July 2003 posts


Previous July 2003  

More July 2003

Intentions - Good or Evil -- Rina, 15:11:41 07/24/03 Thu

While reading this essay called, "On Emotions, Redemption and Atonement" by Nomad; I came across this interesting passage. It said:

"If a man commits an evil act thinking of his loved ones, do we say, "Oh, well, in that case, it wasn't actually a crime?" No. We say we understand why he did it, but that doesn't change the fact that it was *wrong*. And yet when Spike does something good because of his misguided feelings for Buffy, hardly anybody's willing to say that no matter why he did it, it was still *good*.

Opposites, people. If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, the road to redemption is paved with bad ones. If you can fall into evil from an innocent start, you can rise into good from a selfish one."

The above is probably one of the most interesting passages I have ever read in a BUFFY essay. And it resonates with some of the comments I have read not only about Spike's attempts at redemption, but with one of Angel's actions I have been debating with others on another forum.
[> As I see it -- Diana, 15:25:21 07/24/03 Thu

People are willing to say the ACTION was good, but not the ACTOR. These people really aren't concerned with the action, because what matters is the actor. To us what determines whether the ACTOR is good or not are motives.

Just how I see it. Not to say that other systems are not valid. That just isn't how I see things.

And for this debate I will quote the writers until I am blue in the fingers. Spike prior to getting a soul isn't about redemption or good/evil or anything like that. I would love to see some discussions about what Spike's story was prior to S7 that have nothing to do with redemption.

Then again, I would love to come up with a good name for HonorH's story, but am experiencing severe blockage right now.
[> [> some religions -- sdev, 17:18:51 07/24/03 Thu

Judaism credits the deed not the intention.
[> [> [> I don't know if this is entirely Christian doctrine or not but... -- Scroll, 21:27:18 07/24/03 Thu

The way I was raised (Christian) much emphasis was put on a person's personal motivations. Let's say I donate $100 bucks to a worthy charity. Yes, giving donations to a charity is a good thing. But if my heart is not in the right place, I myself am not "good". The action is good, but not the actor. (So yes, I do kinda subscribe to Diana's view.) Say I donate the money in a prideful manner, in that, "Oh look at me, I'm so generous. I'm wealthy and I'm willing to prove it by giving lots of money to this charity." My money will still benefit the charity in question, but my soul (in the Christian sense, I'm not talking about vampires here) is only full of selfishness and arrogance. But if I donate that money out of true compassion, then both the action and the actor are "good".

Now, whether Spike doing good things for love of Buffy or for any other reason means he is a "good" man, I don't know. I'm not going to debate that -- simply cuz I don't know, not because I'm afraid of starting another flame war. But my above explanation is how I see the difference between "good" acts and "good" people.
[> [> [> [> good acts -- sdev, 22:25:38 07/24/03 Thu

I believe in Judaism your motivation for the act of charity would not matter. The act itself would count. OTOH Judaism isn't very big into salvation anyway. The emphasis is more on the here and now.

I don't know if all Christian sects even believe in good deeds as a means to salvation. In some sects there is the concept of election (Calvinism)regardless of deeds. I never quite grasped the difference between that and predetermination (maybe there is none)but it kind of smacks of the PTB to me.

In terms of motivations for actions that are considered self-serving versus altruistic, I paint with a wide brush. Negative motives such as greed, pride, lust (this is beginning to sound like a list of the seven deadlies)I may see as detracting; but positive motives, in which I certainly include love, the quintessential Christian and Judaic (love thy brother as thy self) virtue, as praiseworthy and redemptive.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: good acts -- Scroll, 23:37:23 07/24/03 Thu

I don't know if all Christian sects even believe in good deeds as a means to salvation.

I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) pretty much all Christian sects, if you get right down to it, do not believe in good deeds as a means to salvation. Good deeds are part and parcel to living a good Christian life in that one's good deeds follow as an effect of your salvation. It's the "fruit" you bear, if you'll pardon the jargon :)

I think election refers to the select group of people (don't ask me who!) that are predestined to go to heaven. Predetermination is similar, but refers generally to the idea that everybody has a path set out, to either be "saved" or to go to hell. Twenty-three years of Sunday school and I still have no idea about these things!

In terms of motivations for actions that are considered self-serving versus altruistic, I paint with a wide brush. Negative motives such as greed, pride, lust [...] I may see as detracting; but positive motives, in which I certainly include love, the quintessential Christian and Judaic (love thy brother as thy self) virtue, as praiseworthy and redemptive.

I think I agree with this for the most part; in daily living, when dealing with self-serving acts, I place higher value on positive motives like love than on negative ones like greed. However, I also see some loves as barriers in the way of true redemption/salvation. (Again, I was brought up conservative Christian, so please bear with me! This is just an example!) Take Jesus saying to his followers that "anyone who wants follow me must hate his mother and father" (paraphrased, of course!). Basically he says that to follow him (be redeemed), one must focus on Jesus/redemption itself and not "other loves" that will only keep you from salvation.

Or in other words, what is your priority? If your priority is your mother, you obviously can't put Jesus/redemption first. If you're going to be a missionary in the streets of Toronto, you can't be doing it for your parents back home. I mean, you can try but it probably won't sustain you (in the Biblical way of thinking, and I agree). You have to be doing it because you believe in it, and because you care specifically for the people in the streets of Toronto.

Okay, whew! Sorry to get into it like that. I realise most poeple (even those raised Christian) won't see things like that. I'm just trying to explain my position. I think Spike has done good things, and I think his search for a soul was him trying to be a "good man" insofar as he knew how (he knew he needed a soul to make "being a good man" possible).

As for whether Spike, pre-"Seeing Red", wanted to be a good man, was trying to be a good man, and was actually making headway in being a good man, I think viewers must judge for themselves. Obviously I come from a different background, and my perspective is that before his epiphany in "Seeing Red" in which he realised he was at an impasse, a standstill in which he was neither a good man nor a good "evil" demon, Spike was not a good man. Post getting a soul? I don't know if he was good, bad, confused, insane, needy, noble, whatever. I am too confuzzled about Season 7 to say anything about it :)

So! Did that all make sense? Hoping it did ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> To me you summed up this wonderfully -- Diana, 08:25:04 07/25/03 Fri

Obviously I come from a different background, and my perspective is that before his epiphany in "Seeing Red" in which he realised he was at an impasse, a standstill in which he was neither a good man nor a good "evil" demon, Spike was not a good man. Post getting a soul? I don't know if he was good, bad, confused, insane, needy, noble, whatever. I am too confuzzled about Season 7 to say anything about it :)

And I liked the emoticon :-)

If Spike is acting out of good/noble motives, it makes getting the soul pretty moot. To me it totally takes away from his story, and I admit that I tend to be a bit zealous in my defense of the story. I don't particularly care about the characters. Angel can be a total loser as a human and totally insecure as a vampire. Buffy can be a total ditz and have trouble relating to others. Spike can be a pathetic, evil, selfish creep. It is all for the good of the story.

Joss has great things to say in his DVD commentaries. One thing he attempts to show is that no one ever thinks they are wrong. In their mind, everyone is completely rational and does the right thing when they act. I think they do this exceedingly well with Spike. Spike believes that he loves Buffy and that his motives are noble. James Marsters does an amazing job conveying this. For that reason there is a sizable chunk of the audience that believes this.

Joss has also said that Spike really, really REALLY loves Buffy, but a vampire is incabable of the altruistic love that humans are. The way I see the Buffyverse is that we have the Passions of which love is the strongest. These Passions are then filtered through the vices and virtues. ONLY a creature with a soul has the virtues. A vampire ONLY has the vices. So when you filter this amazing love that Spike has for Buffy through the vices, you get creepy, obsessive, possessive, stalker vamp love.

Spike doesn't think this. He thinks that he has the noble love that humans are capable of because we possess a soul and therefore the virtues. Buffy realizes he is incapable of this and will not call what he feels love without qualifying it. As she says in CwDP "in his own way" he loved her.

The debate, IMO, should boil down to this particular type of love, not just saying that Spike loves Buffy. Season 5-6, Spike's character was used to explore human relations, not redemption. I would really love to see this explored.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: To me you summed up this wonderfully -- Arethusa, 09:07:51 07/25/03 Fri

I think that if Spike is able to distinguish between right and wrong and choose to do right, yes, the soul is moot. But he can still do good things, if not, as you say, for the right reason.

Joss has also said that good and evil are continums. People can be very good, very evil, and in between. Demons can be good or evil too, although they don't always understand why something an act is good or evil. Take Lorne, who is quite virtuous, although not able to always distinguish between right and wrong. (Letting the people-eating demon into the hotel without telling anyone.)

Joss has great things to say in his DVD commentaries. One thing he attempts to show is that no one ever thinks they are wrong. In their mind, everyone is completely rational and does the right thing when they act. I think they do this exceedingly well with Spike.

SPIKE: (shouting) Bloody right you are! If you hadn't left me for that chaos demon, I never would have come back here! Never would have had this sodding chip in my skull! And you - (to Buffy) wouldn't be able to touch me, because this, (pointing to Buffy, then to himself) with you, is wrong. I know it. I'm not a complete idiot. "Crush"

http://www.buffyworld.com/buffy/season5/transcripts/92_tran.shtml
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> But this is superceded by being Love's Bitch -- Diana, 09:45:39 07/25/03 Fri

Spike takes pride in being Man enough to admit that he is love's bitch. Right and wrong aren't so easy to determine, but and here is the big but for assface :-) what would be more wrong: loving the Slayer or ignoring that love?

Spike believes that loving her is wrong (but it is ok since he is a vampire and is supposed to be messed up per "Smashed"), but he also believes that pursuing that love is right. That to me is his main motivation.

I think it is totally amazing how ME did that. They took motivation they established Season 2 and 3 in order to make Spike do what they needed him to. They were able to more fully integrate him into the Scoobies and for him to provide Buffy with an outlet for her feelings about her power.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> response -- Arethusa, 10:00:48 07/25/03 Fri

One thing he attempts to show is that no one ever thinks they are wrong.

Spike believes that loving her is wrong


I think we agree about vampires' views of right and wrong and the moral implications. But don't these two statements above contradict each other?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nah, just a bit complicated -- Diana, 10:33:28 07/25/03 Fri

Loving Buffy is wrong, but it would be more wrong to ignore his feelings. Choosing the lesser of two evils is the RIGHT thing to do. Ultimately, Spike thinks he is right to pursue Buffy. His feelings may be wrong, but pursuing her isn't.

Did that make any sense? Not doing too well with the sense making today.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> still see contradiction -- sdev, 14:30:18 07/25/03 Fri

"If Spike is acting out of good/noble motives, it makes getting the soul pretty moot."

"what would be more wrong: loving the Slayer or ignoring that love?
Spike believes that loving her is wrong (but it is ok since he is a vampire and is supposed to be messed up per "Smashed"), but he also believes that pursuing that love is right. That to me is his main motivation."

I don't understand this. If as you say Spike does not act out of good motives pre-soul, what does the next part mean-that he is doing what he believes is right but he is incorrect? Are you saying that soulless he may try to do right but is unable to distinguish what is truly right?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: still see contradiction -- Diana, 15:02:23 07/25/03 Fri

that he is doing what he believes is right but he is incorrect?

Isn't that what a villain is? I don't know of any valid standard that will say that persuing something that you feel is wrong is right. Per vamp standards, "Poor Spike. So lost. Not even I can help you now." Per human standards, this creepy, obsessive, possessive, stalker vamp love is not a good thing. Spike is choosing the lesser of two evils, in his mind, but according to any standard I know, he actually chooses the greater evil.

Soulless he wasn't trying to do what is "right," but what he thinks is right. Most creatures go by their moral compass. Spike is so gray because he doesn't. The object of his obsession becomes his moral compass. To go against this to Spike is wrong, so following it becomes "right."

That isn't how I evaluate the morality of a character. I use their own moral compass, so soulless vamps should be evil and soulled creatures should be good. Just how I do things.

To thine ownself be true. Their moral compass is part of this self every bit as much as their desires. To just ignore it, to me, is wrong.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I don't understand the term 'moral compass' -- sdev, 16:42:50 07/25/03 Fri

"Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

I see morality this way. Three groups, and real life and the Buffyverse has permutations of them all.

The best lack all conviction: The amoral group. The absence of caring whether it is right or wrong. In this group are vampires, other demons and assorted humans. Angel described Angelus and vampiric life as being an easy way to live because they have no conscience. In other words the see, want, take mentality (I know I messed that expression up profoundly).

The worst are full of passionate intensity: The immoral group. Here you have the terrorists, the Hitlers, Sadams and other lesser lights who wrongly believe in what they are doing. I believe Yeats was talking about Fascism here. Morality is perverted not necessarily tossed out.

The Saints: The moral group. In its purest forms certain religious figures, Christ and Moses come to mind, Ghandi, Buffy often. This group cares about morality and gets it right.

Most of the real world and ME's grey world have beings which straddle all three.

Now is Spike in the Amoral or Immoral group? If he tried to do the right thing but failed because he could not identify the good choice, had a wrongful conviction, he is immoral. If on the other hand he could have cared less about right and wrong and just went for what he wanted, then he is amoral.

I believe he moved from amoral, Season 1 through Season 5.5, to a rudimentary combination of the three, end of Season 6. This amalgam most closely resembles people. The devil is in the details, and how much of anyone is in which group determines how moral they are. What then was affected by his getting a soul? The proportions and his ability to move from the amoral to the moral, to internalize a conscience.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That isn't what Joss says, -- Diana, 17:05:05 07/25/03 Fri

and when looking at the morality of his story and his characters I tend to use his system. I am interested in the narrative flow, so I want to see what story he is constructing. I try to leave my own beliefs at the door for the most part. I don't believe in free will, morality or any of that stuff.

Vampires are not amoral, but immoral. Joss has said so repeatedly, so I will go with that.

Just me, but it makes it really hard to discuss this show when people are all approaching it from different moral systems. That is why I tend to go with Joss'.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> POV -- Arethusa, 19:15:51 07/25/03 Fri

Oh, I enjoy learning about the different moral systems of others. While Whedon's viewpoint is the reason I watch the show, others' viewpoints are the reason I visit this site.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> but how do you have a discussion -- Diana, 19:33:25 07/25/03 Fri

Without a common frame of reference? That is where most flame wars come from. We can't agree on what is love, what is good, what is redemption, etc. Without this, there is no discussion. Just a series of monologues that masquerade as a debate.

Just my opinion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Pretty boring discussion if everybody agrees, dontcha think? -- ponygirl, 20:13:44 07/25/03 Fri

You never know when an opposing opinion is going to come along and rock your world, or at least help you to understand the strengths and weaknesses of your position. I think the key is having that willingness to listen and to accept the possibility that you might be wrong.

Has anyone ever in the history of the world agreed on what is love and what is good? Back in the day if someone among my friends wanted to end an argument they would ask loudly, "But what is art, really?" Then we'd all get drunk.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> :) -- Alison, 20:16:28 07/25/03 Fri

Wonderful post. You rock pg!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks Alison! -- ponygirl, 20:20:19 07/25/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I do not think I am being understood -- Diana, 09:53:12 07/26/03 Sat

but that isn't a first time and I'm sure it won't be the last :-)

I have participated in two different types of formal debate. I have done Forensics in High School and I have done formal Buddhist debate (both with other students of Zen and with a few Practioners of certain Tibetan school).

In Forensics (Lincoln Douglas Debate to be specific, which I'm sure more than a handful here have engaged in) we are given a resolution. For example: Be it resolved that motives, not outcome, ought to be used to determine the morality of an action. (That was an actual topic junior year). First step is to define all the terms. That task falls to the Affirmative. Without a common frame of reference, the people aren't debating the same thing. If a term could not be agreed upon, that became the focus of the debate. Why should the judge accept my definition?

Debating in Zen is a bit different. The definitions are set and cannot be argued. The goal is like it is with Koans, to reach a point where you go "I don't know." The loser is actually the winner.

But debating with someone from a Tibetan school was a different experience. There is a story that most Buddhists know. It is true and shows how important a common frame of reference is. A very common Zen debate involves someone holding up an object and asking what it is. The purpose of this debate, as with any Zen debate, is to understand the concept of emptiness. Debate does this very well.

Some school in the US was opening a Eastern Studies department and thought it would be interesting to commemerate the occassion by holding a traditional Buddhist debate between a Zen Master and a Tibetan Lama. The two men arrived with their translators, the Zen Master wearing his austare gray robes and the Tibetan Lama wearing his flowing safron ones. The contrast was striking, but it didn't prepare the audience for what happened.

The Zen Master, being younger, was to go first. He took an orange out of his robe and asked the Lama what it was. Their translators translated and the Lama said nothing. Again the Master asked the question and again the Lama said nothing, looking at the Zen Master strangely. The Master held the orange right in the Lama's face and rather agitated asked the question again.

The Lama turned to his translator and said something. The audience quieted as they were sure some great wisdom was going to follow. The translator cleared his voice and said loudly and clearly "Doesn't he have oranges where he comes from?" Thus ended the debate.

(Tibetans tend to debate to show that they know their texts. The goal is to see who knows them best)

You can't have a debate if you aren't approaching things from the same perspective. You can debate perspective IF that is the debate. For example, you can debate what is Love. I tend to quote CS Lewis' "Four Loves" a lot for that one. You cannot debate whether Spike loves Buffy UNTIL THIS debate is had and the term is agreed on.

That is where the Flames are coming from. Rather than debate the show, perhaps a more productive and less controversial method would be to go at the terms and THEN reapproach the show with the agreed upon definition. Just saying "Well this is my perspective" is not a debate. To counter that with "Well this is MY perspective," is not a debate. It is a monologue. It can be sharing our perspectives, but it isn't a debate.

Just my perspective :-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ah, that might be the problem. -- Arethusa, 10:57:15 07/26/03 Sat

Only sometimes do we debate. Take a look at the archives and you'll see that often we do discuss and decide upon the definition of a word before debating about that subject.

Other times someone will pull out an orange and say, "Isn't this a great orange? And someone else will say, "Sure. But I prefer blood oranges. Here's why." And then someone else will say, "Where I come from we prefer pomegranates." And they'll tell us about pomegranates. Not a debate-just an exchange of different perspectives, and how that affects how we see the show.

Both are so much fun, as long as we remember that it's not always about debating. Or pomegranates.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It is the debates that get out of hand though -- Diana, 11:27:40 07/26/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ah, that might be the problem. -- Arethusa, 11:38:38 07/26/03 Sat

Only when we forget to be civil, and care more about being right than sharing with and supporting each other. I consider the people here to be my friends, and make myself remember that their opinions are just as valid and important as mine. I used to be a Troll Slayer, and several times insulted people whose opinions I didn't respect or agree with. I embarrassed myself and hurt others' feelings--and whether or not I was right became irrelevent. Nobody wants to debate with someone who condescends to or insults them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> discussions -- Arethusa, 20:50:55 07/25/03 Fri

BtVS is our common frame of reference. We don't need to hold identical values to discuss how we interpret and what we see in the show. We don't have to agree on what love, goodness etc. are. It's the exchange of ideas, the fascination of learning about and from so many different and interesting people.

You get the monologues when only one voice is heard.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It isn't a common frame of reference -- Diana, 09:58:24 07/26/03 Sat

If we don't see the show the same way, there is nothing common about it. Haven't you ever felt like the person you are talking to isn't watching the same show? I know I have. It isn't a slam, just my feelings.

To be honest, I find the discussions, such as Manwitch's, that peel away the layers of the show to be the most interesting. In those, one person says something and then another layer is peeled. That causes someone else to see something and they share and this continues. Tangents are spun off like wild.

But that isn't what this thread is. Motives v actions. That is a debate, not a layer.

Again, just my perspective.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It isn't a common frame of reference -- Arethusa, 11:24:52 07/26/03 Sat

If we don't see the show the same way, there is nothing common about it.

All people and cultures (as far as I know) deal with certain fundamental issues. Good and evil, justice and punishment, forgiveness and redemption. What makes a good parent? How do we become good people in a violent, sometimes merciless world? How do we deal with sexuality, death, fears, dreams? This is what we have in common.

