring to the world at large. I've done my best to assimilate all the information I can about things on a global scale, and by and large the majority of it seems to deal with the seemingly perpetual state of conflict, for resources, land, religious dispute. There's this ideological struggle during which so many suffer, hurt, are exploited.
In Whedon's world people that feel pained by the world's suffering, like myself, can at least take action against something that contributes to the darkness. I've tried doing so in my life, but I can never find anything that's concrete, that I can have definitive certainty about making a difference. Writing letters, being a member of amnesty internation, doing politically themed web art that no one looks at, writing screenplays that no one reads. What, EXACTLY, is that doing? I feel rather similar to Angel at the moment, because I find myself compromising my own ethical values to survive, and while the guilt from doing so weighs down on me from within I pay so much lip service to the "heroic activism", but my heart's not in it. My heart's not in anything.
In Whedon's world I wouldn't be a freak. I wouldn't be socially inept, or rather I would be but that wouldn't prevent from befriending someone that'd really care and stand by me until the end anyway. Here, contrary to Xander, I don't befriend two extraordinary individuals who remain connected with me for years. Here my strange way of speaking is not considered humorous or pop-culturally witty.
In Whedon's world you have a concrete semblance of purpose. There are Powers That Be or Watchers or father figures like Giles or something to guide you toward a purpose. Buffy always lamented having a destiny forced upon her, and rightfully so, but damnit at least she knew why she was here. What's more meaningful than saving the bloody world?
In Whedon's world love is a force so powerful it sometimes transcends lifetimes. It leads you to your gift of self sacrifice. Here I find myself wandering aimlessly, looking for someone that can understand and connect with me, like April the witless robot. I was made to love someone, but they haven't show up yet.
Buffy was right when she said that the hardest thing in life is living. I still haven't figured out why, realizing this, she urged her sister and everyone else to go on. What makes it worth it? Most would say people, the connections you make in life. But what do you say to a guy who doesn't have anyone? Who can't find that connection?

Feel free to reply or disregard.

AvsA

Replies:

[> The simple answer is that there aren't any simple answers. -- OnM, fairly simple himself, 20:54:55 01/19/04 Mon

There are a number of your comments that I could comment on, but I decided to choose this particular one:

*** In Whedon's world you have a concrete semblance of purpose. ***

I disagree, or perhaps perhaps I just see Whedon's world differently. To me, what I have always found admirable in the Buffyverse is that the universe there is much like ours, basically somewhere between indifferent to malevolent, and yet many of the human inhabitants don't just do the obvious thing under such circumstances and just give in to apathy and despair.

The 'semblance of purpose' that you invoke is not something the universe inherently possesses, or at least I don't think that it does. (More religious persons present may disagree, which is their right, of course.) Purpose is something that we create, not something handed down to us as a fait accompli. If we were not sentient beings, this would not even be an issue, but we are, so there is nothing to do but wrestle with it-- it won't go away.

But I also tend to think that 'purpose' is whatever you make of it, and that small efforts directed towards accomplishing that purpose are meaningful, and that it is a mistake to judge one's efforts solely on a basis laid out by others, who quite frankly often expect way too much. There's an old joke that goes "When the going gets tough, the tough subcontract." Whether by divine desire or blind fate, we seem to be the universes' subcontractors. So, You get up and do it again / Amen, like Jackson Browne quoteth.

So, even if no one sees your art, you still conceived of it and made it. For the duration of time you spent doing so, your thoughts pushed back the darkness. It would be just as easy to do the opposite, but you chose not to.

We live in a world that continually demands more, as if that in an of itself was the holy grail. I prefer to think of a world in which what we demand is better. I also accept that it will not always happen. It isn't easy, and there is no real peace to be gained from attempting this perspective, but there is less conflict, and that too pushes back the darkness.

Finally (well, sorta), the fact that you posted your thoughts here at ATPo must mean that you have some kind of a connection, does it not? Seems to me there's a whole big crowd of anyones here, and that more than one of them will 'understand'.

So for whatever it's worth, I hope this makes at least a little sense. I'm still working out the details of this life thing myself, ya know.

:-)

[> well... -- anom, taking a deep breath & jumping in, 22:07:50 01/19/04 Mon

First, of course things are better & clearer in the Jossverse--it's written that way. But some of its messages apply to the real world. Your own phrasing ("There's this ideological struggle during which so many suffer, hurt, are exploited") sounds a lot like Angel's lines leading up to his description of his epiphany. When you ask what your activist & artistic efforts do, "exactly?" I don't think it can be answered in those terms. But people do pay attention to letters (each letter actually written & sent is considered to represent another 10 people who feel the same way but not strongly enough to write letters). And Amnesty International really does get political prisoners out of jail--if you're a member, you get their publications, right? Do you feel a need to know exactly which prisoners' releases you personally contributed to?

Maybe you need to get involved at a more direct level than sending a check. You could send letters to individual prisoners, or volunteer at a hotline, or prepare or deliver "meals on wheels," or take Red Cross courses & learn to save lives; all of these can also involve making real connections w/other people. If you're not disqualified (& I know, they're making it harder to qualify all the time), you could donate blood (talk about getting your heart into it--I can tell you, it's a great feeling to know you're saving lives!). If your main concern is the conflict in the world, you can take conflict resolution training.

Saving the entire world is a gigantic, dramatic thing to do, & thank God it's not something we need to do in the real world, at least in the sense of the immediate threat of physical destruction of the world. But we do have chances to make a difference locally (& weren't most of the Scoobies' lifesaving activities local?). Or even on a larger scale: the 2 main activities I'm involved in beyond the check-writing level are the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, which is working to overturn unconstitutional provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, & the Dialogue Project, which brings people on all sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict together to actually listen to each other, & be heard. Most people will only have a chance to have effects locally on national/global issues, but those local efforts can add up on a larger scale.