Motives versus actions is fascinating, and something this site has debated a great deal. You said, "The object of his obsession becomes his moral compass. To go against this to Spike is wrong, so following it becomes "right." That isn't how I evaluate the morality of a character. I use their own moral compass, so soulless vamps should be evil and soulled creatures should be good. Just how I do things." Another point of view includes the possibility that someone bad can do good things, even when he does them for the wrong reason. Interviews with the writers back up this perspective; they have said Spike has done good things, although for the wrong reason. Just because Spike's moral compass points to "evil!" doesn't mean he can't do good things. Lorne's a demon; his moral compass points to evil, too, but he does mostly good things. Clem ate kitties, but also does mainly good acts and seems generally quite benevolent.

The problem with this debate is not simply frames of reference. It is also the graying of morality that took place over time in the Buffyverse, which Spike embodies. What was once quite clear became opaque, and Spike is the poster boy for this change in Whedon's world. Spike, whom Whedon has said retained more humanity when sired than most vampires do, has had at least two purposes-a shadow of Buffy, and an exploration of the maturation of moral development in a person.

And I love manwitch's posts too!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: POV -- slain, 09:17:16 07/26/03 Sat

While Whedon's viewpoint is the reason I watch the show, others' viewpoints are the reason I visit this site.

Although it's getting a bit crowded up there, I'd nominate this quote for the top of the board.

Okay, this is my first post since forever (Feburary?), so forgive me if I've lost the ability to put my point across!

I see there being two things here. Firstly, there's the Buffyverse, which is a fictional universe which exists on rules defined by Joss Whedon and a few other people. In which, for example, we can say that the soul is a real, almost physical entity.

Second are our own moralities and ideologies, and those of others (whether they be Nietzche, Marx, Christ, Kierkergaard or whomever) which we use to interpret the real world around us, and also apply to BtVS.

The question for me is then - if Joss Whedon has created this fixed mythological universe out of his own head, how much can we apply other doctrines, or for that matter our own personal philosophies, to it? I think the answer is that Buffyverse isn't really all that clear on itself. While it might initially present a world where good and evil are tangible forces, and redemption is intrinsically linked to a thing called a soul which can be sucked out and injected in all over the place, I think the Buffyverse is very ambiguos, about practically everything. Even the nearest thing to pure evil, the First, was intangible and mysterious.

I think Joss sometimes does lay down absolutes, in interviews at least, through a momentary desire to simplify things, and thus explain them more clearly. But I don't think the show itself bears that up; there are many conflicting forces. One of them is the idea of the moral compass (I don't know whether or not Joss first used this term, or if it's crept in through fan discussion), whereby character's morality stems from themselves, not from others. Thus Angelus, being a vampire, isn't 'evil' when he kills humans. He exists outside of human morality. But at the same time, he's fully aware of human morality, and fully aware of the concept of evil; in fact he takes pains to conform to and expand this concept.

I think the show is designed in such a way that there is no one single morality or ideology; whenever we think we have some kind of certainty, it's undermined, and all we can do is read the show from our own perspective. Joss and the other writers frequently contradict themselves in interviews, in what I think is a desire to simplify the show to get their point across more clearly. But I invariably find that when a writer, even Joss, does give a moral certainty, then the show itself doesn't bear it up.

Writers often contradict each other, or are contradicted by the actors or even their own scripts, and I think in terms of morality and motivations, there isn't supposed to a single view. If we disregard comments made about the show, and look at Buffy the Vampire Slayer alone, I don't think it's possible to come to any solid conclusions using a morality based solely on what we see on screen; we can only come to conclusions by extrapolating and infering, and working with our own personal ideologies.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent, and thanks! -- Arethusa, 11:29:39 07/26/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Escher... -- aliera, 21:05:35 07/26/03 Sat

Nice to "see" you again Slain, and

I think the show is designed in such a way that there is no one single morality or ideology; whenever we think we have some kind of certainty, it's undermined, and all we can do is read the show from our own perspective.

I agree, except that my feeling is that the undermining is quite intentional... designed to get us to question our perspective.

Although, in fairness, that could just be my perspective. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> He also says -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:52:14 07/25/03 Fri

That everyone is somewhere in the middle of the good/evil spectrum, even though people are drawn to good and vampires are drawn to evil. Here's how I interpret the morality of the Buffyverse going by what Joss has said:

Everyone is somewhere on the good/evil spectrum, most somewhere in the middle. Dead center is a thin line labelled amorality. Vampires fall on the "Evil" side of this line, and humans fall on the "Good" side of this line. However, everyone (both human and vampire) can reach the line of amorality, where they don't care about right and wrong at all. It's just that vampires can never go beyond the amoral line into the good region, and humans can never go beyond the amoral line into the evil region. So there are amoral vampires, just as there are amoral humans (however, they are the exception to the rule). Spike, for the most part, is pretty close to the amoral line, though I don't think entirely on it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel -- sdev, 11:10:41 07/26/03 Sat

Given the response to my post I may as well proceed with my take on Angelus which I refrained from to avoid provoking someone.

Angelus is not amoral. He is immoral. For instance, his plan with Acathala is a preversion of morality not just an absence. He is trying to create an entire new world order. Also his whole concept of the artistry of the kill transcends mere need to feed or stimulating challenge (Spike's reasons). This artistry is a glorification of the acts of killing and torturing in a demented moral scheme. The effort he puts in to torment and provoke his victims, for instance Buffy and Dru, screams evil not just I want, I take. Spike describes him as a vampire with a vision. Spike totally does not undestand this (see Season 2-Spike-kill the Slayer not her friends) because it is foreign to his character. This immorality is much further away from the moral mode. It is also much more dangerous and in need of control. A chip would not have affected this change from Angelus to Angel.

Spike, OTOH is into total amoral mode, the want take. He has no grand plan. He makes it up as he goes along. He is the one without the vision.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> agree on all counts. -- lynx, 16:28:02 07/26/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well said. -- curious, 17:27:31 07/26/03 Sat

I think there is a crucial difference between A-morality and IM-morality. Not much to add - just agree-age re: the comparison between unsouled Spike and Angelus.

I have a feeling that S5 of AtS will have lots of contrasts like this between the souled vamps.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I think there's an important distinction to be made here -- Sophist, 08:25:55 07/25/03 Fri

When we try to take intentions into account, we have to recognize a limit to our knowledge. In judging ourselves, we can certainly know, with certainty, when we've acted with good (or bad) intent. But when it comes to others, we can never have such certainty; we can't ever access their minds. We can infer intent in others, but we can never know it.

For this reason, I tend to look only at the act itself. I can judge whether that is good or evil without worrying about intent. That also avoids getting bogged down in scholastic debates, such as trying to decide if an intent was truly selfless or if the feeling of pleasure from doing a good deed makes it ultimately selfish.

I think election refers to the select group of people (don't ask me who!) that are predestined to go to heaven. Predetermination is similar, but refers generally to the idea that everybody has a path set out, to either be "saved" or to go to hell.

This is basically correct. I guess that Sunday school paid off after all. :)

I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) pretty much all Christian sects, if you get right down to it, do not believe in good deeds as a means to salvation. Good deeds are part and parcel to living a good Christian life in that one's good deeds follow as an effect of your salvation.

This is so complicated an issue I'm not certain if I have it right, but I think I know the answer.

The issue arose historically when Luther raised the issue of justification by faith alone. What this meant, in practice, was that the Catholic sacraments were not necessary for salvation. The sacraments were known as "works".

Catholics defended the sacraments, but this left them vulnerable to Protestant charges that the Church was leaving God/Christ out of the process of salvation. The Catholic position then took advantage of the ambiguity of the term "works" to accuse Protestants of claiming that people who do evil deeds could be saved.

As I understand the position now, Catholic doctrine requires faith, good deeds, and sacraments for justification (a Catholic can correct me if I'm wrong here). Protestants, in turn, claim that justification will cause good deeds, but that good deeds do not cause justification. Protestants accept certain sacraments (which ones vary according to the denomination), but do not believe them necessary to salvation. In fact, some will not administer sacraments except to those already saved.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very close -- Diana, 08:37:03 07/25/03 Fri

As I understand the position now, Catholic doctrine requires faith, good deeds, and sacraments for justification

The sacraments are not required. As it says in the Catechism in regards to baptism, man is bound by the Sacraments, but God isn't. God can let into heaven whomever He wants. If you have all three, you will get in, but just because you don't, doesn't mean you won't.

The purpose of the Sacraments is they are tangible signs of grace that help us. It is refered to as the Economy of Salvation.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think there's an important distinction to be made here -- Malandanza, 22:04:54 07/25/03 Fri

"For this reason, I tend to look only at the act itself. I can judge whether that is good or evil without worrying about intent. That also avoids getting bogged down in scholastic debates, such as trying to decide if an intent was truly selfless or if the feeling of pleasure from doing a good deed makes it ultimately selfish."

Do you draw a distinction between good/evil intent and no intent? That is, would you be more inclined to forgive an evil act precipitated accidentally than one committed with good intentions? The difference between manslaughter and either murder or a vigilante killing, for example?

Or, to return to BtVS, would you consider Willow's act of sending demons to kill Xander in Something Blue morally equivalent to Warren sending a demon to kill Buffy, or D'Hoffyrn sending demons to kill Anya? Or would Ms. Post knocking Giles out to in an effort to get the magic glove before it is destroyed be the same as Spike knocking Xander out in order escape house arrest and prove his innocence? Is Buffy torturing a vampire for information in When She Was Bad to be treated exactly as Angelus torturing Giles for information? or, perhaps, you include part of the intent in the act -- so that Buffy torturing a vampire for information to save her friends is not really the same act as Angelus torturing Giles for information on how to end the world.

In any case, I think that intentions, while not the sole means of measuring an act, certainly provide mitigating factors. As much as I have railed about Willow in the past, I don't believe that she's evil -- she sometimes has good intentions and usually has no ill intentions (or what she would consider ill intentions).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Real world v. drama -- Sophist, 09:04:49 07/26/03 Sat

The examples you gave all come from situations in which we, the viewers, have Godlike knowledge of the characters' intentions. In real life, we lack that certainty.

But yes, I do consider intent. The legal biz has just taught me to be pretty skeptical of claims that we can ever have much certainty about the true intent of another person. I didn't mean to suggest I ignore it, just to say that I'm cautious in applying it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: good acts -- sdev, 15:08:16 07/25/03 Fri

I should have added that I don't really believe in selflessness. IMO all actions have a piece of self in them; that is why I see the question as- is the action motivated by positive or negative self.

As for Spike, pre-soul, I think he was caught up in the greying of the Buffyverse both the human and vampiric halves. He was heading for good and several humans- Warren and Willow- were heading for bad, even with their souls. I don't see many characters as entirely good or bad. The world, even the vampire half per ME, post Season 5.5, was not like that. Was Spike "good" prior to soul? That is not the question I would ask. To me the question is did he do good? Was he heading in the direction of redemption?

I don't feel there is any contradiction with the rules/canon of the Buffyverse to consider Spike as having chosen to do good prior to his ensoulment. Season 5.5 and on was clearly adding to the viewers knowledge and understanding of those rules and the universe that was created. The rules may be static but the viewers knowledge of them was expanding. Was it unusual, sometimes extraordinary, to choose good soulless? Yup. That was the point. Was it enough? Obviously not enough for Spike.

In terms of motivation I see progression. First Spike copies Buffy, or what he thinks she would like. This is very quid pro quo motivation- I'll do it; she'll like me. Second step, he acts out of love to help and protect her and hers. Third, he slowly begins to 'swallow the policeman,' incorporate some super ego morality into his thinking. That is the point after the AR when he decides to get his soul.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: good acts -- meritaten, 04:17:05 07/26/03 Sat

It is my understanding that Caltholics (and I truly mean no offense to anyone in this) see good works as a part of achieving salvation, rather than as merely an effect of salvation. But then, I was taught this in a Protestant seminary, so ... grain of salt. (and no, I'm not a minister.) To the best of my knowledge, the effectiveness of "good works" is one of the points over which Protestants and Catholics differ.

Based on my own conservative Christian upbringing, I would describe Spike as being "under conviction", meaning that God, in the form of the Holy Spirit, was tickling his conscience to make him realize that change was needed. This can happen (as I was taught) to both the "good" (saved) and the not-so-good (unsaved). However, I don't believe that this is what the writiers of the Buffyverse mean for us to read from the show. I believe that, in the Buffyverse, no soul equals no conscience.
[> [> Motives & Actions -- Rina, 09:16:29 07/25/03 Fri

"To us what determines whether the ACTOR is good or not are motives."


So, are you saying that if a person commit an act of evil out of good intentions, his or her actions are excused, because the intent was good?
[> [> [> Are we talking morally culpability or legally? -- Diana, 09:47:42 07/25/03 Fri

For example, murder is considered an evil act. When the act becomes out of self-defense or to protect another (or property), the morality and even legal standing of the action changes.

Legally speaking, motives tend to be key. It is the difference between Murder 1 and Manslaughter.

I will give another example, my children. Joss has said that lack of soul gives someone a very immature moral sense. My older daughter when she was 3 took her chalk and turned the beige living room rug into a chalk board. She took her dad's markers and colored on our brand new bookcases. These were evil actions that resulted in lots of scrubbing on my part (and sanding for the bookcases). However, her intention was to make pretty pictures for Mommy.

I had to teach her not to do that again, but she was not punished. In her mind she didn't do anything wrong. She had good intentions for her evil actions. Mommy would have been punishing her for making pretty pictures.

That is just how I see things. We have to teach people not to do some things and these actions have to be addressed. However they don't make the person evil any more than Spike's actions make him good.
[> [> [> You need both -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:49:56 07/25/03 Fri

You need to do good acts because of good intentions. Doing good acts for bad reasons doesn't really work, because you yourself don't care about the good of the acts and, if given the opportunity, would commit bad acts to help yourself. Meanwhile, doing bad acts for good reasons also doesn't really work, because you gotta wonder what happens when the act is out of proportion to the motive. For example, if I kill one person to save the lives of a million people, that works. However, if I kill a million people to save the life of one person, that doesn't. Doing good acts for good reasons is the only surefire way to avoid being/doing evil.
[> [> [> [> Re: You need both -- Alison, 10:07:55 07/25/03 Fri

I'm not sure that things are that simple. Take your example: it might be okay to kill one person to save millions if the victim, was say, Hitler, and the millions were his future victims. But what if the person in question were an innocent? When is it okay? Is it ever okay? Even a good action, with good intentions can ultimatly result in disaster. According to Jasmine, some of the AI Gang's most pure actions resulted in her ability to become human and wrest free will away from the populace of LA.
[> [> [> [> [> Murkiness -- Rina, 10:19:35 07/25/03 Fri

This is the reason why following a rigid set of moral codes has always bother me. What one person may consider right, another may consider wrong. Some acts caused by the worst intentions may end up causing a lot of good. Other acts caused by the best of intentions, may end up causing a lot of bad.

The idea of intention itself seem murky and I sometimes wonder if we have the right to judge. Look at Buffy in "The Gift". Was she right to refuse to kill Dawn, in order to close the portal to the demon dimension? Was she right to consider how Dawn's death would affect her, or wrong not to consider the death and destruction if the world was enveloped by a demonic dimension?

Or there is Giles' action in "Lies My Parents Told Me" Was he right to Spike's death with Wood over Spike's death, after Buffy and Spike's initial stubborness over the memory device? Or what? Did the means - namely a murder plot and deception over Buffy - really justify protecting the Scoobies and the SITs over a potentially dangerous Spike?
[> [> [> [> [> Of course it would be OK -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:10:17 07/25/03 Fri

If you allow someone to be killed, you might as well be killing them yourself. So, if put in the situation of "kill one person to save a million", my thinking would tend to view it more as "kill one person or kill a million people", in which case the morally correct choice is clearly visible.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Of course it would be OK -- Alison, 16:55:57 07/25/03 Fri

I can't agree with you on this. It's a question of personal morals, and I believe that sacrificing someone for the greater good is NEVER acceptable. Who is to decide the worth of that person? I understand that in practical terms, sometimes the choice has to be made. I just pray I am not in a position to do so...because I find the idea that a human being can be disposable completely abhorrent. Again, this comes down to your belief system, so I doubt we'll ever agree on this.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I also believe that 'morally correct' is a mutant oxymoron. -- WickedBuffy, 19:25:25 07/28/03 Mon

Judging anything is entirely subjective. Regarding the sacrificing, it just is. And sometimes happens.

But just because it happens (or perhaps has to happen) it doesn't mean it's morally the correct choice. Neither are morally good on a standalone basis. Kill one person. Kill many people. Neither are more or less morally correct than the other.

A morally correct choice is in the eyes of the beholder.
[> [> Doers and Doing -- manwitch, 08:25:22 07/26/03 Sat

People are willing to say the ACTION was good, but not the ACTOR. These people really aren't concerned with the action, because what matters is the actor. To us what determines whether the ACTOR is good or not are motives.

Just how I see it. Not to say that other systems are not valid. That just isn't how I see things.

And for this debate I will quote the writers until I am blue in the fingers. Spike prior to getting a soul isn't about redemption or good/evil or anything like that. I would love to see some discussions about what Spike's story was prior to S7 that have nothing to do with redemption.


I have posted a lot on this, and I have pretty much never argued for Spike's redemption because I never thought he needed to be redeemed. Angel needs redemption. Not Spike.

I think the difference being described here, of looking either at the intent and motivation for an action to establish its morality or looking at the action itself, is best articulated not in religion, but in philosophy.

The great proponent of the view that motives of the actor are what is paramount is Immanuel Kant. The great proponent of the other view, that the act is everything, is Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche is, in fact, responding specifically and directly to Kant when he attacks, I think quite successfully, Kant's idea of the all-important actor behind the act.

Kant's thougth comes from the mid eighteenth century. This is, as I have pointed out, conincidentally the time when Liam was vamped and became Angel. Nietzsche's thought comes from the late 19th century, coincidentally the time when William was vamped and became Spike.

I have written a number of times about the Kantian nature of Angel. In Kant's moral theory, it was impossible to believe that the achievement of Happiness was the moral goal in life. Many decent people were unhappy, he noticed, and many bad people were happy. Also, he noticed that happiness itself can produce pride, selfishness and evil intent. So the attainment of happiness really was impossible. He argued instead that the goal of moral behavior was virtue, what he called the "worthiness to be happy," rather than happiness itself. To Kant what mattered then in the pursuit of virtue was the intent of the actor, not the act itself. Any act can have good or bad consequences. What was the intent of the actor? Was it virtuous? Kant phrased this in specifically grammatical terms, using the phrase "I think" from the Cogito, Kant argued that thinking, the act, necessitates the the thinker, in this case "I", just as a predicate requires a subject.

Kant felt, however, that the pursuit of virtue was a lenghty affair, one that far outlasted a single human lifetime. So Kant argued that it presuppose an immortal soul, capable of continuing this quest forever. The immortal soul, you see, becomes the actor behind the act. Kant also felt that the quest was meaningless if good was not to be at some point apportioned to the virtuous. And that presupposed "a cause equal to that effect," which is God, capable of apportioning happiness to those worthy when the time was right.

The parallels to Angel should be monumentally obvious. He has an immortal soul that intends not happiness, which he can never have in this world, but virtue, hoping for the day when the Powers That Be will reward him with the happiness he has earned.

This theory, I think, smacks of redemption in its very nature. The soul's quest for worthiness is a quest to overcome its unworthiness. This is why Angel's character is always seeking to atone, to make up for. Because the conscience is separate from the acts he has committed.

Nietzsche rejects this Kantian idea, and I have written before on the parallels between Spike and Nietzsche. Spike flat out rejects the idea of the need for a pesky soul. Spike behaves according to his own standards, his own rules. He cuts a deal with Buffy long before he has either soul or chip. He barges in on the Annointed one and does it his way.