Then there's the stuff you can do as a consumer by making sure your dollars (even if, like most folks, you don't have that many of 'em) don't support things like worker exploitation or environmental destruction. Co-op America has lots of ways you can do this. All of these things have real effects, even if you can't always see them directly.

"Here, contrary to Xander, I don't befriend two extraordinary individuals who remain connected with me for years."

Well, no...that's because you don't have Joss Whedon writing your life. But who does? I feel a little more hesitant to comment on this part of your message, both because I don't know that much about your life (is your "strange way of speaking" your own, or are you talking Buffy-speak?) & because I'm not that great at making connections myself. I tend to be awkward--more so the more it matters not to be--& it can put people off. As for guidance, no, we don't have PTBs or Gileses (don't think I'd really want the CoW deciding my purpose for me!), but a lot of people do find real-life mentors. And you might have a better chance of finding the kind of connection you want w/someone working w/you in a cause on a hands-on level (see above) than wandering aimlessly. I mean, you'd already have something in common. Just don't expect it to be as dramatic as in the Jossverse, or to happen as quickly--TV demands things move faster than in the real world.

I hope this is any help, & not just another repetition of things you've already heard too many times before.

[> [> In fact it is... -- AngelVSAngelus, 22:33:59 01/19/04 Mon

And I really appreciate the fact that you site organizations. You actually point in directions. Many that don't get it, and thankfully no one here seems to fit into that category, just point at empty platitudes.
I suppose part of my problem is that I DO feel that I need to save the world. I know that it sounds silly and most likely naive, but everytime I hear about Palestinian houses destroyed to form an apartheid wall, or a bombing in Indonesia,or the rising tide of women kidnapped and raped in Iraq, it sickens me to the point of feeling responsible.
I get so frustrated that it comes, in our world, in the form of bueracracy and red tape and faceless systems that I can't combat like the demons that Buffy and Angel and the like face on a day to day basis.
Its interesting, and ultimately proof of Whedon and his staff of writer's geniuses, that all of my feelings are embodied by various scenes throughout the series. I often feel like Buffy in "Weight of the World", or Angel in "Reprise", just ready to give up, caving to the pressures of adulthood. I'm frickin' twenty, and already its gotten to be sooo much. Holland Manner's might as well have given ME that speech about the world working not in spite of evil but with it.
It is, of course, obvious that life is not scripted and as such will be more difficult. I know this, but as much as I want to logically tell myself to face up to reality and just deal with it, that doesn't really eliminate the pain.
I really appreciate your suggestions, and I'm actually checking into some of the links you listed.

[> [> [> Face reality-- yeah, right! -- OnM, 06:15:47 01/20/04 Tue

It is, of course, obvious that life is not scripted and as such will be more difficult. I know this, but as much as I want to logically tell myself to face up to reality and just deal with it, that doesn't really eliminate the pain.

No, it certainly doesn't, and one of the things that really bugs me no end is when I'm feeling lousy about something, anything, and someone else comes along and tells me to "stop complaining, lots of folks have it worse than you do".

As if I didn't know this. The face-reality crowd all too often conjures up the phrase that I heard plenty of times in my own youth and unfortunately still hear today, which is 'bleeding-heart ________ (fill in the blank)'. The implication is that the world sucks and so you either categorically fall into the group of sucker or suckee, there is no middle ground, it's either exploit or be exploited. It then follows from their wonderful 'logic' that if you are in the latter class, you deserve to be, because you can't 'face reality'.

MsGiles said something I think is very important, about 'riding the cusp between fantasy and reality, without ending up in an asylum'. I agree wholeheartedly about this. If you don't, then you have to be an individual of immense personal strength and moral fiber to survive, and let's face it, mighty few of us are like Buffy.

But we don't have to be, and recognizing that is important, I think. Small things do matter, as I mentioned before, and becoming satisfied with doing those small things is a long way towards countering the cynicism of those who think they're slandering you with the 'bleeding-heart' epithet.

A few months ago, an old, long-time customer of our store who currently lives in the southern US (I'm in PA) paid us a visit. Sadly, he is currently battling cancer, and when I walked into the showroom after returning from a service call I hardly even recognized him, he was such a shadow of his former robust, lively self.

I put down my stuff, walked over to him and reached out to shake his hand and offer greetings. He returned the handshake, then suddenly, out of the blue, he grabbed me and hugged me. I was slightly taken aback, when I realized he was almost in tears at seeing me again.

All that I ever did was sell the guy some electronic gear over the years, and otherwise treated him like a friend, not just a customer. It was easy to do, because he was an inherently likeable guy. There was nothing more to it than that.

After we un-hugged, I recovered a bit and asked how he was doing (already knowing the answer, but, be cheerful, you know?) He sort of gave me that comic/tragic look like "life goes on, eh?" and said "Well, hangin' in there!"

You never know who you might effect, or why, or when. But it happens. Sometimes the most ordinary things turn out to be special somehow.

And now off to go push the rock up the stupid hill again...

:-)

[> [> [> [> The World Sucks -- Claudia, 12:27:03 01/20/04 Tue

I believe that the world does suck - generally. All you have to do is look around or even pay attention to the news and you'll see.

However, I also believe two other things. One, not all of the world sucks. That perhaps there are some good things out there. But even more importantly, I don't think you should depend upon the state of the world for your general happiness or fulfillment. Perhaps you might want to consider spiritual self-fulfillment to ease your pain. To look within yourself and find your heart. Mind you, this will probably not be an easy path to take. But is anything in this life easy?

[> [> [> [> [> That's cause happiness doesn't sell -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:02:54 01/20/04 Tue

I'd like to quote "The Hobbit" to clarify what I mean:

"Now it is a strange thing, but things that are good to have and days that are good to spend are soon told about, and not much to listen to; while things that are uncomfortable, palpitating, and even gruesome, may make a good tale, and take a great deal of telling anyway."