Nietzsche argued that Kant was imprisoned by grammer in his theory. "We really must get free from the seduction of words!" he wrote. To Nietzsche, there was no doer behind the doing. There was no light, immanent behind the lightning, free to express itself or not. There was only the lightning. Life was not a story of progress towards some goal, but rather encapsulated in its highest expressions. "There is no doer behind the doing," Nietzsche wrote. "The doing is everything."

So Spike does. And he does not apologize, he does not atone, he does not seek redemption. Because for Spike the morality is complete in the act. He sees it as a childish form of irresponsibility to pretend that he could have behaved differently. "What do you expect, I'm a vampire!" or "I'm Love's Bitch, but I admit it."

And in very Nietzschean form, Spike measures himself not against the moral standards of the day, but against the worthiest of adversaries, in whom, as Nietzsche says, there is much to esteem and little to despise. Spike, unlike other vampires, we are told, seeks out slayers to better measure himself. "Don't you ever get tired of a fight you know you're going to win?"

And in being love's bitch, Spike is again not limiting himself. Not in the Nietzschean sense. "That which is done out of love," writes Nietzsche, "takes place always beyond good and evil." Spikes actions in love are their own morality. They require no other scale against which to be measured. At least not from Spike's perspective.

Now Nietzsche is known largely for his ideas of the Will to Power. And we might note that Angel's human name is Liam, and Spike's human name is "Wil" Liam. Liam with a Will, in this case, a will to power. A will to express himself.

The entire experience of the chip and its road to his ensoulment also screams Nietzsche, to the degree that anyone familiar with Nietzsche and his 20th century elaborator Foucault, would have been quite justified in suggesting as far back as mid-season four, "Oh, Spike's gonna get a soul." Because that's where the chip leads if you've read Nietzsch and Foucault.

So, I think no matter what anyone says in an interview, its asking an aweful lot of us to believe that we are not supposed to note these differences or compare these characters. Does that make Spike a good guy? No, not really. What we think of as Spike's good acts or Spike's evil acts, are really just Spike's acts. By the same token, they don't make Spike inherently evil either. They express completely what they are. No intent is required. So there. I'm agreeing with you. Spike is not about redemption or good/evil. He's just what he is. By contrast, with Angel, intent is paramount.

In terms of how we judge either of them, which the rest of this thread seems to address, well then you get into religion, with ideas like "Don't Judge."

Anyways, in answer to the original idea that started the thread, people can always stumble into good, or rather find that they were good when they didn't mean to be. Look at Han Solo, for example. Don't know whether Spike really fits that mold. What he does in Intervention is a turning point. There's no getting around that one. Love's bitch or not, unsouled Spike does the right thing.
[> [> [> Re: Doers and Doing and reading about past doings. -- aliera, 09:10:05 07/26/03 Sat

I'd be interested to see some of your past work if you could point me in the right general area in the archives. I'm currently rereading July 2001, just for fun. If you're referring to w/in the last season, I have followed what you've been doing but... I had the sense from something else you wrote this year that you might have some things farther back?
[> [> [> Wonderful post -- Sophist, 09:11:38 07/26/03 Sat

It was your original post on the Kantian and Nietzschean aspects of the two that hooked me on this Board. Thanks for that and thanks again for this. Great stuff.
[> [> [> Can this be the post that we all agree on -- Diana, 10:09:21 07/26/03 Sat

Thus the debate ends and we can move onto other things :-)

Just a suggestion. Two different characters from two completely different perspectives, which make it pretty impossible to debate them.

It is like vamps/humans/souled vamps. Vampires put forth the idea that at our core, we are evil. Humans put for the idea that at our core we are good. Souled vamps put for the idea that we are both good/evil. You can't judge any of them on only one standard. Their very natures are different.

Now what would be interesting is how Darla fits into all of this. I like Darla and would love to see her discussed more. Same with the Master. Why are Angel and Spike the only vampires discussed?
[> [> [> [> You know, I was thinking... -- manwitch, 12:06:24 07/26/03 Sat

I felt after I posted this, that with the exception of kinda of working myself around to where I realized I agreed with you that Spike was just what he was, I was pretty much retreading old ground.

But then I thought it was interesting that what seems to interest you about the moral issues, the actor and their motives, in a sense regardless of what they do, would naturally cause Angel, the incarnation of moral and ethical motivation, to be a very interesting character for you. And I thought, I tend to be interested in people who behave a particular way even when they have no motivation, no incentive for doing it. So to a degree, I would naturally find Spikey interesting. Cuz watching Buffy, you frequently have to be like, why on earth would he do that? Not that its out of character, but Spike just does what he does.

I think in a lot of ways its a very nice contrast they've set up, and I think, as I believe you do (correct me if I'm wrong), that at least within the Buffy series, both their issues are meant to enlighten us about her. Once we get into the Angel series, obviously, its another matter. There Angel is top dog.

I think the Master is pretty cool. I always thought he was kind of the ubervillain of Buffy. You know how your first love is always special? And so angel will always be special to Buffy? Well the Master seems like that in terms of fear. He'll alwyas be the first one. The one before she knew what she was, what she was capable of, before she believed in herself. That's why I loved the Wish so much. And When She was Bad. Seeing the Master just immediately puts you back in that place where its all much bigger than you are. Its like going home, no matter how old you are and how much you've accomplished, but your parents still place you in that role of dependent child. She may have killed the Master, but he has a power she'll never quite overcome. I was really hoping, after lessons, that we'd see more of him. That's the image the First Evil should have been using, if it really wanted to throw Buffy a curve. She'll always have a twinge of fear at the Master.

Darla should be discussed more. Especially given that she, like Angel and Spike, is kinda hot.

But who is really cool, and who is still out there waiting to be resolved, is my favorite vampire of them all, Drusilla. That chick is cool, funny, and just plain creepy. With Spike and Angel on the same show again, I'm hoping maybe that will be able to draw her back. What a fantastic character.
[> [> [> [> [> I like when you think -- Diana, 12:47:26 07/26/03 Sat

I think in a lot of ways its a very nice contrast they've set up, and I think, as I believe you do (correct me if I'm wrong), that at least within the Buffy series, both their issues are meant to enlighten us about her.

Now the $24,000 question is why (and yeah, I agree with you). Why does Buffy's spiritual journey start with Angel, continue with Spike and most likely will go back to Angel?

I think another angle to the Spike/Angel perspective is which is being his own man. Spike is a slave to his desires. Angel is a slave to his sense of morality. The answer to that question depends on what you see "us" as. If we are our desires, Spike is da man. If we are our conscience, than Angel is quite a guy. Both stumble, but they pick themselves up.

I think the "answer" is that we are both and we have to find a way to live according to both. Angel started out trying to be his moral center. As a vampire, his desires were quite compatible with this. As a souled vampire, he was afraid of his desires. As his show continues, he is learning how to adapt his desires so that they are compatible with his sense of right/wrong. Spike is the flip side of this. He is all desire. With the addition of the soul, which he has just felt for the first time ever, he will have to learn how to make those desires compatible with his morality.

I liked what you said about the Master. I wanted to tie this to Darla. Darla is the first vampire we see on the show. I fell in love with her. I really wanted her to appear in the final episode. Besides, she isn't just kinda hot. She and Angel/us have some of the hottest scenes in the entire Buffyverse. There is a class and grace about her that I don't think any other character came close to.

I also love Drusilla, and she is fun to watch. She isn't fleshed out enough to really dig into though.

I really look forward to seeing your spiritual analysis of Dru and Spike when we get to season 2 for Back to the Beginning.

Thank you so much for sharing and willing to be so personal.
[> [> [> Re: Doers and Doing-Questions -- sdev, 10:48:16 07/26/03 Sat

Beautifully said. I think I was trying to get at this through my discussion of Judaism which focuses on actions not intentions. Also as I said Judaism has almost no focus on redemption and an after-life.

"The entire experience of the chip and its road to his ensoulment also screams Nietzsche, to the degree that anyone familiar with Nietzsche and his 20th century elaborator Foucault, would have been quite justified in suggesting as far back as mid-season four, "Oh, Spike's gonna get a soul." Because that's where the chip leads if you've read Nietzsch and Foucault."

Could you elaborate on this. How is this the Will to Power?

"What he does in Intervention is a turning point. There's no getting around that one. Love's bitch or not, unsouled Spike does the right thing."

Also, where does right and wrong fit in?
[> [> [> [> The Chip and its path to the Soul -- manwitch, 13:45:41 07/26/03 Sat

In Geneaology of Morals, Nietzsche discusses the origins of morality. Ultimately he argues that in order for people to live together in peacable communities, and in order for them to be able to make promises to each other, they needed to tame themselves. In order to make promises, people needed to know that a particular cause could produce a particular effect. So a certain degree of uniformity was required. People had to become calculable. This was made possible through punishment. Nietszche refers to pain as the greatest aid to mnemonics. So through the pain of punishment, people came to recognize certain boundaries to behavior that allowed them to live together in communities. But the result of this was a bottling of expression. Violent tendencies that had been expressed outwardly, now needed to be turned inward. "Thus it was that man first developed what would later be called his soul."

Nietzsche distinguishes however between a master morality and a slave morality. This soul belongs to the slave morality. It is response. It sees what it doesn't have and cannot attain and labels it as bad, and seeing itself in opposition to what is bad it labels itself good. But it has no internal drive, no internal source. It is a creation, a fiction that actively creates memories and forgets others in order to form "life-enhancing" illusions that will allow the person to live.

The Master morality, by contrast, is inner directed. It is good because it is so, because it is creative. The Master morality requires not this soul. Its morality is in its expression. It is neither good nor evil, but simply an expression of power.

Foucault, many years later, elaborated on Nietzsche's Geneaology of Morals in the book Discipline and Punish. (Surveiller et Punir for you French folks out there). Its worth a read, and has been extremely influential in the United States, particularly in the history of institutions. Foucault very explicitly called his work a "geneaology of the modern soul," and wrote that this soul "is the prison of the body." The subtitle of Foucault's book is "The Birth of the Prison," and the monograph recounts the rise of the prison and of a form of punishment that acts not on the body, as the old forms of torture did, but on something else, something intangible, but no less real. Through discipline, punishment, an art of correct training, people learn to exercise control over themselves. But this isn't simply self-discipline. This is an extension of the police power, of the state power that dominates us into our very hearts. We monitor ourselves so that the police don't have to. One of the main contributors to this process is Jeremy Bentham's panopticon, a prison design in which the prisoner must always assume they are being watched, even though they may not be. It is alwyas possible that they are being seen. The panopticon forces the self-regulation on the prisoner. And this self-regulation creates a memory of acceptable and proscripted acts. It creates an identity based on what is and is not permitted. This identity leaves the prison with the prisoner. The self-surveillance does not stop simply because the panopticon is no longer at hand. And this self-surveillance is the modern soul, a soul that limits and impoverishes experience, a soul that imprisons the body.

Now according to Foucault, the prison is not the only place where this happens. Schools, hospitals, the military, any institution that practices upon us as objects, to correct our movements, to create timetables for our whereabouts, to create charts and records of who we are and what we have done, assists in the creation of this modern soul.

So if we turn our attention to Spike, we see that in Season 2 and 3, and even into the flahsbacks of Fool For Love Spike embodied the Master morality. He expresses himself. Measures himself not against what he hates and cannot attain, but against the worthiest of adversaries. He does it his way, as he sings on his departure from Sunnydale. He will go against the rules of vampires if it suits his purposes, against the rules of humans if it suits his purposes. He will make a deal with Buffy against vampires to save the world if its what his internal direction tells him to do. He will not apologize, he will not atone. He simply expresses his power.

But in Season 4 Spike is caught and imprisoned by the Initiative, which seems to be a mix of school, the military, a hospital, and a prison. All of the instutions of Foucault's discipline. And they insert in Spike's head the means of self-surveillance, so that even when he leaves the Initiative, spike will bring that surveillance with him. And it acts on him through punishment, through the greatest aid to mnemonics. Spike is forced to create a new identity for himself, in which new types of actions are proscribed. Committing those actions, for whatever intent, causes pain and dare we say guilt, as we see in SR. The ambiguity of Spike's goal in submitting to the trials in Grave is intentional. Because by that point, for all practical purposes, the chip has already become his soul.

But this modern soul is limiting. It keeps the ensouled under thumb. It imprisons them. And so we naturally see Spike afterwards, at the start of Season 7, diminished, babling in tongues, under the thumb of the First Evil, living over and therefore being associated with the Hellmouth, which his ensouled blood will ultimately open. We see Spike ensouled committing acts of recidivism which shows clearly that he does not share the enobling soul of Angel, the soul that pursues worthiness. He has a soul that he must overcome. He must find again his internal direction.

And he ultimately does that with Buffy, in that beautiful scene in the empty house.

But I think the minute it was clear Spike was being panopticonned, it was a safe bet that a soul would eventually follow, and that it wouldn't be an improvement.
[> [> [> [> right and wrong -- manwitch, 13:52:45 07/26/03 Sat

"Also, where does right and wrong fit in?"

Well, I guess technically it doesn't. Spike once again just did what he did, and if I see that as good or right, that's my business, I suppose.

But how can you not want Buffy to kiss him after what he did? In many ways he's been as offensive and horrible in Intervention as in any episode ever. He created a Buffy sex toy (which would just be a huge seller in the marketplace, by the way).

But as an evil vampire, who is being tortured and is about to be killed, with Buffy having no knowledge of the sacrifice he is making, Spike refuses to give in. He supports Buffy, he insults Glory, and he keeps Dawn's secret. When there is no incentive for him to do so.

That's why I think Buffy recognizes that moment as a turning point. She doesn't pay him anymore after that, she doesn't threaten him. She counts on him. Quite a transformation.
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the responses-mulling -- sdev, 20:23:46 07/26/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> Agree even technically -- sdev, 21:10:24 07/27/03 Sun

"But how can you not want Buffy to kiss him after what he did?"

"Quite a transformation."

Agree wholeheartedly. Which is why I can only accept so far the model you gave. Does a character have to be wholly in one mold or another? Is anyone ever? I posted later my feeling that this changed to a redemption story post-SR. But thanks again for your insights.
[> [> [> Can I say again how much I liked this -- sdev, 11:12:06 07/26/03 Sat

[> [> [> Appreciation, and some questions -- Rahael, 12:13:08 07/26/03 Sat

I loved this the first time you brought it here, and I think it is a startling and satisfying prism.

However, I think the last couple of seasons of Angel have really moved on to profoundly question the model that Angel operated on in BtVS. This is the reason why that I have subsequently found the character far more fascinating than I ever did when he was on BtVS. Yes, the need for redemption is strong in Angel, but there's a greater tension within now. THe idea of a reward, whether that this is viable, or even desirable. The idea of a benign power guiding him. In fact, Angel is operating in uncharted waters, never sure of what the 'right' decision is. Never sure where he stands. At the end of S4, all he wants is moral agency, even if that means the wrong choice, the stupid choice. His grand ambitions have been stripped away, season by season. All that is left now, is the battle against loneliness, against isolation in a universe that is darker and sadder than anything we have seen before.

I do not know enough about Kant to say whether this still fits, so firstly, would you agree that there has been some change in Angel's journey, and if so, does it still fit the model you are positing?
[> [> [> [> answers and some rambles -- manwitch, 12:43:38 07/26/03 Sat

Truth be told, I always post about the Angel that was on Buffy. Even now, even when Angel shows up in Season 7, after four years of his own show, when he's on Buffy he's the Angel of Buffy.

The Angel of Angel the Series is a different creature. Certainly its origins are in the Kantian model I described, but that is legacy data, and now its way way way beyond that. Much more existential. Not that it might not ultimately be resolved in Kantian terms. I think you have hit on the questions that do interest me. Are there Powers that Be? What is our relationship to them? How do we know? Will we ever be absolved? Is that the goal? Does it matter? Can we ever do enough? And always always always, how can we know? In a way, Angel is becoming more Neitzschean in that his life is becoming a form of expression, rather than a goal directed project.

I would love to see Angel lose it as Angel. The most captivating part of the Connor saga was the despairing sadness of Wesleys lack of confidence, and Angel's, not Angelus's, murderous rage in response. I think the show is at its most interesting when the lines between Angel and Angelus are blurred or crossed. When Angelus behaves like Angel, or Angel releases an aspect of Angelus. When we see it acknowledged that they are both him. One is not an infection of the other.

I confess, and this is not meant to start anything, that I have always loved Buffy and been deeply and personally moved by her story in a way that I have not been with Angel. I love Angel on Buffy, but on his own series, while I do enjoy the series and think its one of the best on the air, I seem to lack something that would cause it to resonate. The fault is my own, I'm sure, and I in no way mean to suggest the series is less than Buffy was. So as a general rule, I stay out of posts about Angel the series. So when I'm talking about Angel, it is almost always the Angel the is a role in Buffy's story.

I liked Kate. I liked that Angel went into her house without being invited to do something good. Whatever happened with that? The whole Holtz Connor saga just didn't resonate with me. I am intrigued now at the idea of Angel having Wolfram and Hart at his disposal. And I would think it was kick ass if they made Fred a Slayer. Which I'm sure they won't. But surely they'll come across some in LA? But anyways, will the new power at Angel's disposal be a corrupting one? I'm sure they have more interesting ideas than that in store for us, but the subtleties of Angel's psychological position right now escape me.

I guess I should reread TCH.
[> [> [> [> [> Maybe the board should -- Diana, 13:27:55 07/26/03 Sat

Think of some posts, like TCH's, that are good introductions/refreshers to Angel, since there are plenty of people that either have never watched the series or didn't follow it. Then we could post a list of links that will take someone to these posts.

A lot of people still think of Angel as they saw him on Buffy. His character was consistant from Graduation Day to City of, but he has also grown in incredible ways since then. The Angel that Joss wrote in "Chosen" was important. I didn't see anyone discuss what Angel was saying in terms of his own growth.

As for what happened to Kate, she is on LA and Order now so that story was completely dropped. It was a pity. It was a great story. It would have been interesting to see how she fit with the Darla-Lilah-Cordy parallel the next season or was she just part of Angel-Lindsey-Kate and they would have written her out any way.

Angel being corrupted next season isn't nearly as interesting to me as what rationale he comes up with to justify what he is doing/did in "Home". Then again, I'm into motives :-)
[> [> [> [> [> More rambling in response -- Rahael, 13:28:51 07/26/03 Sat

When I watch BtVS, I'm rarely interested in the villains, or at least that used to be the case from S1-5. I was always focused on the 'good', because they resonated so much. The monster of the week/seaon was pretty much background to me to what was being told about the main characters. Really, I was focused on Buffy, Cordelia and Giles. Occasionally, I would think about Xander, Willor, Jenny et al, but they didn't really move me.

So Spike? Angelus? Dru? Darla? I really didn't pay that much attention and if you had told me that there were people who were fascinated with them (I wasn't online at all) I would have been astonished.

It was AtS S3 that changed it all for me. I borrowed the tapes from Yaby, and watched it all in one weekend, and it made my jaw drop. It made me go back and seriously re-assess S2, which was spoiled for me by Darla, a character that I hadn't cared for. Second time around, I found it terribly affecting: "God doesn't want you..But I still do!"

When I re-set Angel as the creature rejected by God, AtS grew and grew till it filled my viewing horizons. I think I found the Holtz/Connor storyline to be perhaps the most gripping storyline that ME has ever produced. Perhaps it is because I am affected by storylines that talk about parent and child, about abandonment, loss, sadness, about pain that arises from the tension of wanting to belong, and wanting to be rejected.

I guess, what I like about AtS is its edginess. The razor sharp lines it's characters walk. The fact that even though characters move between being beige and noir, the real story is that they are all versions of truly lost people, who chance to meet up at this weird intersection. LA is no home, no real sanctuary, which is underlined by the fact that Angel's home keeps being blown apart with regularity - he's always moving.

Perhaps, as a viewer, I feel more comfortable with a place where no one belongs than in a place where a definite group have a definite centre.

I have often thought about why BtVS started palling for me. Every time I think about it, I come up with a new reason! Maybe the most honest one is that AtS made me grow indifferent, just as, a long time ago, BtVS made me stop watching other tv shows. I was unused to the idea that our lead character could be consistently subverted, sometimes necessarily, sometimes, undeservedly. I realised that I liked the compromised hero.