Or, to paraphrase Stephen King: "Things often turn out all right, it's just that you never hear about it. "Made it home from work today" isn't really a big news story."

So, to use some of my own words, sometimes the world is made to seem worse than it is because it's the bad things, like someone dying from cancer or a school shooting, that get our attention, while the good things, like laughing at a joke or eating a nice meal, don't really seem note worthy.

Of course, my perspective is that of a teenager who easily gets good grades, has generous, loving parents, an easy ticket into college, and none of the infamous "teen angst" as of yet. The worst stuff that I have to suffer through is trying to find scholarships and some small socialisation problems. As such, it's quite possible I'm looking at this from a different perspective than yours.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Too True -- Vegeta, 14:15:40 01/20/04 Tue

Finn Mac Coll is exactly right. Don't let the news get you down. News orginizations (especially ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN) are what I like to call "Doom and Gloom" news. Example: Good Iraqi news (Schools opening, capturing higher ups, stopping terrorists, upgrades to utilities) is rarely if at all reported. Bad Iraqi news (U.S. troops killed/maimed, terrorists setting off another bomb, utilities sabotaged... ect.) is shoved down our throats. Bad news sells! Good news is in effect considered boring and uninteresting. The best way to understand the news is the ability to read between the lines. Think of obvious questions that aren't asked... then deduce why. Face it "good" news isn't "sexy". But, the world isn't nearly as bad as it's made out to be. Keep your chin up.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Try not watching/reading the news -- Pip, 09:26:47 01/21/04 Wed

sometimes the world is made to seem worse than it is because it's the bad things, like someone dying from cancer or a school shooting, that get our attention, while the good things, like laughing at a joke or eating a nice meal, don't really seem note worthy.

Which is why a good tip if you are feeling depressed is to give up the news media for a few weeks to a month.

They live on the bad things. Avoid the newspapers, tv, and radio news programmes and your world will start re-focussing on the good things.

If something that you really need to know about does happen, people tell you all about it anyway.

[> [> [> Wow, that was moving! :) np -- Kris, 09:26:07 01/20/04 Tue

...

[> [> [> glad it was helpful -- anom, 23:04:12 01/20/04 Tue

Sitting here reading your post, I'm really moved that you got something useful out of what I said.

We may not have a Slayer here in the Realverse, but each of us can do a little of her job. You don't have to save the world all by yourself, just do your part. There are organizations working on all of the issues you listed, in various ways & at various levels. Some of the ones working on less "dramatic" issues may actually help more people than more high-profile efforts (which is one reason so much of the good stuff doesn't make the news). Possibly one of the most important things you could do is register voters. A local organization I belong to held a voter registration drive at outdoor summer concerts. The different kinds of music drew different population groups, so we registered a diverse group of people & had fun doing it. (One of the things I like about this group is the creative thinking in its activism.)

Maybe one of the main things is to take it slow. Each of us can only do so much, but there are a lot of us. So find the causes that mean the most to you, & then the approaches that fit your strengths best.

When it comes to the "love's bitch" stuff, I'm not sure what I can tell you. But it sounds like you need to get more grounded, centered...whatever you want to call it, so you're not pulled off-center so easily in your interactions w/other people. Things like meditation or yoga help some people w/that. Kenny's suggestion about looking into therapy could also be a good idea, just to see if it's something that works for you. Or just someone to talk to, but not in a relationship context--someone who can be more objective & give you perspective & feedback.

[> [> Re: well... -- Kenny, 08:18:39 01/20/04 Tue

Anom makees a good point about getting involved directly. Just as important, though, is get involved in a mission where you'll be working on a team. While AI, art, writing, etc, are all excellent things to do, they are very solo and can serve to reinforce the idea that you're alone in wanting to help. Perhaps by working with people who have spent years in such activities you may begin to understand their perspective. I wouldn't doubt that many people who end up spending their lives in service to helping others started off with very lofty goals and felt beat down over time. They managed to get through it, though; I imagine that the more you do that type of thing, the more your worldview changes. It might make some people more cynical, but that's not necessarily bad. It really works as a coping mechanism for some people, and some of the least yielding people I know, the ones I respected because of their ability to get things done without compromising, definitely had that streak. Get to know some of those people.

Also, it might not hurt to talk to a professional therapist. It sounds like you're on a path that could lead to depression (if it hasn't already started). You can't help anyone if you get stuck there. I was in a state that sounds similar a few years ago, and I regret that my own prejudices against that type of help kept me from getting it. I think I partially felt that, were I to "get better", I'd lose the part of me that wanted to make a difference, that I wouldn't really care anymore, and I didn't want to become one of "those people". That really doesn't make much sense, though, because a good therapist is him/herself a bit of an idealist. They want to help others, and they recognize the importance of making a difference in creating a healthy, happy mind. Don't be afraid of happiness because you think it may distract you from helping. Remember this lesson from Buffy--the happier she was, the better she fought.

[> [> [> I Don't Know -- Claudia, 12:34:24 01/20/04 Tue

[Perhaps by working with people who have spent years in such activities you may begin to understand their perspective.]

Or perhaps there is another alternative. Working with other people may not be the only answer. Maybe you should consider that the world and other people cannot always provide the answer or solution to your problems. There is something else to consider - self-discovery. Isn't that the revelation that Buffy had finally stumbled across in "Chosen"? That she needed to learn about her true self before making important choices in her life? Like romance?
Like I had said in another post, you might want to consider spiritual self-realization.

[> [> [> [> Re: I Don't Know -- Kenny, 13:37:52 01/20/04 Tue

Self-realization is definitely the goal for every person, but the act of achieving that can tricky, and that's where other people may be an asset. It's often easier to recognize something about ourselves in other people first. In fact, I'd say that self-realization is fairly impossible without other people. You can spend time by yourself and come up with a "theory of me", but it's untested. What happens when those assumptions of who you are get challenged? That "theory of me" may get shot to hell. Other people act as reflections of ourselves.