It's still inexplicable though. I had this mad crush on Buffy the character for years and years. Where and why did it all disappear?

I agree with the comments you made elsewhere - Angel is much more interesting when he and Angelus start leeching. It's yet another subversion and what I am referring to when I talk about walking fine lines. Say, rather than good and bad being definite switches - on/off. On AtS, a character's good actions are always investigated and questioned, (also, bad ones too), and in fact, actions are very much not one or the other. Freeing Billy, Cordelia's choices in Birthday and Tomorrow. Everything Wesley does from mid S3. Darla. Connor. Noir Angel. Not only is intention murky, but even if we are aware of them, we can expect that even seemingly good choices will come back to bite the character in the ass.

Plus it's much easier to discuss if everyone accepts that their favoured character can act like a complete ass on occasion while remaining compelling. Or maybe I haven't ventured far enough into the AtS fandom to be sadly disillusioned about this.
[> [> [> [> [> [> The Fallen Cast of Characters -- Diana, 13:46:34 07/26/03 Sat

I love how everyone on Angel was once lost. Angel doesn't know how to be anything other than a monster. Cordy didn't know how to be anything other than Queen C. Wesley's rogue demon hunter was just too funny. Gunn knew nothing other than his crew. Lorne didn't fit on Pylea because he heard music in his head, but didn't know what it was. Connor didn't know how to be anything other than what Holtz raised him to be. Faith never really knew love or understanding.

This is what causes all their downfalls. They just don't know any better, so they fall back into old patterns. Holtz was so tragic because he did. We really watched the decline of a good man.

Over on Buffy, kids are growing up. They are learning what they are. They are Tabula Rasas filling up. What happens when the Tabula isn't so Rasa? The answer--mind goes from being Giles to being Wesley, heart goes from being Xander to being Fred, spirit goes from being Willow to being Gunn.

The blurr between Angel and Angelus is so gripping for me because it is Angel falling back into the only thing he knows. The past is a vicious mistress. That is why a season about free will was so important. That is how we overcome our pasts, using our free will. Next season we will get can we really do this? Will our characters fall back into old patterns or manage to use their free will to find their ways?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Fallen Cast of Characters -- manwitch, 14:25:53 07/26/03 Sat

Thank you both for some very beautiful and enriching posts. When I read stuff like this, I do get this twinge of excitement for Angel. And I've certainly spent far less time thinking about Angel than I have Buffy.

As I'm sure many on this board can understand, life is just freakishly busy. I work ten to twelve hour days and have a three to four hour commute. Then I have life to deal with and address. 6 years ago I made a commitment to myself that I would NEVER miss Buffy. And until Bring on the Night, I never did. That night my wife wanted to hit the grocery store before we went home, and I trusted my VCR. What a mistake.

Anyways, I would have meetings and stuff scheduled for Tuesday nights, or work trips to other cities, and I would just say, "Sorry, I can't make it." When asked why not, which I really felt was nobody's business, I would say, "Its an all-new Buffy on Tuesday." And that would pretty effectively end the interrogation. I guess they figured they weren't gonna get an honest answer. The meeting or trip would get rescheduled.

But I did not make the same commitment to Angel, just because, well, something has to give sometimes. So I missed some episodes. And then they started moving it around, so I never knew when it was on. Then I moved to Connecticut and the friggin UCONN men kept pre-empting it. So I have never been able to plug my life into it as completely as I was able to do with Buffy. Just the way the ball bounced.

But posts like yours do make me look longingly at it.

I used to watch X-files religiously. Loved it in the early years. Then it began to falter and trip over itself. But I found Xena, which was a real hoot. (BTW, I think maybe Gabs was a Slayer, or maybe a Guardian. I wonder how Buffy woulda fared against her with the quarter-staff.) Then I found Buffy, and have been hooked ever since. Unlike any other show, and I realize not everyone agrees with me on this, Buffy didn't collapse on itself. It didn't out plot itself, it never lost its way. I know many are dissatisfied with Season 7. But I think even part of that dissatisfaction comes from the fact that it stayed a good show. It was never just obvious that it was going on inertia, as happened with X-files.

Now I don't really know what to watch. I guess its Angel. The only other show that has me even remotely interested is Joan of Arcadia, which I know nothing about other than the obvious premise in the title. But I think its a network show, and network shows tend not to grab me.

Could I ramble anymore about meaningless and trivial stuff?

Thankfully, the answer is no. Thanks again to both of you.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Dissatisfaction of season 7 -- Diana, 05:15:26 07/27/03 Sun

You have written rather eloquently about the Chakras. What you left out of that is how many people ever ascend to the 6th or 7th. My major criticism of 6 is that I don't think enough of the writers were familiar with what was going on. For season 7, I'm not sure any one at ME has been all the way up to Formless. Sometimes I am not sure about not being sure about that :-)

I have decided to stay out of discussions about season 7 because IMO they are attempts to give form back to the formless and this is almost sacreligious to me. I think a lot of the dissastisfaction of seaon 7 comes from not being able to grab a hold of something, but to me that is the whole point. The First was non-corporal for a reason.

As for Angel next season, I look forward to seeing your impressions. Joss said "The theme of this season is corruption because they've taken over Wolfram and Hart. The theme is can we do good in an evil world or will we just become tainted by it?" I could see why this would be an area that Joss would want to explore. It is easy to stay good when everything you touch turns to gold (like Buffy or Angel). What happens when this doesn't happen (like say what happened to Firefly)? The temptation to sell out is great.

We live in an evil world. How do we maintain our goodness in the face of that? How do you go placidly among the noise and haste?

I also look forward to Joan of Arcadia, but I am a nut when it comes to Jeanne. I even named my daughter after her (the other one is named after Mary Magdalene and Theresa of Avila). There is also Greenwalt's new show (same time slot as Angel though), Marti's, and Tim's. Not even my love for Jane can get me to watch Gilmore Girls, though.

Next season, we will get the Faith spin-off. Joss made suggestions about what to do with the extra hour people have with Buffy no longer on the air. HAH!! Lose one show and I have to pick up several.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ahh yes -- Rahael, 15:06:32 07/26/03 Sat

That seems to be an important point to make, now that we have a Connor who doesn't remember his past life...., and a whole set of characters who don't remember him.
[> [> [> Lighting a candle at my manwitch shrine! -- ponygirl, 15:07:46 07/26/03 Sat

[> [> [> Kinda disagree -- Caroline, 15:52:01 07/26/03 Sat

Manwitch, I hate to disagree with you but I do. I don't disagree with your categorization of Angel and Spike and Kantian and Nietzschean heros, but rather with the capacity of Kant and Nietzsche's views to have any kind of explanatory power for the basic psychological question of 'Why did this person do that?' in a scientifically acceptable way. Kantian behaviour is essentially purposive (striving towards goals) and smacks far too much of voluntarism. Existentialism makes far too great a leap from self-knowledge to self-creation. The theory that we can choose our being at any or every moment is subjective to the extreme. There is a conflation here of cognition and purposefulness. In my view, depth psychology (Freud, Jung, Klein etc stripped of the teleological terminology, something that is very hard to get away from!) provides one of the few accounts of behaviour that is deterministic, that provides an explanation and origin of motivation and one that avoids the teleology and voluntarism of many of the moral philosophers (including Foucault). I can't get behind anything that has any freedom from causality, that explains something by its purpose then its cause. Freedom from causality is an illusion. Why do I twiddle my thumbs? Because I have a thumb-twiddling instinct? How do I know I have a thumb-twiddling instinct? Because I twiddle my thumbs.

Addressing the issue of moral behaviour, if one says that one does something because it is 'good' or 'right' or 'virtuous' etc this is not a description of behaviour, it is a prescription (I'm indebted to Prof. Maze for this phrase!). They are not description of causal behaviour - they fall into the fallacy of constitutive relations, the fallacy of saying a thing's relations can be found intrinsic to the thing itself. What motivates moral behaviour is the interaction of instinctual drives that are physiologically based with interactions with the environment, particularly with early care-givers. The desire for affection and the fear of punishment (instincts put into opposition to each other!) thus establish the concept or 'right' and 'wrong' and what motivates the continuation of moral behaviour is the fear of punishment, fears that are made largely unconscious through repression in the normal adult. I don't mean to make behaviour sound horrible, merely to acknowledge that all things that we call beautiful and ugly are within all of us, as is everything violent and peaceful, right and wrong, good and bad. But this kind of causality is essential for explanation, for explanatory power. Existentialism comes to nothing because it says that a self creates itself from nothing and still consists of nothing. Purposiveness in general is not useful because it defines motive forces by their goals rather than their sources. (Behaviourism is just as bad because it cannot tell us why its empty organism does one thing rather than another!).

Because I look at behaviour from this rather specific psychological viewpoint, I have have little need to judge the morality of these characters. I look for possible sources and causes of behaviour or an action. I agree with Sophist that intent is a bad place to look - purposiveness really doesn't explain anything. That makes it hard for lawyers and critics. But I think it provides a useful framework for understanding the motivation of characters. Angel feels that he needs redemption in a spiritual sense - this appears to me to spring from superego issues associated with his father and family that remain psychological dynamic for him. In flashback episodes we certainly see the opposition between the desire for affection and fear of punishment evident in Angel's relationship with his father. Spike does not feel the need for redemption in a spiritual sense because he doesn't have these issues. Spike's issues have to do with dependence on mother and the ensuing love/hate entanglement etc (see archives for my views on Spike's psychology). This creates a different order of problems that require different resolution.

Now I hope that people can see why I don't feel the need to denigrate Spike, Angel or any other character. I find it difficult to judge and say one is good and the other is bad. They have both performed actions society would recognize as good and bad, they have both been what society would recognize as good and bad people at different times. But in their shows, they have been bestowed with a complex characterization that gives each character a logical non-teleological motivation for behaviour that makes observe-y-ness possible. And for me, that means that judge-y-ness is needless.
[> [> [> [> WHAT?! You disagree?! WITH ME?! -- manwitch, 17:33:49 07/26/03 Sat

Joking, of course.

"What motivates moral behaviour is the interaction of instinctual drives that are physiologically based with interactions with the environment, particularly with early care-givers."

I may be misunderstanding you, but I think I was talking about something that is antecedent to this. In this quote from you above, a definition of the behavior as moral has already been accepted secretly behind the scenes. My point was less a scientific explanation of why they did a particular thing than a suggestion about how they come to understand the morality of the behavior, whatever it is. So yes, I am referring exactly to the prescriptive aspect of it.

Although, even there, the two diverge. Angel's prescription requires a certain intent behind the act, whatever it is. Spike's does not. The morality is simply in its expression.

I do not, and won't, believe in moral absolutes, in any form of moral standards that transcends the people who cling to them. That's not to say that I think anything goes. But our moral standards are ours, not Gods, not the universe's. Independent of us, I do not see how our moral standards continue to hold sway.


"Why do I twiddle my thumbs? Because I have a thumb-twiddling instinct? How do I know I have a thumb-twiddling instinct? Because I twiddle my thumbs."

This goes to epistemology, which is a different place then where it started. The proper follow up question should have been, "Why do I have a thumb twiddling instinct?"

The postmodernists would ask, what can we say about someone who requires a thumbtwiddling instinct to explain this behavior? Requiring not only that thumbtwiddling be explicable, but that there be behind the person and the behavior, an "instinct" independent of them that is the "necessary cause."

I personally tend to lean towards Nietzsche because he values the experience itself over meaning of it. Once we start poking around in meaning, we have already separated ourselves from the experience. Nietzsche recognizes that any act, any experience, is devoid of causality. It is what it is, timeless, without historicity, without explanation. When we explain it, we create a fiction that keeps us removed from the moment. Does it help us? Certainly. But explaining a behavior is not the same as the behavior itself.

I'm not saying that cause and effect don't exist, or that there is no historicity. I'm saying they are secondary to experience. They come after. Like music theory. the music is what it is, you can analyze it all you want after.

But I am curious. I see what you are saying about the characters having backgrounds that explain their behaviors without resort to teleological explanations. But what do you think Angel thinks? Do you think his intentions are important to him in defining the morality of his behavior? What about Spike? Do you think he gives his intentions the same weight? Does he think about them at all?

What do you think a soul is? Does it perform any function in this context? Are Angel's and Spike's the same? Is all the talk of souls simply superfluous?

Please disagree with me all you want and feel great about it. There is little that I enjoy about this board more than seeing your name on it, and ingesting whatever it is you offer. When its in response to me, I am particularly excited. I am a newborn child compared to you on the subject of psychology. I know Freud only from people who claim to have beaten him up after school, and I know Jung only as a parrot of Joseph Campbell. (That was joke). I am always eager to learn from anything you have to say. so I hope you won't think my questions above are merely rhetorical.
[> [> [> [> [> Some more non-flamey Spike/Angel stuff -- Diana, 04:54:29 07/27/03 Sun

I know these questions were addressed to Caroline, but I would like to give my answers.

The postmodernists would ask, what can we say about someone who requires a thumbtwiddling instinct to explain this behavior? Requiring not only that thumbtwiddling be explicable, but that there be behind the person and the behavior, an "instinct" independent of them that is the "necessary cause."

Angelus doesn't give a rat's fig about his motivation either. I am not quite so obsessed about it any more (my first original universe is even lacking motivation in determining morality). Why? Because neither Angelus or I want to change. Angel sure does.

The foundation for Buddhism is Iddapaccayata. This is a nice big word that means this/that conditionality. 1. When this is, that is. 2. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. 3. When this isn't, that isn't. 4. From the stopping of this, comes the stopping of that. This is the foundation of the Four Noble Truths. The purpose of the Four Noble Truths is to stop Duhkha, which tends to get translated as suffering or unsatisfactoriness. In order to stop this, the cause must be understood.

Angel, not Angelus or Spike, don't want to be that monster any more. In order to do this, he has to change. In order to change, he has to understand why he is the way he is. Once he does this, then he can "fix" what's wrong. Angel isn't trying to make "Amends" any more. As he tells Jasmine, he is working on becoming human. This isn't saying that he is trying to claim the prize that the Scroll of Aberjian mentions. He is actually working on not being the monster.

The ultimate "goal" of Buddhism is the state of Zen in which we so live in the moment, that "I" disappears. This would sound like Spike would be the character that "gets" it, since he is the one that lives in the moment, but to me his denial is a bit deeper than Angel's. "I may be love's bitch..." as soon as he label's himself love's bitch, he is no longer in the moment. The denial is deeper, because he thinks he still is. As long as there are motivations, better to be aware of them. It is when we get to a point where we don't have motivation, rather than we just aren't aware of them, that we reach that state of Zen.

I'm not saying that cause and effect don't exist, or that there is no historicity. I'm saying they are secondary to experience. They come after. Like music theory. the music is what it is, you can analyze it all you want after.

Depends on what experience you are looking at. When I analyze the show, it comes secondary to the show, but it precedes my own writing. The purpose of understanding our motivations isn't to change past actions. That cannot be done. Angel can NEVER make amends. The purpose of understanding our motivations is to affect the present and future.

Do you think his intentions are important to him in defining the morality of his behavior?

They are so important that after he decides to do something, he tends to come up with justifications for it. In "Amends," he doesn't want to hurt Buffy so he is going to kill himself. Standing up there on that hill looking down on Sunnydale, he goes deeper and discovers that he just can't become that monster again. In "IWRY" he had time turned back to save Buffy. The next episode this expands to "We don't belong to ourselves. We belong to the world fighting." In "Reprise" Angel as such a moment of dispair, that he wants to lose his soul. When he doesn't, it leads to his epiphany. I look forward to how Angel justifies to himself what he did in "Home."

Angel's intent teach him about himself and greatly affect how he acts in the future. Angel's morality is important in that it allows him to see that he is more than the monster. It shows him what it means to be human.

What about Spike? Do you think he gives his intentions the same weight? Does he think about them at all?

Spike care nothing for morality and doesn't think of his actions/intentions in that light. However, he does think of his intentions when it comes to how others view him. He is upset that Dru breaks up with him because of what he does in "Becoming" because he did it all for her. Why he let Glory torture him was very important to him. On the other hand, he wants the Scoobies to just ignore his motives and just concentrate on the good he does. Spike looks at things whichever way makes Spike look best.

What do you think a soul is? Does it perform any function in this context? Are Angel's and Spike's the same? Is all the talk of souls simply superfluous?

Honestly, it is whatever the writers need it to be. Originally it was just a switch to explain Angel to Angelus. More recently it gives someone a more mature sense of morality. I have a feeling next season, what the soul is will have to be dealt with a bit more. Wesley asks in "Home," "What are the odds the humans would be the most corruptible?" In a season about corruption, they will have to discuss why someone is corruptible.

As for Spike's soul, since he didn't feel it until "Chosen" what can we really say about it? Next season is another story.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: WHAT?! You disagree?! WITH ME?! -- Caroline, 19:04:38 07/27/03 Sun

In a sense, I don't disagree with your points about how different Spike and Angel are as heros or characters. I do agree with you there. I just think that the parallels you draw would have more validity if they were based less teleologically. I was most likely a bit more hard-line about my point to get it across, but I think it still holds, whether one is talking about causes of behaviour or experiencing it and then interpreting that experience. This is also something that has been lingering in my brain for quite a while and I brought it up in response to you because I really respect your views and was interested to see where an exchange of views would go. Let's see if I can make the argument.

Caroline:
What motivates moral behaviour is the interaction of instinctual drives that are physiologically based with interactions with the environment, particularly with early care-givers.

manwitch:
I may be misunderstanding you, but I think I was talking about something that is antecedent to this. In this quote from you above, a definition of the behavior as moral has already been accepted secretly behind the scenes. My point was less a scientific explanation of why they did a particular thing than a suggestion about how they come to understand the morality of the behavior, whatever it is. So yes, I am referring exactly to the prescriptive aspect of it.

Although, even there, the two diverge. Angel's prescription requires a certain intent behind the act, whatever it is. Spike's does not. The morality is simply in its expression.

Perhaps it was I who misunderstood you. But you are describing particular actions(understanding one's behaviour, intent, not having intent) and then defining them in a circular way. Let's take intent. What is it? I don't really know because I cannot find any intrinsic properties for it. We cannot define intentions by saying that they somehow exist independently, without making reference to direction-towards-an-object. What is the nature of the mental state of intention? The only thing that we can say is the intending of it. And since that is not separate from the intention itself, we are back to the fallacy of constitutive relations.

I don't disagree with your views on moral standards and I'm not arguing for not having moral standards. I am merely arguing for a non-purposive and action-driven explanation of the motivation of behaviour.

The point I made about the thumb-twiddling instinct was merely to illustrate the point about the necessity for an explanation of behaviour that is based in non-circular terms. I don't agree with you that the proper question is 'Why do I have a thumb-twiddling instinct', at least not in a psychological sense. The proper question is to ensure that the variables that we use as explanators of behaviour are non-circular. I'm thinking here of Nietzsche's 'will-to-power' and all sorts of tautologies like that.

The postmodernists would ask, what can we say about someone who requires a thumbtwiddling instinct to explain this behavior? Requiring not only that thumbtwiddling be explicable, but that there be behind the person and the behavior, an "instinct" independent of them that is the "necessary cause."

I'm not sure what you are saying here given that I have said that the question of why one has a thumb-twiddling instinct is not where I was going with that line of thought. As for what the post-modernists would say, I have to shake my head. The existential 'theory' of behaviour has always been an button of mine and my contention is that they don't have one! I'm really not getting my point across very well about requiring a deterministic theory of motivation, one that has a non-circular explanator of behaviour. My whole point is that instinctual drives (eating, drinking, sleeping, copulating, self-preservation etc), are endogenous to the individual. Those drives are shaped by interaction with the environment and those stimuli then help to shape the psyche - its structure and organization. The big problem that I have with existentialism is that while existentialism can speak rather resonantly about the trials of existence, it cannot generate a useful theory for the explanation of behaviour. Existentialism sees the self as some kind of empty box, not composed of anything yet it insists that the self contains some principle of agency whose sole object is to assert that agency. (Experience precedes essence). What is created out of that expression of agency is not the self. I can't find that logical - we don't know anything about the self that creates or what is then creates. What is it that mediates self-knowledge to self-creation? What is it that even mediates experience and self-knowledge? What is even more confusing is that existentialism then goes on to speak of mental entities, even when it has rejected their existence. And our increasing knowledge about the brain and its workings in the neurosciences goes against the traditional conception of the self as indivisible or an empty box as the existentialists would have it.

I personally tend to lean towards Nietzsche because he values the experience itself over meaning of it. Once we start poking around in meaning, we have already separated ourselves from the experience. Nietzsche recognizes that any act, any experience, is devoid of causality. It is what it is, timeless, without historicity, without explanation. When we explain it, we create a fiction that keeps us removed from the moment. Does it help us? Certainly. But explaining a behavior is not the same as the behavior itself.

I'm not saying that cause and effect don't exist, or that there is no historicity. I'm saying they are secondary to experience. They come after. Like music theory. the music is what it is, you can analyze it all you want after.

In term of the causality of behaviour, I don't understand this entire passage. In logical terms, I cannot account for an action that is without cause. Furthermore, that 'cause' must be non-teleological to have some status. More hardline theorists of behaviour would say that this experience that you are talking about is an illusion. My own bias is that I am aware in my private life of the feeling of deliberating, choosing, deciding, being selfish and many other motives defined by their aims. Where I agree with the more hardline theorists is that this falls into the fallacy of constitutive relations - I have to think that there is a scientifically acceptable explanation for that behaviour. But I am also prepared to say that these so-called illusions when placed in a scientifically acceptable interpretation are not actually illusions, they are rationale that we do not yet understand in a logical, deterministic way. I guess that this then invalidates the notion of 'freedom of action' because every event must be caused rather than just sprung into being from nothing.

I don't mean to imply here by my remarks that I think that the theory of behaviour based on instinctual drives is in any way complete. There are many gaps in the theory and its proponents in dynamic depth psychologies do sometimes express themselves in rather unfortunately teleological language. There have also been many modifications made to the original theory as proposed by Freud, partly due to these reasons. But there is also an increasing amount of data in the neurosciences, particularly in the areas of sexuality (hormones etc) that are consistent with the theory as proposed. No doubt there will be future advances and modifications, which I eagerly await.

But I am curious. I see what you are saying about the characters having backgrounds that explain their behaviors without resort to teleological explanations. But what do you think Angel thinks? Do you think his intentions are important to him in defining the morality of his behavior? What about Spike? Do you think he gives his intentions the same weight? Does he think about them at all?

Since I have spent all this time arguing that any purposive explanation of behaviour is logically unacceptable, then I cannot address these points. And since intention is another teleological term, we don't know how a behaviour comes about, we only know its goal and that is not logically coherent. As for moral behaviour, that is merely the voice of the repressing agency, and Angel and Spike have different issues that they repress based on their previous experience and their past and present behaviour is informed by the structure of those repressions and the interaction with present events (a good example of that is the disarming of Spike's trigger in LMPTM). Which is why I love Darla's line about 'What we once were informs all that we become' because even though sometimes the motivation of behaviour is expressed teleologically, whoever wrote that line is aware of the need for a non-circular basis of behaviour.

I'm pooped. More later.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Its a workday. Will respond when I can. Thanks for these elaborations. -- manwitch, 05:31:49 07/28/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> Intent and causation -- Sophist, 18:01:41 07/26/03 Sat

Just to clarify:

1. Do you agree that an intent can be part of the chain of causation? That is, acts -- say, pointing a gun at someone -- occur in the context of a particular mental state. I see that mental state, that particular pattern of neuronal activity, that "intent", as itself a fact which constitutes part of the chain of causation. Do you agree?

2. Do you think we should scrap the concept of moral judgments, or do you think that we can make them as long as we understand that such judgments may be unrelated to questions of cause and effect?

Very interesting post Caro. I have to think about this. A lot.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Intent and causation -- Caroline, 19:37:45 07/27/03 Sun

Thanks for that Sophist - very thought provoking for me. I can guess where you are coming from in a legal sense. Can I pike out and say that it's not something I've given a great deal of thought to? I don't believe in intentions are in any way causal and are in fact useless because they are teleological (see my reply to manwitch above). I know that we have discussed behaviour this way for centures and for that reason it is difficult to get away from a teleological formation in answer to 'Why did someone do that?'. For example, it's quite easy to know that when someone is angry, there is analagous increase in the levels of chlorpromazine in the brain (I'm a lay person in the neurosciences so I hope I get this right!). This alters the functioning of the synapses and may then result in some type of behaviour. But if we are saying that someone has been caused to suffer anger and couldn't help behaving in that way, then there is no way that someone could have performed that behaviour intentionally or on purpose. Having an intention is different to having an internal state with elevated levels of chlorpromazine. The former is not an efficient cause, the latter is. To take a well-used example to look at how difficult discerning intent can be, look at Anscombe's man who is 1. working a pump handle 2. replenishing the water supply of a house and 3. poisoning the inhabitants because he knows the water is poisoned. The answer to what he is really doing has not determinate answer. He is really doing all those things. The difficulty is that all the things that he is doing are goals and therefore the question 'what is he doing?' cannot be answered, let alone 'why did he do that?'.

I am not arguing that we should scrap moral judgements or morality in general. I'm just arguing that it is useful to know where they come from, how they are caused. At least for me in my own life, it has allowed me to live a much more peaceful life - and I can trace non-teleological sources for that behaviour, thankfully!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> The evolution of intent -- Sophist, 09:14:28 07/28/03 Mon

Ok, let me try some provocation from another angle. Offered with only the best of intentions, of course.

Let's suppose an amoeba. In order to remain alive, the amoeba must maintain an internal milieu within a certain range. To some extent, this depends on external forces outside of its control. To some extent, this requires the ability to maintain its internal state, i.e., a condition of homeostasis.

Now suppose that evolution supplies the amoeba with a new ability. Just for example, let's say it's the ability to move backward instead of just forward. Now imagine the amoeba moving along and encountering a heat source. The base state of the amoeba can, by generating the appropriate chemical signals, retreat from the heat source so that the base state remains within the necessary parameters.

Would we call this "intent"? Probably not. But now let's suppose further that evolution supplies additional systems -- tool kits -- which can be activated when the base state issues the appropriate chemical signals. I propose that, at a certain level of complexity, the entity becomes self-aware. By this, I mean that the brain acquires the ability to form a neural representation or model of the base state. This neural pattern is itself a real entity; it's a "thing" inside the brain capable of communicating with the base state.

Now, when a self-aware entity communicates with that portion of the brain which maintains the base state, resulting in an action by the entity -- say, retreating from a fire -- we might well call that "intent" or a "purposive" act.

Would you agree?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The evolution of intent -- Caroline, 14:43:08 07/28/03 Mon

The short answer is no.

The long answer - the fire is hot, the entity feels pain and retreats for reasons of self-preservation. That is efficient cause. I don't think that the sentience of a being trounces the issue of causality.

We are born with certain physiological drives. Through our interaction with our environment, our psyche, our self is shaped. When those drives are frustrated or fulfilled through external stimuli, we learn, grow, develop, feel emotions etc. Each new external stimuli acts in some way upon us to motivate behaviour. Self-awareness does not mean that a something can be caused by its outcome. An entity's relations cannot be found intrinsic to itself.

To use your example, the neural pattern or representation is a chemical state. There will be elevated levels of some chemical to alert the individual that the fire is hot and may cause damage if one gets too close. So the individual retreats. Their are also a whole range of emotions consistent with the aroused state - things we call apprehension, fear, relief. This works whether the being is sentient or not, otherwise the species would definitely have died out - the fire would wipe 'em out. The neural pattern you are talking about is caused and the behaviour of avoidance is caused.

I think that you are trying to say that there are different parts of the brain that then relate to each other and that therefore that type of intent does not fall into the fallacy of constitutive relations. But you can't get away from the fact that the base state and the neural representation in your model are built the same entity, which is merely able to perform the tasks of pain avoidance, no matter whether the entity is sentient or not or capable of higher order neural maps or not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I thought that would probably remain your position -- Sophist, 08:27:28 07/29/03 Tue

I'm more agnostic. I don't see the brain as a unitary whole, but as a collection of overlapping modules. These modules both interact and serve as feedback mechanisms for each other and for the body as a whole. That process is, I believe, non-linear. That leaves open the possibility of intentionality. JMHO -- research will resolve this eventually.
[> [> [> [> Very good Caroline (sniffle!)........ -- Rufus, 19:34:50 07/26/03 Sat

I'll again use a favorite quote.....

"By our interactions with each other we redeem us all." ML Von Franz

I don't know much about the philosophers you are talking about so I'll just say this off the top of my head. We all have opinions on characters, usually based upon what the character has done that we like or dislike. What you said in your last paragraph is about how I feel.


Now I hope that people can see why I don't feel the need to denigrate Spike, Angel or any other character. I find it difficult to judge and say one is good and the other is bad. They have both performed actions society would recognize as good and bad, they have both been what society would recognize as good and bad people at different times. But in their shows, they have been bestowed with a complex characterization that gives each character a logical non-teleological motivation for behaviour that makes observe-y-ness possible. And for me, that means that judge-y-ness is needless.


You recognize that life is always changing and the fact that everything we do has consquences that may not readily be apparent. The best case of this is with Darla, who would have thought the hateful, self-centered destroyer of all things pure and good, could ever change. If a character is evil and does evil to their last moments of existance it's easy to make a simple judgement, but we are all changing and that includes people who are good or evil. Everything we do has consequences and the consequences may be miraculous. I love that quote by Von Franz because she brings us a wonderful concept...the fact that by our interactions it is possible for all of us to be redeemed. The thing is that we never know when this will happen and that is why Buffy and Angel as series are so good. Darla said once that "what we once were informs all that we become" and what we once were is constantly shifting forward as we exist...what is the present becomes what we once were, and combined with our past history to help change what we finally become.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Very good Caroline (sniffle!)........ -- jane, 23:49:51 07/26/03 Sat

What an amazing series of posts! Thank you all for this fascinating conversation. My knowledge of philosophy is pretty basic, some long ago university classes which linger at the edges of my mind. I'm going to have to think about this for awhile. Great brain exercises. BTW, I love Von Franz's quote too. You people rock!
[> [> [> [> Heh..kinda disagree, with clarification -- Random, 11:18:00 07/27/03 Sun

There are a few issues I'd like to clarify. Existentialism argues that existence precedes essence, that is true. This, however, does not imply a lack of causality in any way. It refers to meaning, not actualization. Meaning is not created, it is engendered ab initio (ab ovum,, rather, in the context of this metaphor) from pre-existing materials. Much like an insemination of a fertile egg, in fact. Leaving aside much more relevant issues this brings up, such as the ontological argument for existentialism (sigh), determinism is inherent in virtually all philosophical trends. If it weren't, they wouldn't be developed philosophies, just rambling manifestos on the state of humanity...and suffer quick, well-deserved oblivion while the Schopenhauers and Platos and Humes survive. The fact that a given excerpt of a given philosophy deals with issues not directly related to the source causes doesn't imply that determinism is devalued or a rationale for devaluing the philosophical precept.

Kant's categorical imperatives can be examined in the same way. (Granted, some of Kant's antecedents are a little more difficult to take seriously for the exact reasons you give.) Kant isn't saying that purposiveness is the seminal act. He is merely observing that, within a hermetic perspective of a limited universe of actions, there is a readily definable motive description of an act and a rationale for an act. He speaks of compulsion, but not of timeless absolute compulsions -- his philosophy revolves around syllogisms, not Pronouncements of the One True Way.

I tend to disagree with your point about determinism. I think I see the distinction you're trying to make re judgments -- you're talking about reserving moral judgment in particular, right? It's an interesting point...but it's an extremely fine line between reserving moral judgment exclusive of a judgment of the kinesis. Obviously, all judgment is predicated upon incomplete facts and knowledge about the issue. Even if a man commits cold-blooded murder for money, one doesn't have access to all relevant facts. The life of a mob hitman is a continuum, and while his past doesn't excuse his present action, it certainly influences it. But reserving moral judgment isn't necessarily an inevitable result of determinism, Freudian or not. The fallacy there lies in assuming that determinism must lead to disinterested perspective. Even when an observer grants that for every reaction, there was an action, and so on ad infinitum, he or she is still not proscribed from passing judgment in terms of a philosophical outlook on life, be it personal or from "Great Thinkers from History." While judgment may not be needed in your light, in another light, judgment is highly relevant. The preconditions that lead to an act are a roadmap to how to get there...and if the act is not, by my lights, a desirable one, then I certainly want to avoid that path. It's difficult for me to say that "X commits an act that results in severe harm to Y but judgment is contraindicated because the act is a product of psychological/sociological determinism." From my perspective, this is almost self-destructive -- judgment, moral or otherwise, allows us to make the crucial distinction between acts we find desirable and acts we don't. I may say, for instance, that Simone de Beauvoir has enormous relevancy here because certain of her ideas give substance to the deterministic mold. If a pattern is established -- say, for instance, the Master -- then we must in turn pronounce that the one who acts out the pattern is "good" or "evil" or "stupid" or "selfish" or "kinky." "Good" and "evil" are never abstractions, period. When we use such words as individuals, we are inevitably assigning -- consciously or not -- a set of criteria which has to be met to some degree in order for the word to be applicable. We all have our own individually tailored definitions (though the rigors of society generally demand that certain precepts be held in common), but none of us lack some sort of definition.

So teleology is a matter for considerable thought, especially in light of the plethora of philosophical systems available. I agree with you there, conditionally. Ideally, we can say that a character acts in a manner that is purely incidental. That is, we can examine the character as an individual with complex motives but without ascribing teleological courses. I agree entirely that Angel and Spike are especially interesting cases because one cannot simply say -- as one can with most of the monsters on BtVS and AtS -- that they are "good" or "evil." However, I would argue that those are extremely limited forms of teleological judgment. We are not precluded from observing general trends. We can, for instance, say that one acts primarily under certain motivations, and if the evidence is there to back us up, then we are making a valid teleological judgment. And we can classify motivations as being more or less desirable than others. Which is not to say that it's still not a complex issue. If we call Angel's desire for redemption worthier than Spike's desire for Buffy's approval, we are confronted with the fact that Angel's motivation is, in its way, as selfish as Spike's. The veneer of virtue covering Angel's drive is not to be disregarded under any circumstance, but we can still acknowledge that there are selfish drives underlying it. So long as one defines ones terms, I would argue that it is perfectly valid to say that a certain character acts amorally or morally in a certain circumstance. If a character is abusive, but does so because he/she is in love and has extremely complex issues, that doesn't prevent me from passing judgment on the abusive aspect of the character. The only times when such a judgment is truly contraindicated (as opposed to consciously eschewed) are when: 1) The character truly (not just apparently) has no real choice; 2) the circumstance dictate a contextual observation (the old story about the starving man stealing a loaf of bread versus the embezzling CFO -- and no, this isn't as broad as it appears...just because we understand the context doesn't mean we are forced to reserve judgment); or 3) the one commiting the act has no understanding or pre-knowledge of the nature of the act (hence the special treatment of the insane under the law. And even then, enough judgment must be made to ensure that the person is removed from the context that allows him/her to be dangerous.) Viewing in teleological terms is a useful tool. We can examine general trends and assign conditional character traits to them. I say Angel does self-pity, and that allows me to understand his character better. I note that Spike does "good" out of a selfish desire to please Buffy, and thus could have predicted that, when faced with Glory, his motivation for keeping silent wasn't the survival of the world but Buffy's happiness. This is not a means of invalidating the good he did, but a means of understanding the character and the teleological consequences of what I perceive to be a rather monomaniacal subset of selfish motivations. It is hard for me to judge him as evil -- but a lot less difficult to ascribe other adjectives that are less-than-desirable to me. I can say that, by Humian arguments, a character's actions can be viewed in a certain light and to describe a general trend without prescribing his nature. There's no sin in using the evidence to categorize, only in generalizing without foundation. And Nietzschean philosophy, for instance, provides an imperfect means, but it is certainly no less useful than Freudian determinism in understanding a character. Nietzsche's ideas have survived precisely because they offer a functional view of motivation and cause and result.

My final difficulty with determinism isn't merely whether it allows judgment or not, but whether one can trust the deterministic criteria laid out. In order to eschew judgment because of Freud, one must be reasonably certain that Freud's analysis of the base conditions is correct. If it isn't, then we are examining the characters through a flawed lens. Granted, I personally find Freud's work to be suspect in that I consider it semi-empirical at best and a reflection more of his own issues than society at large. So I'm admittedly biased and dealing with preconceptions. But I still think that one can validly argue that psychological determinism is inherently no better a tool than philosophy. If one chooses to analyse a character in terms of Kant, for instance, one is analysing under a different microscope, for different reasons, than Freud or Jung, but the issue of determinism in no way invalidates or reduces this tool.

So what do I think about the characters and the viewing experience? Fifteen minutes ago, I had an opinion. Now, I have no earthly clue anymore. Incidentally, I know I sort of wandered way off course from your points in a couple places. Sorry. Typing-fever.
[> [> [> [> [> I think I understand you-Agreeing -- sdev, 17:47:45 07/27/03 Sun

"The fallacy there lies in assuming that determinism must lead to disinterested perspective. Even when an observer grants that for every reaction, there was an action, and so on ad infinitum, he or she is still not proscribed from passing judgment in terms of a philosophical outlook on life, be it personal or from "Great Thinkers from History." While judgment may not be needed in your light, in another light, judgment is highly relevant. The preconditions that lead to an act are a roadmap to how to get there...and if the act is not, by my lights, a desirable one, then I certainly want to avoid that path. It's difficult for me to say that "X commits an act that results in severe harm to Y but judgment is contraindicated because the act is a product of psychological/sociological determinism." From my perspective, this is almost self-destructive -- judgment, moral or otherwise, allows us to make the crucial distinction between acts we find desirable and acts we don't."

I have to agree with you here. Even in Manwitch's discussion of Spike as falling under the Nietzschean model he could not help but say that Spike had done the right thing. If I understand you correctly (by no means a sure thing) you are saying that these models co-exist and do not nullify one another. Also that as a psychological and societal matter we make these judgments to live by. They are necessary and inevitable as rational beings. Also we can't help ourselves. I agree. (I feel like Xander here reducing your wonderfully complex argument to the simplest, lowest common denominator).

Also, I in no way can believe that with the symbolism employed, Beneath You most strongly comes to mind, Spike on the Cross, redemption was not what ME had in mind for Spike. Also what was the quest for the soul? What was the end of Chosen - "I can feel it Buffy, my soul" (paraphrased). Some parts of the Nietzschean model I can see as applicable, particularly pre-SR, but post we are into a redemption theme.

Manwitch says:

"But this modern soul is limiting. It keeps the ensouled under thumb. It imprisons them. And so we naturally see Spike afterwards, at the start of Season 7, diminished, babling in tongues, under the thumb of the First Evil, living over and therefore being associated with the Hellmouth, which his ensouled blood will ultimately open. We see Spike ensouled committing acts of recidivism which shows clearly that he does not share the enobling soul of Angel, the soul that pursues worthiness. He has a soul that he must overcome. He must find again his internal direction."

If redemption was not intended then what was the point of the soul? To regress Spike? That does not make sense to me.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Heh..kinda disagree, with clarification -- Caroline, 19:46:28 07/27/03 Sun

Just a quick reply: (sorry kinda pooped here)

I understand that existentialism assumes that the entity that mediates experience in some way - whether created or engendered. But that still does not invalidate the point that we don't have a clue as to the properties of the entity that is mediating the experience and engendering meaning. And since the whole process of engendering meaning can only be defined by its goal, it falls into the fallacy of constitutive relations. It's really just the same old teleology.