Alone time, quiet time, reflection time, they're all still important. They are not, however, sufficient. If you look at Buffy, she spent the last seven years in a team, as a leader, as part of a family. She had very little alone time, especially the last year, and that lack of balance was obvious. In "Chosen" she realized this. It appears, however, that AvA has had plenty of alone time. Perhaps he (I'm assuming "he", sorry if I'm wrong) needs the team time to balance that. He needs that reflection of other people to learn things about himself. Continuing to be alone when already having problems with loneliness can be very dangerous.

At the end of the day, though, both of us are voicing opinions based on our particular circumstances, and who's to say have much either one will help. While discussing these things on Atpo is usually fun, it's also usually fairly abstract. This, however, is not abstract. I'm not even sure it's the time for armchair philosophy and psychology. Just to hammer the point home, AvA, if you're undergoing emotional distress, you're going to help yourself the most by talking to someone trained. It doesn't have to be a doctor. Perhaps you could find a religious leader who's trained as a counselor. Even if you don't necessarily have a faith, it could be a good thing (especially if you can find one of an interfaith background or perhaps an eastern background). Considering what you're dealing with, it could be your best route.

[> [> [> [> [> Other People -- Claudia, 13:47:37 01/20/04 Tue

[Self-realization is definitely the goal for every person, but the act of achieving that can tricky, and that's where other people may be an asset. It's often easier to recognize something about ourselves in other people first.]

[Alone time, quiet time, reflection time, they're all still important. They are not, however, sufficient.]

Why? Why is it so important that other people are involved? Sometimes, I get the feeling that the real reasons society preaches about reaching for other people are out of fear of being alone, and fear of reaching within ourselves and learning some kind of truth.

You seemed to be advocating in the involvement of others more than self-reflection.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Other People -- Kenny, 06:40:59 01/21/04 Wed

I partially explained why in the earlier post, but that was snipped, so I'll try to reiterate. You can sit by yourself in a vacuum and think about yourself and say, "Well, I know this and this and this about myself." Do it long enough and you'll have "self-realization." Fine and noble. But the second you start interacting with people those ideas you've built about yourself are going to be challenged. Some of your ideas may be challenged to the point that you have to concede that you were wrong.

Instead, if you interact with people during the day and go have alone time after that to contemplate those interactions, how you responded to other people, how they responded to you, why you made the decisions you did, you've got actual information to go on, not just a theoretical "what would I do in this situtation." "Self" is partially defined by "world". There's no getting around that. From the beginning, when conciousness starts developing, other people are vital to healthy growth. For extreme examples of what goes wrong when other people aren't around look at Victor and Genie. "Self" is a category the mind creates to differentiate from "non-self." To me, the simple fact that it can't be properly created without others demonstrates the importance of interacting with others to truly understand self. Otherwise you might learn that "self" in a vacuum is very different from "self" in the real world. Without the temperment of human interaction, any "theory of self" that comes through self-realization is untested.

Besides which is the fact that certain emotional states, such as depression, totally preclude any attempt at self-realization. The brain's not working correctly, even if the sufferer thinks it is, and despondency due to depression is instead attributed to the suffering that goes with self-realization. That can lead to years of inability and unnecessary suffering just because someone was trying to live up to a romantic goal of self-realization. Instead they will just continue to reinforce their own feelings of worthlessness, and that's no good, even possibly dangerous.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Other People -- Claudia, 09:24:28 01/21/04 Wed

[You can sit by yourself in a vacuum and think about yourself and say, "Well, I know this and this and this about myself." Do it long enough and you'll have "self-realization." Fine and noble.]


This is so totally off the mark on what I believe self-realization is about that when I read it, I became speechless. Is this really your idea of what self-realization is about?

It's about finding yourself . . . or finding the spirit within yourself through spirituality. Meditation. I never said it was easy. But many believe that the journey of self-realization is worth the difficulties.

I have no problems with interacting with other people. But you seemed to think that such interaction is the main solution to dealing with problems. It might be part of the solution. Just as self-reflection or self-realization could also be PART of the solution. But it seems that a person who mainly focuses his/her attention mainly on others and the world beyond, might simply be fleeing from his or herself. I've always thought that was Willow's problem. She always seemed to be fleeing from herself by using magic (especially to help Buffy), her relationship with her friends and lovers, and worrying about what others think of her. Maybe a little self-reflection or meditation could have helped.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Other People -- Kenny, 15:23:53 01/21/04 Wed

I used quotes to denote that it's not what I believe self-realization is about. If I had been speaking it, I would have made finger-quotes, indicating a "false sense of..." Sorry for the confusion. Also, I've never said anything about "focusing" on other people or world. But if you are reflecting on yourself, part of that is reflecting on how you interact with other people (in a real way, not just by buying stamps from them or whatever), trying to understand why you said certain things to certain people through the course of the day.

I have no problems with interacting with other people. But you seemed to think that such interaction is the main solution to dealing with problems.

Actually, I said that interacting with other people may help the specific problem at hand. As AvA had indicated that most of the activities he pursued to help others were solo activities, I suggested that interacting with others of a like mind may help him understand why people continue to try to make a difference.

I'm not sure how much further this conversation can go, because I believe we have totally different perceptions of what "self" is. I believe it is a construct of the mind, nothing more, nothing less. I'm not even convinced that self works "real time" (that is, I'm open to the idea that we only became aware of decisions that we make after they've been made--the part responsible for consciousness is the last part of the brain to find out what just happened). I don't believe in any spirit beyond that, whether it be a soul or an animating force or what have you. I believe that you are a sum of your memories and mental machinery. I believe that reflection on the past is incredibly important, as that is who you are, and the conclusions you reach by reflection will help influence further decisions (that is, thought itself is an important input to the brain's decision-making equipment). But another part of how the brain works is the identification of something after repeated exposure to it. Perhaps there are things in your self, in the way you make decisions and interpret data, that you haven't been exposed to enough in others because of leading a very solitary life, and thus you can't recognize it in yourself.