Determinism may be inherent in most philosophical trends but it doens't mean that the rules of logic have been obeyed. Just look at the term 'intention' 'will-to-power' etc used by many philosophers. Re Kant - if a rationale for an act is its goal - purposive.

I am saying that I reserve moral judgements, I'm not saying that that is an outcome of determinism or any of the theories I address.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Phew!!!!!!!!! -- Rufus, 19:58:42 07/27/03 Sun

I am saying that I reserve moral judgements, I'm not saying that that is an outcome of determinism or any of the theories I address.


Phew!!!!! I thought when I threw all the stuff I didn't get in your original post that I understood what you were getting at. Sometimes knowing less can be more.....like when the big words get in the way of what we mean.;):):):):)
[> Re: Intentions - Good or Evil -- yabyumpan, 23:13:25 07/24/03 Thu

And yet when Spike does something good because of his misguided feelings for Buffy, hardly anybody's willing to say that no matter why he did it, it was still *good*.

I disagree with this statement. I don't think many people would disagree that the action was 'good', I think where the disagreement lies is whether that means that he is/was 'good'. For me, doing 'good' things is always a step in the right direction. We all get our motivation from somewhere and if that comes from someone else at first IMO, that's fine. We've all got to start from somewhere and very few people are actually motivated to do good for purely altruistic reasons at first. If you're a vampire with 100+ years of murder and mayhem behind you, then you're starting from a much more difficult position.

The way I see Spike's journey up until now is that with the conditioning of the chip and the contact with Buffy, he was able to start moving beyond his vampire heritige and connect in a way that made him want to please another person, to do this he had to try to 'do good'. He got on that upward curve towards actually being 'good'. I don't think though, that it was untill 'Chosen', that he started to be able to see beyond 'doing good for Buffy' and to start 'doing good' because it's the 'right' thing to do. I see him now as further along the 'being good' path. He's gained a lot of awareness and was able to sacrifce himself for reasons that were not just about his own ego or Buffy.
I feel he's still got a long way to go but he's farther along that path than he was, and that's a 'good' thing.
[> Re: Intentions - Good or Evil -- Alison, 09:00:53 07/25/03 Fri

Very interesting passage, that I largely agree with. Doing good can give that intangible "happy feeling"- which in turn can prompt the doer to do more good. Actions in and of themselves are powerful things, and representative of a choice. Now, I consider love to be one of the greatest motitivations one can have. But whether Spike is motivated by love, or some other, less noble force, every time he chooses to do good, it is a step away from evil. Just as Buffy said that she had feelings for Spike, but without trust, they could never be love, Spike's actions lead him toward redemption, but with out a soul he could never be redeemed. His actions were part of a redemptive process, and choosing to get his soul was the beginning of the final stage of the process. Every time he chose to do good, he moved towards redemption. That doesn't make him good man pre-soul, but I believe that he was moving towards that end.
Allaboutspike.com (which is admittedly a little over zealous with the Spike love) has a quote that I feel is quite relevant to this discussion:

"It only put me in Gryffindor," said Harry in a defeated voice, "because I asked not to go in Slytherin. . . ."

"Exactly," said Dumbledore, beaming once more. "Which makes you very different from Tom Riddle. It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."

From Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
[> [> What About Evil in the Name of Good Intentions? -- Rina, 10:04:17 07/25/03 Fri

Everyone put a lot of time and effort in explaining that Spike's actions in Season 5 and 6 could not be excused, because although they were goood, they were committed with dark intentions. I don't know if I can fully accept that, considering that some of Spike's actions were not completely self-serving - namely enduring a beating from Glory, trying to save Dawn from Doc; and helping the Scoobies during the summer of 2001.

One last thing - no one has broached the topic of whether evil actions committed by good intentions, can be excused.
[> [> [> Terrorism -- Diana, 10:44:47 07/25/03 Fri

Probably the singlemost important issues facing the world today that has to do with evil actions resulting from good actions is terrorism. As a society, if we were to just ignore these actions, society would crumble. On a pragmatic level, we have to address and stop these actions, just like I can't have my kids drawing on the living room carpet.

However, on a moral level, how can we judge these people that really do feel they are doing what is best? The best way to address terrorism is to make it so these people don't feel it is best to act this way. It is to address the source of these feelings.

But these are two separate things. We have the pragmatic and we have the moral.

I hope that addresses your questions and I did broach the topic when I used my children as an example.
[> [> [> [> Re: Terrorism-don't agree -- sdev, 14:01:28 07/25/03 Fri

"However, on a moral level, how can we judge these people that really do feel they are doing what is best? The best way to address terrorism is to make it so these people don't feel it is best to act this way."

To me terrorism is the perfect example of why actions count where intentions don't. Feeling you "are doing what is best" is just not good enough to justify horrendous actions.
[> [> [> [> [> I agree, sdev. going o/t but I needed to post my support. -- WickedBuffy, 19:10:48 07/27/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> TY -- sdev, 21:01:22 07/27/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> So you don't approve of what the Founding Father's did in America? -- Diana, 08:58:23 07/28/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> are you saying they deliberately targeted civilians? -- anom, 11:29:24 07/28/03 Mon

That's generally regarded as the difference between terrorism & guerrilla action.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> What's a civilian? -- Diana, 11:53:27 07/28/03 Mon

In a government run by "We the people," WE THE PEOPLE are responsible for the actions of our government.

When our government makes no distinction in their treatment of various groups of other people, why should other countries do the same to us?

Or maybe no "civilians" died when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Sherman's March to the Sea surely only targeted the military. Our behavior in Japan has been so exemplary that they aren't trying to throw our sorry ass out.

What is the difference between bombing industrial targets and targeting an economic one? Money is what makes the world go round. They are targeting our ability to make war. They learned well from the lessons of Korea and Vietnam.

Someone who serves in the military is still a human being and their life is no less precious than anyone elses. I am sick and tired of people thinking that our military is disposable or that the military deserve to die more than a so-called civilian.

Terrorists? We are the terrorists. We are trying to use terror to get people to behave how we want them to. We declare war and then when we catch the opposing soldiers, we won't treat them as soldiers. We use weapons that most nations have banned. We haven't signed all of the Geneva Protocals for Christ's sake. We are one of the only nations that have actually used weapons of mass destruction and then we have the gall to say that other nations cannot have them, but we can.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't defend ourselves, but we need to understand how we contributed to the problem and take steps to make amends.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> i was asking that about the founding fathers -- anom, 12:33:56 07/28/03 Mon

I actually agree w/some of what you say, but I was specifically addressing what you said in the post I responded to. I'd like you to do the same, so I can know what you were referring to there.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There was no distinction at the time -- Diana, 12:49:47 07/28/03 Mon

So how can I answer that?

Much of the tactics that George Washington used were against the standard rules of war. For example, the standard you line up and I'll line up across a field and we'll shoot at each other was changed. The Americans were viewed by the Brittish much as we view the terrorists. We didn't fight fair. Then again, that is why we were able to hold them off long enough for the French to enter.

The Sons of Liberty walked onto what we would consider a civilian ship and destroyed civilian property. Many of the colonists that supported England were terrorized by others.

Things are about as gray in real life as they are in the Buffyverse. I used the Founding Fathers as an example because they didn't engage in the standard rules of War, which is just what the terrorists are doing. The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is just one of perspective.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That is simply untrue. Such a distinction was widely recognized. -- Sophist, 13:55:39 07/28/03 Mon

The deliberate targeting of non-combatants was recognized as barbarous. The Declaration of Independence lists that as one item in its condemnation of Geo. III.

Much of the tactics that George Washington used were against the standard rules of war.

Not really true, and in any case irrelevant to the issue of whether those tactics, whatever they were, targeted non-combatants. They did not.

We didn't fight fair.

You're taking refuge in vague terminology. Again, that does not make the actions terrorist. You need to cite specific examples.

The Sons of Liberty walked onto what we would consider a civilian ship and destroyed civilian property.

Again irrelevant. We all can distinguish between a protest that harmed no person and terrorism.

Many of the colonists that supported England were terrorized by others.

If you change "many" to "some", this is true. But irrelevant to your point unless you can identify some specific "Founding Fathers" in this category.

I used the Founding Fathers as an example because they didn't engage in the standard rules of War, which is just what the terrorists are doing.

Apples and oranges are both fruits, but not at all the same thing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not a debate I wish to engage at this time -- Diana, 16:14:30 07/28/03 Mon

Not to mention totally off topic to this board.

Just two names though: Sam Adams and Francis Marion
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree with Sophist -- Rufus, 16:24:12 07/28/03 Mon

Not to mention totally off topic to this board.

Diana, you brought the subject up and since it is summer (a time that we go OT more often) and you said things to try to support an arguement of sorts I find it funny that once someone has you by the short hairs you cry foul.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, off topic never stops me. -- Sophist, 16:52:57 07/28/03 Mon

Your argument is wrong factually, both in specific cases and in your general statements:

*It is simply false to say that the 18th Century drew no distinction between unarmed combatants and soldiers.

*It is simply false to accuse George Washington of deliberately targeting unarmed combatants.

*Francis Marion hardly qualifies as a "Founding Father".

*Sam Adams is a borderline case on both terrorism and the founding.

*To confound either or both of these men with The Founding Fathers generally, and then to jump from that to suggesting that all the Founding Fathers committed terrorist acts against the British or native Tories, is an obvious logical and factual error.

Your argument is also wrong for a much more important reason: it is utterly irrelevant. Even if every single one of the Founding Fathers were personally guilty of terrorist acts as you suggested, that fact would not justify terrorism.

It is a fact that most of the Founders owned slaves. That does not prevent us from recognizing the evil of slavery or from criticizing them for that behavior. Certainly no one today would justify slavery or the Founders' ownership of slaves by comments like "one person's slaveowner is another's freedom fighter".
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I never said that the founding fathers were guilty of what we consider terrorism -- Diana, 17:17:15 07/28/03 Mon

I said they used questionable tactics because they believed in what they did. I never brought civilians into this. That was used to counter an off-hand comment I made and I don't see the relevancy of it. I barely addressed it.

Sam Adams is THE father of the Revolution. Without him, there wouldn't have been one.

People do horrible things in war. That is the nature of the beast. The dehumanizing effect it has is the true evil. This is true of both sides, it is just the winners' attrocities tend to get forgiven.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Really? -- Sophist, 18:45:51 07/28/03 Mon

Here's what you said:

I used the Founding Fathers as an example because they didn't engage in the standard rules of War, which is just what the terrorists are doing. The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is just one of perspective.

I don't want to bog down in detail, but....

Sam Adams is THE father of the Revolution. Without him, there wouldn't have been one.

I think fairness requires us to recognize that many others were also quite important, perhaps even more so than Sam (who certainly was important). It's still quite a leap to go from one example to generalizing about the Founders collectively.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey, I like sweeping generalizations. Haven't you figured that out by now :-) -- Diana (bowing out gracefully ), 19:18:03 07/28/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> i have no problem w/your making sweeping generalizations... -- anom, 21:31:32 07/28/03 Mon

...just don't turn around a little later & say you never made them. To characterize what "the terrorists" are doing as simply disregarding the rules of war broadens the description of their acts beyond recognition. I wouldn't compare them to the Viet Cong, let alone the Founding Fathers or the American revolutionaries in general.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Difference between terrorism and war -- Finn Mac Cool, 23:36:53 07/28/03 Mon

I'm not sure if this is the technical definition, but I think the common use of terrorists is used in reference to independent groups rather than governments. If government soldiers had crashed planes into the world trade center, it would be called an act of war rather than a terrorist act. So the "founding fathers" weren't terrorists because they declared themselves a country. Al Qeda (spelling error?), to my knowledge, has never taken over some land, declared it an independent nation, and made themselves its government. As such, their actions make them terrorists rather than a nation at war.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes and no. -- Sophist, 08:20:53 07/29/03 Tue

You're right that when one government acts against another government we call it "war" rather than terrorism. Even there, the distinctions can be pretty fine (indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas, for example).

Actually, however, governments are the largest purveyors of terrorism. Think Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc. They terrorize their own citizens. We can't call that war, but we should recognize it for what it is.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why the distinction -- Diana, 08:42:27 07/29/03 Tue

It is just variations on "evil." Does the lesser of two evils become good?

Both what the list of dictators have done as well as the list Amnesty International has against the US should be dealt with. We don't need to recognize one as "terrorism" and one as not-so-bad. They are both bad and should both be eradicated.

Al Qaeda invaded the Soverign nation of the United States and attacked us for their own reasons. We just did the same thing to the Soverign nation of Iraq for our own reasons. What is the difference? The amount of force used? The casualities? What if 9/11 had only hit the Pentagon, a military target and the White House? Does that make what they did somehow less evil?

Both actions are evil and similar actions must be prevented in the interest of world stability and peace. Why the comparision at all?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree and well stated -- sdev, 17:55:37 07/28/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> wow, i go out for a few hours, come back, & others have taken up the task for me! -- anom, 21:18:22 07/28/03 Mon

And better than I could have. Thanks, Sophist & sdev! Gee, if I could get the same arrangement for my editing work...well, then they'd probably want to get paid for it too--never mind.

All I had to go with was the distinction between property crimes & killing (in the civilian ship example); trying (again) to get my actual question (instead of something else) addressed; & pointing out (again) the distinction between guerrilla attacks--which by definition are not carried out by the standard methods--on military targets & terrorist attacks on civilians.

And "We didn't fight fair"? Well, not if you let the occupying power define what's "fair."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmm -- Rahael, 05:56:54 07/29/03 Tue

I have a lot of thoughts on this. I don't know if I actually agree with anyone here.

I think one important issue for me is how much we can even go back to the past to find this 'terrorism'. It seems anachronistic. I pretty much find that the development of the modern state is crucial to this phenomenon.

I don't have a knee jerk reaction to this. Is it possible decent organisations to resort to this? Very probably. It's probably very important they don't stick with it. I'm thinking of some of the ANC's history here.

I think a lot of terrorism does actually target property rather than civilian life. I think a lot of terrorist activity aims ot bring disruption rather than outright bloodspilling of civilians.

HOWEVER, using it for any length of time seems to corrupt the organisation. Human life gradually seems to be more and more disposable. The rots sets in and a kind of brutality and cult of death can emerge.

I guess the only reason why I'm saying this here is because I feel I have some kind of insight. I grew up in a place where there wasn't just one terrorist organisaton but lots and lots. Lots of breakaway groups, lots of alliances and bickering and politicking. Lots of worthy people joined and left.

I also know what it's like to live under occupation of a brutal government. That certainly felt like *terror* to me. If one is bombed 15 times in one night, every night for weeks and weeks, that feels like torture. It crushes your morale, it deprives you of sleep, it stops food supplies getting in and it leaves you in anguish. Then add to it soldiers who routinely arrest peopel for no cause - one of the very dearest friends of the family, the 'uncle' who was my sole supplier of chocolate, human rights activists, and a kind and gentle man vanished into an army camp and never appeared again.

Is that not terror? But because it's the state, it's legitimised.

And now, the former terrorists rule 'de facto'. And perhaps one day a peace deal founded on blood will emerge and these former terrorists will be our rulers (God help us) and then, they'll stop being 'terrorists'. They and their fearsome practices will become legitimised. A new and glorious history will be written where people who dissented or disagreed will disappear.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree with you, mostly -- Sophist, 08:37:41 07/29/03 Tue

As for governments, see my response to Finn, above.

There is an element of anachronism in applying the word "terrorism" to previous eras. I don't have much of a problem with that as long as we're careful about the context. It makes more sense in a discussion of changing moral values, for example, than it does in a history book.

As you know, the word was first used in its modern sense during the French Revolution. It originally applied only to acts by a government against its own people. That usage has diminished recently -- my cynical mind thinks it knows why -- but it deserves to be remembered.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent point! -- Rahael, 08:55:19 07/29/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Disagree with every point -- sdev, 16:25:19 07/28/03 Mon

I don't agree with a single thing you said (although I must confess your use of pronouns has me somewhat confused), but America defends your right to do so. Please don't include me here:

"We are the terrorists. We are trying to use terror to get people to behave how we want them to."

Who are the "various groups of other people" in the following sentence:

"When our government makes no distinction in their treatment of various groups of other people, why should other countries do the same to us?"

Who is the "they" in the following paragraph:

"What is the difference between bombing industrial targets and targeting an economic one? Money is what makes the world go round. They are targeting our ability to make war. They learned well from the lessons of Korea and Vietnam."

Who are the "people" in the following paragraph:

"We are trying to use terror to get people to behave how we want them to."

And do you really not see the difference between a soldier and a civilian especially in light of the fact that America now has a volunteer army? Strangely, the Geneva protocols see a difference as does all known international law.

This is called blaming the victim:

"but we need to understand how we contributed to the problem and take steps to make amends."

And this bit of history has me totally baffled:

"Our behavior in Japan has been so exemplary that they aren't trying to throw our sorry ass out."

This does not equal targeting civilians as you equate here:

"We didn't fight fair."

Property damage does not equal human life damage as you equate here:

"The Sons of Liberty walked onto what we would consider a civilian ship and destroyed civilian property."

The fine point of targeting versus incidental loss of civilians seems to have escaped your usually acute moral sense. The same terrorists who targeted civilians, an act of the most scurrilous cowardice in my opinion, could have targeted the military as they are now doing in Iraq. I would of course not be happy but would respect and acknowledge the difference. Moral equivocation is a dangerous and dishonest form of argument.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry not you Anom -- sdev, 16:38:35 07/28/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very nicely explained, sdev. And I defend my right to agree. :> -- WickedBuffy, 19:35:15 07/28/03 Mon

[> [> [> You're missing the argument -- KdS, 15:37:01 07/25/03 Fri

This has been argued quite a lot before, but possibly not since you've come here. The problem with seeing Spike's altruistic actions towards Buffy and Dawn in S5-6 as purely "good" is that he liked them. The real test is how you behave to people you don't know. He might have saved Buffy, but if he saw some stranger about to be run over by a car he'd watch them get squashed then go and take a drink.
Derek and Clive, especially for Celebaelin (warning: bad language!) -- MsGiles, 08:18:21 07/25/03 Fri

(Intro: Derek and Clive were the ad-lib alter-egos of 70's cult comics Peter Cook and Dudley More, originally only available on bootleg tapes because of the swearing. They generally recorded them drunk. Peter was tall, supercilious, and capable of biting sarcasm. Dudley was also known as Cuddly Dudley and went on to star in romcoms such as 'Arthur' You can decide for yourself who is which. Add nasal, droning British accents)

Both Spike and Angel are wearing cloth caps, dirty raincoats and deadpan expressions. They sit on either side of a small plastic table, probably at Lorne's. They are glassy-eyed drunk.

A: What's the nastiest bite you ever had, then?

S: Bite? Bite? I had a sandwich, back in 1851..

A: I'm talking people, here. People bite.

S: No, they don't. Well, not very often. They don't get the chance, do they. I expect they'd like to bite.

A: Yeah .. bloody big vampire comes up to you, grabs you, first thing you want to do is bite. Human nature. Reflex, innit? Call of the Wild. Don't answer, I say. Let the bloody thing ring.

S: Fear makes 'em peckish, you know. Nothing like a bit of fear before breakfast, get the juices going. Blood, phlegm, piss. Orange..

A: Lymph. Nothing like a bit of lymph on the cornflakes

S: Cornflakes! Don't talk to me about cornflakes. I could tell you a thing or two about cornflakes. We're talking evil bloodsucking fiends here, we're talking death and destruction and armageddon. You can't tell me much about cornflakes that I don't know. And I know a bit, I can tell you.

A: Seen Dru lately?

S: Not to bite, so to speak. Well, she's not to bite, is she? She's bit, if you get my drift, as I think you would. Well bit. You bit her, actually.

A: Bit off more than I could chew, I expect you'd say.

S: Once bitten, as they say, once bitten, twice a lady. That's Dru all over. Well, she was all over. Over and out, Roger.

A: All over me and then all over you. And Buffy. Who was Roger?

S: Dru was all over Buffy?

A: And Roger. What a wanker.

S: Who was Roger? Who the bloody hell was Roger? This is the problem, you know. This is the bloody problem. Too many Rogers. You scratch a rock, and Rogers pop up. I tell you, I've had it up to here. And another thing.

A: Up to here.

S: Up yours, mate. Buffy and Dru. And Roger. I'll tell you this, there were no Rogers where I was. They can't take it, Rogers. Can't take the pace. No juice, if you ask me. Juice. Where was I?

A: Long story...

(Lorne, unable to take any more, hits them both over the head)
[> LMAO, Do it again! Do it again! :o) -- yabyumpan, 10:02:02 07/25/03 Fri

Thank you! Being of an age to remember when 'Derek & Clive Live' originally came out and loving it then with my sick, sick mind, that was real treat. Angel & Spike as Pete & Dud is just a wonderful image, I can so picture it!
[> I loved the comedy team of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore. -- cjl, 10:28:28 07/25/03 Fri

Cook and Moore on their own? Not so much.

But, oh my Lord! Derek and Clive! The Frog and Peach! One legged Tarzan! Bedazzled! (Raquel Welch as Lust. Talk about typecasting....)

Are there Derek and Clive DVDs out yet?
[> That MsGiles, she gives me the.. -- Celebaelin, 19:07:12 07/25/03 Fri

'Angel' revisited. -- Darby, 11:25:39 07/25/03 Fri

A bit of a preface -

First, a preface premise: that David Greenwalt was from the inception an equal to Joss, (he was the one with production experience - did you know he produced Miracles, the 1986 Tom Conti - Teri Garr movie? How weird is that?) and therefore one of the truly strong Non-Joss voices in the early seasons. I strongly suspect that the character that would henceforth be Angel / Angelus is largely a product of Greenwalt first, Joss second, and Boreanaz third. And DB really comes alive in this episode for the first time.

Second, there are a lot of moments in the shooting script that didn't make it into the final cut (and several scenes of "business" that were added late - judicious time arrangement or creative differences?), but are a shame to exclude, so I'm planning to quote several for discussion purposes.

On to the show...

When Buffy leaves the Bronze, she walks past actual storefronts - is this the first time we've seen the Sunnydale business district? Until they have an actual backlot, this will be a rare occurance.

Everything's closed - do these high schoolers stay out that late on school nights, or do Sunnydale merchants realize the nighttime clientele are better avoided? ("Gee, every time someone keeps their store open til 10 they die a horrible death...six it is!")

The Three wear armor - on their shoulders?? Wouldn't breast plates be recommended against a Slayer (they do have mail on, though...)?

Angel can fight! Buffy looks as surprised at this as at anything else this episode, and yet it doesn't set off her Slayer sensibilities. It's a well-shot scene, though - I don't think it set mine off when I first saw it, either. The whole "hit and scurry like bunnies" thing made him seem less heroey.

Angel's tattoo is supposed to look like a "winged lion," but it kinda looks like a llama with fish-legs on stilts, stuck to a snail. And I think it's changed over the years since, but am too lazy to check that.

Okay, I know the age-difference backstory, but when they interact, DB and SMG seem very much contemporaries, which greatly reduced the squick factor to mere intellectualism.

Of course Angel doesn't snore - he doesn't breathe. So his response to Buffy - "It's been a long time since anyone's been in a position to let me know" - must be a more calculated response than it seems. Calming, or foundation-setting? The squick is coming back...

The Three bring up an odd feature of many vampires - this honor-thing that, even sans soul, allows them to meekly offer up their lives, in this case to the Master. Doesn't this seem contrary to what a vampire is, basically-?

The script makes a point about the crossbow bolts being steel-tipped (in one scene it refers to them as steel bolts), but wouldn't hardened wooden arrows be what you'd want (and what they use, eventually)? How does the wood and heart have to interact to produce a dusting, anyway?

Greenwalt's not the best speller in the world. Facing Giles' training with staffs, she says she won't be fighting "Fryer Tuck." Well, he did do the cooking for the Merry Men, right?

First scene missing:


Buffy and Joyce eat dinner [Angel still hides upstairs in Buffy's room].

JOYCE
So tell me about this young man Angel.
When are you going to see him again?

BUFFY
(small glance upwards)
Soon...

JOYCE
He's doing more than helping you in history, isn't he?
(Nothing from Buffy)
I mean you've got Willow for that,
plus I saw the way you looked at each other.
We've talked about taking these things slowly.
You know how a glacier moves a few feet every year?
That kind of slowly.

BUFFY
Okay, so slower than you and Dad took it.

JOYCE
Touche. Do you want to hear the lecture
or do you know it by heart?

BUFFY
You were young, you were in love,
what you weren't was through with college,
focussed on a career and...no help from the audience,
please, in possession of your own identity.

JOYCE
That pretty much covers it.



Is this too early for Joyce to have actual parenting skills? Was this cut purely for time?

So is Angel's vamping during smoochies the obvious metaphor? The connection between sex and vampface is never firmly set, but morphing metaphors is the way of the show.

How deliberate a writer's word choice is it when Buffy tells Joyce, "I saw a shadow" to explain her scream?

Cordelia criticizes Free Trade Agreements. Does anyone else on the show(s) make political comments?


WILLOW
Something's bothering you. Buffy.

XANDER
Buffy? Why would Buffy be bothering me?

WILLOW
Cause you kinda got a thing there and she
kinda has a thing...elsewhere.

XANDER
It'd just this guy Angel, the research is in,
he's a vampire -- still
she likes him better than me.

WILLOW
She doesn't like him 'cause he's a vampire,
I know she's not down with that part.

XANDER
Love sucks. Ever since I was in grammar school
it's the same old dance...you dig someone, they dig
someone else. And then that someone else digs
someone else.

WILLOW
That's the dance.

XANDER
I mean, I'm right for her. I'm the guy. I know it.
She's so stupid! She's not stupid. But...it's too much.
We're such good buds, I'm this close to her,
and she doesn't have a clue how I feel.
And wouldn't care if she did. It's killing me.
(He exits into class. She stands alone for a moment.)

WILLOW
Gee, what's that like?



Much of this was covered in subsequent episodes, but did we ever see how sure Xander was about being right for Buffy?

We get a clear idea of what Darla (and Julie Benz) can be in this episode - she's been seductive, and cowed, but now she shows she can be truly dangerous, and there are layers added. Was she too Buffyish to be useful as a kind of anti-Buffy, or were they still in the "regular vamps are not meant to be real characters, just interesting cannon fodder" mode?

Somebody noticed how much chemistry she generated with DB, though...

The bit where Darla opens Angel's fridge and reveals human blood packets was not in the script, but an important detail.

Why Ireland - it's not where an "Angel" or an "Angelus" would come from, is it? Did anyone think ahead, ask DB what accents he thought he could handle? Was he married to the Irish girl then, could that be it?

I think under the Master's current condition, with minions screwing up right and left (notice how much more assured Darla gets as all around them fail), he would miss Angelus. Prodigal son and all that.

Very often, the material that is presented in school relates to the theme of the episode. Is it as simple as Reconstruction being Angel's lot in life, following the destruction of Angelus?

There's a lot here about family as it relates to vampires, and it doesn't quite tie to the theme. Is this a myth direction they were toying with, that came out later (and pretty weakly) in the whole "siring" thing? (And yes, I see the pun.)

Joyce's scream when Darla bites her is remarkably like Buffy's earlier scream. Did all of the women need stunt screamers?

The scene of Angel in the kitchen, trying to resist temptation, was later supposed to be a big part of Angel's series, but never really became integrated on a consistent basis. It's an interesting concept, SuperRabbit among the Carrot People...

Darla's reaction to Angel hurting her is the first intimation of how pain is wrapped up in attraction in vampire relationships.

In the Bronze, the script has Angel and Buffy trading more blows than they actually do - in the filmed scene Angel does little more than push her. This seems like a reasonable decision - even if he's feeling suicidal, pummeling his Great Love seems too out-of-character (until much later when she, y'know, pisses him off).

Wow, Buffy's first leather pants! Are these the Leather Pants of Conflicted Emotions?

If Angel's trying for suicide-by-Slayer, why lose the vampface at a critical moment? Potency problems?

And then he has the nerve to tell Buffy that she's "going soft"??

The basis is set for the entire "soul effect" - conscience, remorse. I've always read it as a basic empathy, a feeling for those you wrong, although with Spike it slid into a motivational thing - he could empathize, but how did it really make him feel?

Although Angel claims to have not fed on "living human beings" since being ensouled, he did eat criminals and such for a while, right-? Now there's Batman with a twist!

He also tells Buffy, "I wanted to kill you tonight." Is that true? It didn't seem like it. If not true, why would he say it? Is it just to set up Buffy's offering her neck?

His reaction to her offering is one of DB's first truly subtle moments on the show. It has to be - it's a major turning point in the series, with barely a word exchanged but an absolute understanding reached.

Remote communication - or the lack of it - forms the basis for many a plot element on the show. It's why we never see Buffy's beeper after Never Kill a Boy..., and although Xander suggests that Giles get Buffy a cell phone in the script, it gets cut. We eventually get an Initiative beeper - that works out great - and when cell phones get added in Season 7, they have to be repeatedly addressed (Conversations With Dead People, First Date) to explain why this time we can't make contact...

In the fight scene, once Darla appears, SMG does a good job of playing an encounter with a lover's ex. Julie Benz doesn't sound right, though - was it the vamp teeth, or trouble with later looping?

Another poorly though-out precedent - vampires with firearms. It never even gets remarked upon afterward - the Buffyverse quietly slips back to medieval-weapon combat.
Maybe there's something about being a vampire that makes them lousy shots...yeah, that'd do it...

Casting the Anointed One must have been one huge bust - they couldn't put him in vampface, and here they had to play with his voice to make him sound effective. And they forgot that a kid actor would grow, but the vamp kid wouldn't. No wonder they quickly did him in.

I am curious that they never explained why the Anointed One had Power. After the Master's demise, they still all treated him as something special (except Spike), but what made him special? Enquiring minds want to know!

Another cut scene - set, strangely enough, in the back yard -

BUFFY
Here, Mom, you gotta eat this...How are you feeling?

JOYCE
I'm thinking I should say not so good so that you'll
continue to wait on me hand and foot but I can not tell
a lie: I feel fine.

BUFFY
Good. I was so worried about you, I mean it actually
made me feel sick. If anything happened to you...

JOYCE
Now you know how I feel about you every minute of every day.

BUFFY
(Beat) I guess I do. Ouch, and now I am so sorry for
about a kazillion things I've put you through.
Now eat your vegetables.

JOYCE
I did!

BUFFY
Mom...

JOYCE
I had two big bites.



I guess they weren't ready to start with the generational bonding yet.

As should be obvious from the Locations thread, I really like the "much heartier cockroaches" line.

Ah, Buffy does math! Knowing Angel's about 240, she figures he's about 224 years older than her...They were planning on keeping the high school stories going for a while.

Has anyone ever mentioned how hairy SMG's arms are? Good, well, I'm not going to either.

This episode sets the scenario for at least the major relationships - it takes no insight to see Buffy and Angel are doomed, doomed, doomed. They know it, we know it, but it won't stop the teasing, even up through Chosen and beyond. Hey, I just realized that Home was more of a Chosen, and Chosen was more of a Home.

I heard or read recently that James Marsters read for the part of Angel. Just wrap your head around that for a bit. Would they have brought DB back for Spike, or would Nathan Fillion (who was also auditioning for parts at ME, possibly for Angel as well) have played Spike in his original, Southern configuration?

Sorry, that's about as profound as I'm getting this week - not that I often stray out of the shallow end.

Darby, who now has to continue building a fence - no, really!

[> It is a winged lion -- Diana, 12:01:12 07/25/03 Fri

It is from the Book of Kells. I've written a lot about it in the past. One thing I know is that tattoo :-)

Also, I'm glad the parts were cut. Greenwalt's biggest flaw, IMO, is he tends to explain things and explain them and explain them some more. Here is what I am doing/feeling and here is why. I like Marti's style much more. Here is what I am feeling and I don't need to justify it.

If Angel's trying for suicide-by-Slayer, why lose the vampface at a critical moment? Potency problems?

Because he is also a man and not all of him wants to die. A big part just wants to be understood and loved.

He also tells Buffy, "I wanted to kill you tonight." Is that true? It didn't seem like it. If not true, why would he say it?

Because part of him does want to kill her. That is why he wants to die. If there wasn't a part that wanted to be the monster, he wouldn't be conflicted. If he wasn't conflicted, he wouldn't want to die.

That is the Hallmark of Greenwalt's Angel. Same with Joss'. It is all about the conflict between man and monster.
[> [> Lions with wings -- Celebaelin, 02:53:18 07/28/03 Mon

FRP sources suggest

Lion with dragons' wings - Dragonne
Lion with bats' wings and human face - Manticore
Lions' body, eagles' head and wings - Griffon
Lion with birds' wings and humanish face - Androsphinx
Other sort of lion with birds' wings and humanish face - Lammasu

C
[> [> [> What is shown is none of the above :-) -- Diana, 08:02:56 07/28/03 Mon

The wings are those of an angel. The face is purely that of a lion. What is depicted in one-fourth of the Tetramorph. That isn't a symbol taken lightly.

If you want to see the page it is taken from:
/Angel's Tattoo

ME may have intended for it to be a depiction of a Griffon. It would fit with Angel rather well. At the time he was still being portrayed as a bit of a punk, so Angel getting a tattoo made sense. They hadn't even given much thought to Angelus much at that point and the whole mocking god thing came later. It just fits rather well.

When I was originally doing research on it for my story, I accepted the rationale that it was just a griffon. Then I looked on the cover of the main book I like to use for animal sybolism "The Bestiary of Christ." On it was a picture of the Tetramorph and it hit me what I was looking at on Angel's back.

I can see why they chose an animal from the tetramorph. The representation of "the living creatures" to "the one who sits on the throne" fits very well with Angel and Buffy. The sexual attraction of the two, where that tattoo really plays a part, can be seen to be a representation of this sort of adoration.

Like I said, I can defend either the Griffon or the Winged Lion, but what is shown on that page in the Book of Kells is a Winged lion. It isn't a hybrid creature, as are all those you list. It is just a lion with wings. The wings just symbolize its celestial origin. It is taken from Revelation 4:2-11.

The question is what approach did the artist take? Did he wants a Griffon and looked for pictures of one. Why not use one with the eagles talons or beak then? There are plenty. Why go to the Book of Kells and to the Tetramorph specifically? Once the tetramorph is decided, which evangelist to use is obvious.

At this point, Angel was barely a character. That tattoo isn't a symbol of only him, but of his relationship to Buffy. The wings of the Tetramorph and what they say tie them to the Seraphim of Isaiah 6:2. They also tie to Ezekiel. Prophecy is very important season 1. The tetramorph opens the vision of Ezekiel.

Whether it is a Griffon or a lion with wings isn't the important part. It is part of the tetramorph. If we want to get into its symbolism, I recommend a discussion regarding Ezekial, Isaiah and Revelations.
[> [> [> [> One more thing to add -- Diana, 08:14:34 07/28/03 Mon

To discuss Angel's tattoo, I would also add in a discussion of Angel's job as evangelist and being the one to spread "the good news" that is Buffy to Buffy. There is lots of good stuff about St. Mark that does apply to Angel and his relationship with Buffy and the other vampires.

A winged lion is Mark's symbol. The lion derives from Mark's description of John the Baptist as a "voice of one crying out in the desert" (Mark 1:3), which artists compared to a roaring lion. The wings come from the application of Ezekiel's vision of four winged creatures (Ezekiel, chapter one) to the evangelists.

Mark was not one of the original 12 Apostles. The emphasis of the Gospel of Mark is humanity's rejection of Jesus even though Jesus is the messiah. Can we say the mission statement of Buffy?

I think focusing on the griffon is a mistake when interpreting this symbol. All that stuff comes much later as Angel's character is fleshed out.
[> Re: 'Angel' revisited. -- Anneth, 12:46:14 07/25/03 Fri

JOYCE
Touche. Do you want to hear the lecture
or do you know it by heart?

BUFFY
You were young, you were in love,
what you weren't was through with college,
focused on a career and...no help from the audience,
please, in possession of your own identity.

JOYCE
That pretty much covers it.

Not to belabor the obvious, but isn't it wonderful that Buffy *does* finally come to understand what her mother's trying to tell her in this (tragically) cut scene? By Chosen, Buffy realizes that she's not in full possession of her own identity - and not ready for "The" final relationship.

Why Ireland - it's not where an "Angel" or an "Angelus" would come from, is it? Did anyone think ahead, ask DB what accents he thought he could handle? Was he married to the Irish girl then, could that be it?

Maybe because he wore a claddagh in real life? Claddaghs are a traditional Irish symbol.

It's an interesting concept, SuperRabbit among the Carrot People...

(giggles behind hand at the image Darby has conjured)
[> [> Re: 'Angel' revisited. -- Darby, 13:59:00 07/25/03 Fri

Yeah, I got that from the Joyce-Buffy conversation too when I first read it, but the point had fled from my colander-like brain by the time I got back to that point on the DVD. Nice bit of inadvertant foreshadowing.

Was Angel wearing the claddagh before it was specified in season 2? Could be, I seem to remember it as something DB had gotten from his Irish wife.

Glad you liked the Carrot People. I was going to do something with broccoli (a funnier veggie, I think) but couldn't come up with anything succinct.
[> [> [> the ring -- Anneth, 14:24:01 07/25/03 Fri

I believe I remember reading somewhere that ME had Angel give Buffy a claddagh because DB wore one, and that it had something to do with his wife. (A gift, perhaps?)

They may also have decided to make Angel Irish because, as Diana pointed out, his tattoo is a griffon from the Book of Kells. Though wouldn't it have been cool if Angel had been Croatian or Latvian or something Slavic? (While visions of Goran Visnic as Angel dance through my head...)

And, that SuperBunny thing? That's just not gonna get old. I think it might even replace my current screensaver of "that'll put marzipan in your pieplate, bingo!"
[> [> [> [> Small pet peeve -- Diana, 14:47:49 07/25/03 Fri

Tattoo is NOT, most definately NOT a Griffon (or any other spelling that is used for the word). The Griffon was a hybrid creature that is part eagle, part lion. It tended to have eagle's talons instead of lion's paws for the front feet. It was often used to symbolize Christ. The symbolism would have worked well for Angel or to have Angelus mocking God as was his MO, but and this is a really big but, where ME got that picture from was a page that depicted the symbols for the 4 Evangelists. The Griffon would NEVER be used for this purpose. What Angel has on his back, based on the art work it is taken from, is simply a winged lion. The symbols for the Evangelists are often depicted with wings. Angel's tattoo does not have eagle talons and therefore is not a Griffon.

A winged lion and a griffon are not interchangable. Their symbolism is different. Sorry if that came off snarky, but every time I hear Angel's tattoo refered to as a Griffon (and I have heard ME make the same mistake) the She-Giles in me cringes.

As for the Nationality of Angel, Darla is English. Her raping the Irish is just too perfect.
[> [> [> [> [> I always thought it was a goofy bird... -- Q, 15:06:25 07/25/03 Fri

I wonder when Angel got the tatoo?
[> [> [> [> [> [> I always thought it was Goofy -- Random, 10:18:12 07/26/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> Winged Lion -- Anneth, 15:21:27 07/25/03 Fri

Griffons (I've read that there are as many as 24 different spellings!) can be indicated by as little as a bird's beak and wings on a lion's body. So, while the lack of talons is not totally indicative of the creature's identity, its origins (The Book of Kells) is - you're most likely right; it's probably a winged lion. But I've never seen the tatoo up close, so I can't say for certain. According to my research, the winged lion represents Mark, not Christ. The four evangelists are represented (in the Book of Kells) by a winged man (Matthew), a winged lion (Mark), a winged ox (Luke), and the eagle (John). Encyclopedia Britannica notes only that Mark's symbol is the lion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Correction -- Diana, 15:38:49 07/25/03 Fri

I can believe there are 24 different spellings. It is one of those words that you rarely see the same way twice. The fun part is that none of them are wrong.