At the end of the day (literally, hehe), I'm guessing that you and I have such different ways of viewing the world, we can't really have a good dialogue on how to best understand how we fit in it. We each have ways that work best for us, and the best we can do for others is each present what's helped us and hope they find something that helps.

[> contribution -- MsGiles, 03:31:30 01/20/04 Tue

This may sound quite off beam, but did you ever see the film 'Dark Star'? There's a bit right at the end, when these guys are suddenly totally marooned in space because their ship has blown itself up (long story). One is swept off by a small asteroid cluster that's been following them. The other's a surfer, he grabs this bit of debris that's going past (it might even be his board, I can't remember now), and gets on it, and he goes something like 'I've found a way' as he starts to spiral down to the planet's surface. He's made up, happy as Larry. They've lost everything, they're facing the end, but he's found something that makes sense to him, and it's Ok. (It sounds desperate, but it's a really funny film, if you like that dry sense of humour). That seems so much like life to me. 'Life's a bitch and then you die', but mostly we ignore that, and we find what we need in the doing of it. 'There's always a way'.

Meanwhile, I would say trying to find someone who understands you in total is futile, in my experience. But finding people you feel that warm connection with is much, much more possible, and maybe better. For myself, after a long long time trying to go shopping for the right person (making lists of criteria, that sort of thing) and ending up nowhere, I've found it can work, but not like that. For me personally, I had to take time out for myself, and stop looking for a while. It sounds corny, but I had to get happier with myself. And then there's also the looking outwards rather than inwards bit: it's easier to get on with people if you try and see what's valuable in them. Usually there's a transaction going on, if someone feels you're listening to them, they will value that and listen to you in return. If they don't ever listen to you even then, try and find some other people.

You sound serious, you sound sincere. That's valuable. I can't say exactly why, but I'm sure it's true. Hang on to that part of yourself as much as you can, in the middle of the compromises we all make to survive, because the sum of lots of little bits of it in all the people of the world is what makes it OK to carry on.

I like Buffy because it's got a lot of these concerns in it, it comments on the world we live in in a clever and witty way. It's also like another world to escape into. I have a tendency to escape into things; I'll replay Buffy episodes over and over just to try and capture the feeling of being there. Like you, I like being in another world that makes a more graspable kind of sense, and also seems a bit more exciting. I like this board because of the way people bring the Buffy stuff out and link it in with the rest of the way I live my life and try to think about it. Somewhere deep down I think I'm convinced that real life and fantasy are part of the same continuum, and that if I make enough effort maybe I can get to live on the cusp (without having to wake up in an asylum!)

[> [> Re: Self-Realization, Spirituality, and Independantly found happiness -- AngelVSAngelus, 16:15:38 01/20/04 Tue

To whoever wasn't certain if their gender assumption was correct, no apologies needed, you were right about my being male.
The aforementioned suggestion of self-realized happiness and spiritual blossoming isn't one lost on me because I want it to be. However, I unfortunately have yet to find any organized system in which I can believe with conviction.
It seems the only thing that I do believe in, the abstract concept that people shouldn't suffer, is the very thing that plagues me because of how incongruent it seems with how most of the rest of the world feels and thinks.
I have read about every religion, and thus far Buddhism seems to appeal to me the most, but i've had difficulty getting myself to accept most Eastern philosophy because of an inability to give up a sense of self and singularity, or desires for things.
Who ever assessed that my isolated endeavors to fix things may have led to depression was right. I have the unfortunate folly of being a hopeless romantic. So much so that I don't know how to cope with my continued singlehood. I want so badly to find someone to connect with on that level, and its a self-defeating cycle, because my huge desire to do so makes me too eager when I interact with people, makes me socially inept, makes me continue to be alone, makes me lament it, makes me MORE eager, and so on. I keep wigging people out, despite the best of intentions, because people seem to be scared when you care THAT much THAT fast. Thus, because I can't seem to stop being love's bitch, much in the fashion of captain peroxide, I seem doomed to solitude.
I suppose I have a codependant personality, because I want the healing to begin within, but I may be beyond that possibility. I figure, if I just found someone then my problems with self-worth and esteem would be alleviated because someone else would SEE me, like really see me. I feel as if I have this ever expanding gift within my heart, I've got so much love to give, but without a recipient it just continues to push at the walls of my chest and I feel the need to explode.
These suggestions are awesome, and greatly appreciated. You all, as I'd already known, have had significantly more experience with this crazy adulthood thing than I have, and your wisdom is something I'm noting. Its at least giving me hope that something can change, if not everything.

[> [> [> Re: Self-Realization, Spirituality, and Independantly found happiness -- Claudia, 16:19:47 01/20/04 Tue

[I have read about every religion, and thus far Buddhism seems to appeal to me the most, but i've had difficulty getting myself to accept most Eastern philosophy because of an inability to give up a sense of self and singularity, or desires for things.]

Self-realization through any kind of organized religion or through your own efforts is not easy.

[> [> [> life thoughts part2 -- MsGiles, 07:37:56 01/22/04 Thu

First, I really hope that what I was saying before wasn't patronising. Being older isn't necessarily better or wiser (I think our vampire friends reflect the truth of the matter in this respect). It does often mean having had the chance to make a whole shedfull more of mistakes, though..

My 20's were my worst time, definitely. Looking back, it's not easy to say, 'I could have done this, or thought this, and all would have been well'. I seemed to be in some sort of psychic pain, all the time. It was like a physical pain. I can remember thinking, why doesn't it stop? I think maybe it was loneliness, but there were people around, I had friends. I didn't connect to them very closely. When I fell in love, it was with ideals, rather than the people in front of me. I look back on the guys I fell in love with (at a distance, mainly) and think 'yes they were OK guys, but what was all the fuss about?'

It flipped, basically, when I got angry with what was happening to me, and I went into a whole different, but still destructive state, where I was angry with everything. This was my most politically active time, and I got into arguments all the time, action groups, demos etc. The main problem was that I got too angry to express myself, and used to throw beer over people, and sometimes harder things. In general, though, it was better. The pain went into action, and some of it was creative.

It eventually ran me into a dead end, when I found I was too angry to get on with anyone at work (I got a regular job after freelancing for a long time) and my long-term unattainable fantasy boyfriend started going out with someone else. Ah, S5 Spike, I felt for him.

I gave it all up for a while, and went into a private world, comprised mainly of the films of Kurosawa and Aikido training. I have to admit this was one of the best times of my life. It wasn't a very coherent choice. It was like, when I'd spent some time on my own, the protective layers of my mind went soft, and things could affect me more deeply. To change the metaphor again, I needed to pour myself into something, and this was what appeared. If this corresponds to your search for spiritual enlightenment, Claudia, then I agree with you about that. I still don't follow any specific philosophy or religion, but I came across the idea of meditation through action, and that seemed to me to be something I could relate to. I've always been a lot about action, doing rather than thinking.

And then there's the detachment thing:

'One develops attachment to sense objects by thinking about sense objects. Desire for sense objects comes from attachment to sense objects, and anger comes from unfulfilled desires.
Delusion arises from anger. The mind is bewildered by delusion. Reasoning is destroyed when the mind is bewildered. One falls down (from the right path) when reasoning is destroyed.
A disciplined person, enjoying sense objects with senses that are under control and free from likes and dislikes, attains tranquillity.
All sorrows are destroyed upon attainment of tranquillity. The intellect of such a tranquil person soon becomes completely steady.
There is neither Self-knowledge nor Self-perception to those whose senses are not under control. Without Self-perception there is no peace; and without peace there can be no happiness.'(from the Bhagavad Gita)

Now whether I manage to remember this is another matter completely. Not most of the time. I like the world too much. When it's going well, I forget that pain and pleasure or two sides of the coin. Sort of like gift with purchase.

The thing with unattainable boyfriends (and running away from attainable ones) didn't really sort itself out until I decided I needed to be not scared of being single, and to work on that, and then things kind of started falling into place. That took me some decades (!) hope it doesn't take you so long. But then again, the journey was interesting (mostly), and enjoyable (sometimes).

Perhaps, as I think Claudia and some other people are saying, sometimes it's useful to take a step backwards from everything that's going on, and try and get a feeling for what your inner motivations are. The world is a bastard, but it may not just be that, you may also be at odds with something in yourself.

[> [> [> AvA - It doesn't have to be organized.:) -- Briar Rose, 00:52:21 01/27/04 Tue

Many of the happiest and most spiritual People I have ever met (including myself) have no belief system that fits any "organized" theology at all.

The secret is to take what truly rings within you form any number (1 to 1000) of different belief systems and make them YOUR OWN! It can be as simple as believing in the Buffy-verse and Catholicism or can be combining Native American beliefs with Southern Baptist teachings, or whatever. As long as it works for YOU! There is no "right" religious belief or there would be no room left in that Hell that most organized religions believe in because the "right" religion would always be someone elses!*LOL

AvA - you make changes for the better in every life you pass through. It takes a lot to think of it as that, but it's true that every person that comes into our lives is there to learn a lesson from us and to TEACH a lesson to us. Whatever you do do - don't think that it has to be "earth shattering" and Slayer Worthy. Simply talking to someone on the bus that needs to talk makes a major positive change in another's life and you don't even break a sweat doing it.

As far as the "connection" thing..... This is going to sound like a platitude, but in my experience (which I could give you particulars, but I won't bore you that way>^..^<) you will find someone when you absolutely, positively stop looking. And you stop looking when you love yourself enough to not need someone else's love to feel worthy. You can feel worthy all by yourself.

The first step is to love yourself unconditionally and you can't do that when you're trying to base your self worth on what others think of you. You can only do it once you are doing something worthwhile with your life and are comfortable with being alone and LIVING a full life. Once those two things happen, you will not only find someone, you will also find the one that is perfect for you.

One very good way of starting the I Love Myself changes, is to do as I stated at the beginning of this ramble: Create a belief system that rings true within you. Once you find a workable belief system, you will automatically stop feeling the pressure to conform.

Oncee you stop seeking to conform, you will find the inner guidance to seek where you can get involved.

Once you get involved in life, you won't need to worry about whether you are worthy or not in someone else's eyes.

Once you are able to love yourself - then you will find the "other" that will love you as well.

And on a perfectly practical note: I have seen more people alone and lonely because they are just too damn brainwashed as to what is "beautiful" and "desirable" in a possible mate.

Is it really that bad if someone isn't drop-dead, model thin, make-up department pulled together Perfect? Don't turn down someone just because their looks aren't "perfect" and you think your friends wouldn't want to "do her." (This goes for women too, BTW.) I have seen so many men all turning down great women just because they wear a size 12 or 18 instead of a 3 or 10. Or maybe she's a little older than you, or maybe she wears glasses, or lisps or whatever. Who the hell cares if you click?

What I'm saying is that it's much easier to meet people if you aren't judgemental to begin with and lose out on a possible connection just because you think that every woman should be a SuperModel type. There ain't too many Britanny Spears/JayLo types around and in all honesty? Everyone should look in the mirror and really think about whether they're the physical equivalent of Britanny/JayLo herself. Most of us aren't. And if we aren't and don't have something else seriously sexy going on in your lives, getting the wet dream perfect partner is pretty much not going to happen.

That doesn't mean that we don't meet great and beautiful people. We DO! But it means that they are beautiful in their imperfection and because our love for them makes them beautiful to us regardless of the rating they would get from a casting agent or model agency.

Cheer up AvA - life gets easier the longer you live it. I know this to be true, even though I have had what many would consider a very depressing life with lots of loss and other things that I have dealt with and STILL find joy in living it. But you learn and grow and find out that it really does pay to hang in there.

[> Getting quasi biblical (at least initially) -- Celebaelin, 05:11:28 01/20/04 Tue

You must have heard this one but I'll put it out there anyway:

Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no ill; because I'm the toughest bastard in the entire f*****g valley.

Now as constructive philosophical viewpoints go that leaves a little bit to be desired but it does have its merits from a practical standpoint. By participating in a cause that you deem right you are choosing to be a shepherd rather than the above implied 'muscular Christian' (no denominational partiality deliberately implied). Accepting, if you like, that looking after yourself is not enough and that you must strive to aid those around you who are in need in some way, when you are able. Lend a hand if you have the wherewithal, it doesn't seem too much to ask really. It moves steadily towards 'carry what you can' and the 'from each...to each...' thing though, and that becomes more dubious. So there has to be a rational limit as to how much of your personal resource, whatever that resource may be, you are willing to expend in righting wrongs and how much on, say, you personally having a fun time. The two are not mutually exclusive; this is of course the best type of wrong to combat but your case is less convincing in this regard if you clearly stand to gain from reaching your objective. Your entire argument may be invalidated by this kind of association with an otherwise just cause.

You may have noticed I haven't written the word 'good' in the above. This is because that judgement is largely open to debate; Amnesty pressed for the release of members of the IRA on the basis that they were political prisoners. They were right to do so as there was a basis for it under European Law but IMO it was premature. Now? I'd be happier with the prospect. I should say that I do not have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the chronology on this point, this is merely my perception, what I believe to be the course of events. Therefore it is clearly not a guarantee of accuracy. Rah? Any clarification?

[> [> No easy answers -- Rahael, 06:08:28 01/20/04 Tue

Because you step into this quagmire of whether being called a 'political' prisoner legitimises any of the terrible crimes you commit and whether a commitment to armed violence should ever be treated as being within the 'political' process. These are difficult questions that I don't claim to have answers to.

I'd only say, if it clarifies the situation that Amnesty have been consistent critics of terrorism and it's atrocities in my homeland. And that my aunt was once a political prisoner and she was put into a prison full of non-political prisoners. The prison staff, in a notorious incident, opened up the cells of criminals and let them wreak bloody havoc. My uncle, who was also in there escaped simply because he used the missiles and bricks thrown at him, and fought back. He fought and stayed alive until they restored order.

So perhaps one separates such prisoners, just in the way other 'at risk' prisoners are separated. For their own safety, no comment on what they've done or why they did it.

Nelson Mandela was quite clearly a political prisoner. He has also been called a terrorist.

[> [> [> As I recall -- KdS, 13:48:02 01/21/04 Wed

Amnesty has always had a consistent policy of not helping anyone who has used or advocated violence (and they got some flack for refusing to endorse Mandela, because he had committed violence). I'd be extremely surprised if they had called for the release of IRA prisoners before the Good Friday Agreement.

[> [> [> [> Who they help is a little more complicated -- RJA, 14:12:19 01/21/04 Wed

From the Amnesty Website, they say they oppose, among other things:

Torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Torture is still used regularly in dozens of countries. We believe that torture is always wrong, and we oppose it under all circumstances.

The use of the death penalty by governments

We oppose the death penalty in all cases.

Deliberate and arbitrary killings

These include the following:

Extrajudicial executions by governments (illegal and deliberate killings carried out under a government's orders or with its permission).
Killings caused by the unnecessary use of lethal force by law enforcement officials.
Killings of civilians in direct or indiscriminate attacks by governments or armed political groups. These killings are against the laws of war.

Detaining prisoners of conscience

We work for the immediate and unconditional release of prisoners of conscience.

Prisoners of conscience are people who:

have not used, or encouraged the use of, violence; have not openly supported or recommended hatred for racial, religious or similar reasons to provoke people to discriminate, or to be hostile or volent; are detained or imprisoned because of their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, sex, colour or similar reasons.

Prisoners of conscience include people who are detained or imprisoned just because, for example, they have tried to form political parties in a country where this is banned.

Detaining any political prisoner without holding a fair trial within a reasonable time

We call for all political prisoners to be charged and tried fairly as soon as possible or be released.

We call people political prisoners if we believe their imprisonment has a political background. This may include being a member of a forbidden political party, or being involved in armed struggle against the government, or being victims of other kinds of systematic discrimination based on sex, race or other reasons. Political prisoners may have used or encouraged the use of violence.

So basically, they will help those who have used violence, but their target is abuses of rights. So it's highly unlikely they would have called for the release of any terrorists, only that they have a fair trial, or even be tried (instead of merely interned).

They have also campaigned for things linked to the IRA include unlawful killings by soldiers, arbitrary arrests, and torture whilst being held.

[> Just a suggestion... -- dub ;o), 19:38:19 01/20/04 Tue

A psychologist named Clayton E. Tucker-Ladd has complied a massive resource which he offers free on-line at http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp. It's called "Psychological Self-Help" but I think it's much more than that.

The section you may find of use is Chapter 3, Values and Morals: Guidelines for Living. The central portion of this chapter is titled, "Writing your own philosophy of life," and discusses (among other things) Kohlberg's stages of moral development, and finding meaning of or in life.

Personally I found it to be valuable. YMMV. Good luck, though.

dub ;o)

[> Re: Everything I Want In Life Exists in the Joss Whedon Universe -- Capper, 03:31:45 01/21/04 Wed

If you want to make a difference, it is quite simple. Collect money from those that will give it, and use it to go to a more needy and less consumer lead society than ours, and help build a well for water, or a school for children, or a camp for those made homeless by disaster.

Take all your possesions and give them to someone more needy.

Its easy to do it physically - the hard bit is to do it with your mind. Who is prepared to give up their relatively cotton wool existence? Who will drop the convenience of shops and cinemas, or even a tap with drinking water?

Life is as fulfilling as you wish to make it - just like Whedon's world.

This universe is full of amazing, exciting and awe inspiring beauty. If all you see is war and conflict, try turning the TV off and running up a mountain, or diving into a natural waterfall. Lying on your back at the top of a hill gazing at the stars, then with a little shove, rolling down the side, then standing up and falling over - its great fun, and you don't have to be a kid to do it (but don't tell anyone - cause they will think you are wierd, even if we know you are happy).

Good Luck

[> Some thoughts -- Rahael, 09:48:31 01/22/04 Thu

I have been thinking about your questions for a couple of days. I feel that I had some very similar thoughts/difficulties when I was younger. (This is not all that long ago though, as I am 25 now!).

I was hesitating to reply because I was trying to think how best to describe this (and I hope I don't speak out of turn anywhere):

The answers are all so individual. And what I found, what 'my answers' were - well, it wasn't the end result, it was the 'process', the way I went about finding these answers.

What were my questions? Well, finding some purpose in life (I felt lost and voiceless, with no ability to have any control over what seemed a series of incomprehensive changes and near-catastrophes).

I too found the cruelties in the world unbearable to look at. And I felt helpless about that too. And I found myself isolated from most things. I felt that I was separate from everyone else. And that there wasn't much I could do to change these things.

Part of my problem was that while I believed that I was invisible and worthless and ineffectual, I now realise that everyone else around me was invisible to me. My own pain blinded me to the world. The other problem was that I was blind to myself too. It was a simultaneous thing - being emotionally true to myself and engaging with the outside world - taking risks, leaving myself open meant that my fears (rejection, pain and hurt) were confounded. Receiving love and understanding is a very healing thing. But it involves risk. If one is scared of pain and rejection, one automatically and unconsciously even, prevents the possibility.

Some years later, I still have these questions: what can I do to make things better? I still carry anger and pain at the injustices I have seen. But I no longer feel ineffectual nor do I hate the world or myself.

I've read the thread, and there are many excellent suggestions. I recommend Kenny's suggestion re therapy - I know it's an individual thing but not only did my therapist save my life, but she helped me to make it the best possible one I could have.

I'd say also, when you refer to the heroic activism of Buffy. Remember, Buffy's 'world' that she saves is really sometimes a metaphor for our own worlds. Her life, her world. And that's all we can do sometimes. We need to save ourselves, and the people around us. The unhappiness and pain that dislocates and divides and disconnects.

What's more meaningful than saving the bloody world?

Sometimes 'saving the world' can feel purposeless, futile and hard. Sometimes, when you are saving the world, the purpose and meaning you find is in the small things - a good meal, a good conversation, a beautiful day, a carefree moment. If we can't see these things, we might start to wonder why the world is worth saving. Why other people are worth saving.

You refer also to Xander, befriending extraordinary people. Well, extraordinary people come in all guises. Often we don't find out until we spend a lot of time and effort on them. And people miss things. I've made part of my life's purpose finding such people. Sometimes, extraordinary people don't want to be found. Or they don't think that they are anything of the kind.

I've done my best to assimilate all the information I can about things on a global scale, and by and large the majority of it seems to deal with the seemingly perpetual state of conflict, for resources, land, religious dispute. There's this ideological struggle during which so many suffer, hurt, are exploited.

But within the conflict and the turmoil - that's where extraordinary people shine. That's where you learn to appreciate the very small moments of beauty, and indeed how the ugly parts of life can be a part of that beauty.

I grew up in a very ugly world, where ugly things happened. And I associated myself with it. I looked at myself and I was ugly.

But now I look back and I feel grateful. The first time around, I missed all the beautiful things. And I don't see the ugliness any more, anywhere. Even in the middle of ideological struggles, wars and cruelty, the human spirit can always shows through. I've understood now, that when tested, there are people who will do amazing things. That even those we think are powerless, have power. Keep their humanity until the last. Refuse to hate and demonize those who attack them. Those are amazing truths to have seen and learnt, those are amazing gifts to have been given, and I didn't appreciate it until much later.

You don't have to physically save the world to help other people either. I have encountered many others, in more peaceful times, who have helped me and many other people simply through little things: kindness, thoughtfulness, generosity and compassion. Those things save the world little by little.

Don't let the darkness, the disconnection and the painful parts of life frighten you or hold you down. If anything, I have found that it's given me a way to empathise with people who have had vastly different lives from me: we all feel this. But I can also say that once I had opened myself up to this, I started letting in all the other things I had been keeping out: the connections, the joy and the lightfilled parts of life.

You, darkness, of whom I am born-

I love you more than the flame
that limits the world
to the circle it illumines
and excludes all the rest.

But the dark embraces everything:
shapes and shadows, creatures and me,
people, nations-just as they are.

It lets me imagine
a great presence stirring beside me.

I believe in the night.

(Rilke)


(PS. okay. my real answer is, to all these things - poetry, poetry poetry. or that could just be me!)

[> Fans of great art make the world a better place -- matlack73, 19:40:07 01/24/04 Sat

AVA, you, Masq, all the great posters on this website, and other people who appreciate great artists and their work, help make the world a better place. I think creative people like Joss and ME, actors, painters, musicians, writers, and poets do make the world better because they create things that touch our souls. Our ability to recognize the beauty in art and our willingness to make it a part of our lives by discussing it, writing about it, or just letting it influence us is an important part of what makes a work of art great. A well-written story might have an intrinsic greatness, but when its power and beauty is perceived by other people, it becomes even greater. It think this is what gives it meaning.

Great post. I hope some of the advice offered by the other posters helps you. I think their wisdom might help others, too.

Current board | More January 2004