The Winged Lion does represent Mark. The Griffon represents Christ, which is why it would never be used to symbolize Mark. That is what I was trying to say. The four symbols of the evangelists are the various kings, lion (beasts), Ox/Bull (domesticated Animals), Eagle (air) and Man (everything). The evangelists can appear winged or unwinged. A creature that is a combination of these, known as the tetramorph, appears in Ezekiel and Revelations. That's enough She-Giles for now. (I have lots more if anyone is interested. A good book for all these is Lousi Charonneau-Lassay's "The Bestiary of Christ." I bet Giles had it.)

I can justify the use of either tattoo on Angel, but based on where it comes from it is a Winged Lion.

There are plenty of web sites that will show pictures of the tattoo. That and many viewings of various half naked Angel scenes really close up have gotten me well aquainted with said tattoo. The artist did an amazing job reproducing it from the Book of Kells (which I have a copy of) and only the addition of the A changes it. There is no evidence whatsoever of an eagle on that tattoo.
[> [> [> [> [> Something I've wondered for a while... -- KdS, 15:32:19 07/25/03 Fri

Why would Angelus have had either a griffin (if that was what ME intended) or a winged lion done? It had to be Angelus, because tattoos were reintroduced to Europe from Polynesia by Cook's voyage, and I don't *think* Angel would have had it done with a soul. Have we ever seen Angelus with it pre-1898?
[> [> [> [> [> [> That's an easy one -- Diana, 15:48:12 07/25/03 Fri

His name, marking victims with a cross, covents as cookie jars, and his tattoo taken from the book of Kells representing St. Mark all have one thing in common--they are Angelus' standard MO of mocking god. King of the Beasts. What better description of Angelus is there?

Angelus would be the one to get it done. Liam wouldn't have done it. He hated the church, but didn't quite mock it yet. Angel wouldn't have it done either. I can't see Angel doing something so egotistical, either declaring himself king of the beasts or even the simple A it is carrying.

I can just imagine him deciding to get it done and Darla totally laughing about it. He probably ate the artist afterwards.

His tattoo so intrigued me that it is the catalyst for my best short story.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I still don't understand... -- Anneth, 16:48:06 07/25/03 Fri

why a tattoo of Mark's symbol from the Book of Kells symbolizes God-mockery. Do you mean that getting something from a work of such devotion tattooed indellibly onto his skin was the mockery? I know that tattoos were considered ... ungodly.

Thanks for the clarification about the lion and griffon.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I still don't understand... -- Diana, 16:59:07 07/25/03 Fri

Why is it mocking God to mark his victims with a cross? Same thing.

Religious icons should be revered and put on religious things. To take one and place it on the body of something evil is to take ownership of it. Angelus is using it to tell HIS message, that HE is King of the Beasts. Angelus is perverting it.

He didn't just get a lion to say that he is King of the Beasts. He took a religious icon and twisted it by having it applied to his body. A vampire cannot touch a cross. God rejects them. Angelus said screw that and took this symbol for his own.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I think it was Angelus, too -- Masq, 15:49:27 07/25/03 Fri

In the episode "Angel", Giles consults his Watcher Diaries to get the scoop on Angelus. One gets the impression these Diaries have very little to say about Angel the souled vamp once he comes to America except to mention he came here and didn't feed.

Giles seems to be reading about Angelus when he pauses to ask Buffy if Angel has a tattoo. This seems to imply it was Angelus who got the tattoo.

I'm still waiting for an episode where they settle this once and for all!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> What makes sense -- Rufus, 03:58:57 07/26/03 Sat

The tattoo is a form of adornment that the openly vain Angelus would have jumped at the chance to get. The fact that it mocks god or could be perceived as mocking god is a bonus. Angelus would have gotten it as a lark. Only Angel would appreciate how deep the symbol was. From the Herders Dictionary of Symbols....

Griffin: A fabulous animal of antiquity that has the head of the Eagle, the body of the Lion, and wings, it was considered to be a solar symbolic animal. - For the Greeks it was sacred to Apollo and Artemis: it symbolizes strength and vigilance because of its penetrating glance. - Since as eagle it belongs to the sky and as lion to the earth, it was symbolic in the Middle ages of the twofold divine-human nature of Christ; as a solar animal it was also symbolic of resurrection.

Hmmm ironic that Angel has a symbol of the sun and resurrection on his body.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> More -- Rufus, 04:32:12 07/26/03 Sat

From The Penguin Dictionary of Symbols

Gryphon: (I'll only put in some of it) If a comparison is made between the distinctive symbolism of eagle and of lion, it will be seen that the gryphon unites the terrestrial strength of the lion with the celestial energies of the eagle. The gryphon may therefore be classed broadly speaking among the symbols of the power of salvation.

The gryphon, however, bears a sinister significance in another Christian tradition, perhaps later than the one already mentioned. 'It's hybrid nature deprived it of the freedom of the eagle and of the nobility of the lion...It rather stands for strength and cruelty. In Christian symbolism, it is an image of the Devil, to the extent that theological writers used the expression hestisequi as a syonym for Satan. In lay terms, however, it represented superior force and imminent danger'.

The Ancient Greeks identified gryphons with the monsters which guarded treasure in the country of the Hyperboreans. They watched over Dionysos' krater of wine and they hunted the gold-seekers in the mountains. Apollo rode a gryphon. They symbolized strength and vigilance, as well as the obstacles to be overcome in reaching the goal.

Oh and a connection to the name Angel...from The Dictionary of Symbolism by Hans Biedermann

Griffin: It has typological antecedents in ancient Asia, especially in the Assyrian k'rub, which is also the source of the Hebrew cherub (see Angels).

The griffin was also an embodiment of NEMESIS, the goddess of retribution, and turned her Wheel of Fortune. In legend the creature was a symbol of superbia (arrogant pride), because Alexander the Great was said to have tried to fly on the backs of griffins to the edge of the sky. At first also portrayed as a satanic figure entrapping human souls, the creature later became (from Dante onward) a symbol of the dual nature (divine and human) of Jesus Christ,precisely because of its mastery of earth and sky. The solar associations of both the lion and the eagle favored this posative reading. The griffin thus also became the adversary of serpents and Basilisks, both of which were seen as embodiments of satanic demons. Even Christ's Ascension came to be associated with the griffin. The creature appeared as frequently in the applied arts (tapestries, the work of goldsmiths) as in Heraldry.

From A dictionary of symbols by Cirlot

Griffin: The griffin, like certain kinds of dragon, is always to be found as the guardian of the roads to salvation, standing beside the Tree of Life or some such symbol.

In mediaeval Christian art, from Mozarabic miniatures onwards, the griffin is very common, being associated with signs which tend towards ambivalence, representing, for instance, both the Savior and Antichrist.

More irony when you think that Angelus could take on the visage of an Angel or protector, only to reveal himself to be a demon who steals the life, or if he sired, even the soul of his victims.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Fascinating, thanks -- Arethusa, 07:29:26 07/26/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ooh, this is worth putting on my site... Rob do you have this on yours? -- Masq, 06:56:31 07/26/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Will you include the mutant llama-fish-snail connection too? -- Darby (feeling he must specifiy that it's a joke), 07:48:12 07/26/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL, no, but don't get me started on the 'lamprey' from Doublemeat Palace again.....;) -- Rufus, 20:07:52 07/26/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for pointing this out, Masq! Oh, and of course thanks to Rufus for posting! -- Rob, 19:04:16 07/26/03 Sat

I have a bit on griffin symbolism on my site, so far as it's a combination of two different species, eagle and lion, like a vamp is a mix of demon and human...but not about the specific symbolism of each animal. I'll definitely add this.

Rob
[> Re: 'Angel' revisited. -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:30:51 07/25/03 Fri

'The Three bring up an odd feature of many vampires - this honor-thing that, even sans soul, allows them to meekly offer up their lives, in this case to the Master. Doesn't this seem contrary to what a vampire is, basically-?"

Not at all. Vampire's have their moral compass swung in the opposite direction. While humans are motivated to do good and feel an obligation to it, vampires are motivated to do evil and also feel obligated. The Three recognize the Master as someone far more evil than themselves and recognize Buffy as someone who's for more good. While humans might help and/or respect the good person and hate/fight the bad one, the vampires do the opposite: they seek to destroy the good one and respect the evil one. So it's not contradictory for vampires to have honor; their nature is to honor evil.
[> [> Also, it might be a case of... -- KdS, 15:28:39 07/25/03 Fri

A quick death, versus being exposed to the sun one square inch at a time...
[> On vampire breathing -- Q, 14:59:58 07/25/03 Fri

"Of course Angel doesn't snore - he doesn't breathe. So his response to Buffy - "It's been a long time since anyone's been in a position to let me know" - must be a more calculated response than it seems."

Maybe not, maybe just a continuity error, eh? I mean, if vamps don't breath-- how do they CONTINUALLY smoke? How is Spike able to knock Drusilla unconscious at the end of Becomings by cutting off her breath? How come we "see" vampires breath in cold situations-- such as Darla and Angels in the grave yard in "The Prodigal"? To me, the whole BREATHING thing is one of the most contradictory elements in the history of the 'verse.

The cut scene of Buffy and Joyce's dinner is HUGE. I always hated how weak Joyce was written in the early years-- and scenes like this would have done wonders to flesh out this character as at least a *decent* mother! It's a shame it got axed.
[> [> Re: On vampire breathing -- Darby, 17:07:08 07/25/03 Fri

Yeah, it often is seen as the single greatest long-standing glitch.

You can sort of fanwank many of the "errors" by saying that, although vamps don't need to breathe, they can pump air (not enough to give CPR or snore, but enough to speak and smoke), and will often react with old reflexes when choked or breathe out of motor habit when just standing around. Not the most satisfying rationale, but it covers most of what are just night-filming realities and forgetful writers.
[> [> On 'choking' Druscilla -- ApOpHiS, 22:05:03 07/25/03 Fri

I heard somewhere (probably here) that, rather than cutting off Dru's air, Spike instead was cutting off the flow of blood to her brain, hence the passing out.
As for seeing vampire breath in cold air, well, special effects can't fix everything and, for the time being, actors still need air.
[> [> [> My opinion on the choking -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:03:08 07/26/03 Sat

My guess is that, rather than cutting off air or blood, Spike was slightly damaging Dru's spinal cord. This would leave her limp and paralyzed until her vampire healing took care of it, by which time Spike would have her in South America.
[> [> [> [> That's how I saw it, too -- CW, 13:45:47 07/26/03 Sat

[> A couple of points (great post, btw!) -- LadyStarlight, 15:55:01 07/25/03 Fri

About the wood/vamp hearts thing -- I think as long as the wood pierces the heart it'd work. Don't forget that both Willow and Dawn staked vamps with pencils, so steel-tipped arrows would probably work even better than stakes.

It's an interesting concept, SuperRabbit among the Carrot People...

Were you channeling Bunnicula here? Inquiring minds want to know....
[> What might have been -- CW, 19:48:09 07/25/03 Fri

The thought of Nathan Fillion as Spike is about as horrifying as Julie Benz as Buffy. Honestly I thought Fillion was better as Caleb than he was as Mal Reynolds on Firefly, but Spike sure would have taken a different direction with him than what we saw with JM. Wouldn't be surprised if they killed him off quickly as they originally planned with Spike.

So many actresses supposedly read for Buffy it would be hard to keep track. I wonder if AH didn't want to give it a try. Just imagine Charisma (who did read for the part) as Buffy, making smoochies with JM or DB as Angel. I could see that quickly turning into the Angel and what's-her-name show. Would people have loved SMG as Cordelia, the role she originally won or loved to hate her? It would give a different flavor to Xander and Cordy sneaking off to the stacks to kiss, wouldn't it? Charisma gave gusto to every scene with Cordy in the early years, but I can see SMG stealing scene after scene. Assuming BtVS lasted that way SMG'd probably have gotten the spinoff instead of Angel.
[> Re: 'Angel' revisited. -- Kenny, 16:35:33 07/26/03 Sat

Angel can fight!

He still stakes like a girl, though( cf "Prophecy Girl").

Everything's closed - do these high schoolers stay out that late on school nights, or do Sunnydale merchants realize the nighttime clientele are better avoided?

Eh, it seems pretty common for downtown areas (excluding restaurants and clubs) to shut down around 6:00 in Sunnydale-sized towns (and even some quite a bit larger). Wal-Mart and Target stay open until 10:00, though, for your shopping convenience.

OK...I'm having a slight stream-of-conciousness moment, so bear with me. "Yeah, I thought it really sucked when I joined the working world and found out that stuff closed early, just when I finally had money to spend at these places...but the the mall stays open later...reminds me of "Bad Eggs" when Buffy was at the mall with her mom...wow, really brings back memories of hanging out at the mall on a school night, just waiting for it to close and thinking you were out kinda late, 'cause, like, wow, it's 8:55 on a school night, and you've still got homework to do...the Gorch Brothers were funny..." That just to bring you this one question that is now lingering...did the older Gorch Brother (Lionel?) ever get staked? The last time I remember him was "The Prom". If he survived, it'd be a hoot to see him on _Angel_. One of the few _Buffy_ characters I'd say that for.

The Three bring up an odd feature of many vampires - this honor-thing that, even sans soul, allows them to meekly offer up their lives, in this case to the Master. Doesn't this seem contrary to what a vampire is, basically-?


Not when you remember that vampires are informed by the human who once inhabited the body, insecurities and all. A bunch of people want to be told what to do when they're alive (and they seem like they'd be the easiest vampire pickins), so they want to be told what to do once they're dead.

Cordelia criticizes Free Trade Agreements. Does anyone else on the show(s) make political comments?

Willow--Thanksgiving ("Pangs")
Anyanka--superiority of Communist regime("Selfless")

Ah, Buffy does math! Knowing Angel's about 240, she figures he's about 224 years older than her...They were planning on keeping the high school stories going for a while.

You never know with JossMath(tm). Could be that 240-224=17.3 in that system.

Has anyone ever mentioned how hairy SMG's arms are? Good, well, I'm not going to either.

Heh, one of those classic Usenet discussions. Oldest thread about it I could find was from '98 (and it just happens to mention "Angel" as someone's first remembrance of said hairy arms). Usenet Hairy Arms Thread. And the thread contained a post by someone named Rob...any chance it could be the same one as the Atpo Rob?
[> [> Argh...messed up the HTML tags again...well, every other paragraph, starting with the 1st, is quoted -- Kenny, 16:39:39 07/26/03 Sat

[> Re: 'Angel' revisited. -- heywhynot, 16:38:07 07/26/03 Sat

"I am curious that they never explained why the Anointed One had Power. After the Master's demise, they still all treated him as something special (except Spike), but what made him special? Enquiring minds want to know!"

Well in retrospect, the Annointed One had no special power. He was a boy turned vampire that fit the role that was in a prophecy. He was thought of as special because of this. Spike though was not one to follow the rules so he does not accept these artifical limits and casts aside the Annointed One. Was this where things were going with the Annointed One? Probably not, but it plays into the story especially with Buffy's finale and explains Buffy & Spike's attraction to one another. They both see outside of the box.
[> new annotation for you, rob! -- anom, 00:29:52 07/27/03 Sun

I just checked your site--can't believe no one came up w/this one!

"Angel: Your mother moved your diary when she came in to straighten up. I watched from the closet. I didn't read it, I swear."

Angel has been in the closet with regard to his vampirism, all right. But he's just about to come out--3, 2, 1....
[> [> Ooooh! I love that! -- Rob, 11:25:38 07/28/03 Mon

Buffy's Spiritual Journey 1.6 (the Pack) -- manwitch, 14:59:56 07/25/03 Fri

I suppose I have mentioned before, but I will do it again, that these posts are just my own attempt to work through what I feel Buffy is saying to me. These are not intended to be transcendent interpretations, but merely what I can put together given the limited experience and education I bring to watching it. I don't know much about mythology or folklore, so I can't really post about that. I don't know much about narrative structures, so I can't really post about that. But I do know that when I watch BtVS I feel that I am being encouraged to be a particular kind of person, and that I am being asked to do it in a particular kind of way.

Two episodes ago, in Teacher's Pet, it seemed to me that in making Willow a representative of Buffy's spirit, which I felt they did, and specifically by making her Jewish, the show was implying that not only must Buffy commit to a particular way of life, but her spiritual commitment would be a social act. The spiritual commitment is made, in fact, by the social community that embodies and witnesses it. There is no private spiritual commitment separate from one's social life.

In the last episode, Never Kill a Boy on the First Date, Buffy put that to the test, attempting to separate the private from the public, to be two different people, one who privately aknowledged her spiritual commitment and another who publicly led a normal social life. She found ultimately that the private and public are not separable, at least not without grave consequences. Spiritual growth both informs and reflects one's social grounding.

So what form will that social grounding take? What does the social grounding reveal about our spiritual commitment?

The Pack is the first Buffy episode that is ostensibly about someone else. Xander, along with some mean kids, is possessed by some Hyena demon spirits. They become a nasty mean-spirited clique, valuing only their own company, elevating themselves by diminishing others. They do some nasty things. Ultimately, Buffy, Willow and Giles come up with a plan to save Xander, but that plan is undercut by the evil Zookeeper. But as the evil Zookeeper claims power for himself, Xander recovers his sense of self and saves Willow from the blade of the Zookeeper. The Zookeeper man attacks Buffy, who flips him over the rail into the Hyena penn, where the Hyenas themselves turn on him and consume him. Xander is reunited with his real friends, and pretends to have no recollection of the mortifying memories of his behavior.

To a degree, this is pretty straightforward. Most of us have experience, one way or another, with the pressure of the social peer group to conform to a paricular set of behaviors, no matter how cruel or destructive. You become part of the pack, group mentality, group behavior. Moral and ethical judgement are surrendered to the group. The pack supports itself, and its claims to superiority, through the exclusion and belittling of others. And clearly this is exactly what happens to Xander. He falls into this trap.

But there is a sense in which this episode is really about Buffy. In the opening moments the mean kids approach Buffy and say, "Look, its Buffy and all her friends." She is alone, of course. And the mean kids ask, "Are you ever curious why nobody cool ever wants to hang out with you?" And Buffy replies, "No, just grateful." So we find right off the bat that Buffy does not belong, and claims not to want to. This episode thereby begins to explore a recurring theme in BtVS: what does it mean to belong to or participate in a group? What should be the nature of that participation? What is a family?

That last question may seem not to fit. But consider the episode. Buffy leaves the mean kids and goes to the elephants. The infopanel in front of her bears the large headline "Family Matters." One assumes it has interesting tidbits about elephant families. When the mean kids approach Lance by the chimps, they say, "It looks like a family reunion." When Xander confronts the mean kids, he doesn't say "pick on someone your own size," he says, "pick on someone of your own species." When the pack is sent to fluties office, he says, "You're going to have so much detention, you're grandkids will be staying after school." Family. Then he tells them, "I'm going to call all your parents." Family. As they devour Flutie, the camera pulls in on what should be a family picture on Flutie's desk. Sadly, there is no family in it. After they have satisfied themselves on Flutie, they rest in the park and a mother and child wander into their midst. Family. Later, the pack will attack a squabling couple and their child. There seem to be a lot of very pointed references to family. What is it about family that matters? And what properly are matters of the family?

The questions I think refer to Buffy. What will Buffy belong to? What will be the nature of her social grounding? Throughout the season, Buffy has been resistant to being the slayer. What she has wanted instead is normalcy, the trappings of normal life, what everybody else has. Her conscious values, therefore, have been largely dictated by "everybody else," or the mob, what one might call the pack. And remembering that Xander is a metaphor for Buffy's heart, we find that it is a failure of heart to surrender one's values to the pack, to value belonging over decency, to pursue what's "cool" over what's right. While Xander is caught in an extreme example of this, it is, metaphorically speaking, where Buffy has been trapped all season long. And in the end, Buffy's fledgling spirit, Willow, tells her so. "Buffy, it's a trap!" she exclaims. And Buffy stops, almost in shock at the realization, before she is buried under the weight of the pack.

The pack preys upon the weakness in all of us, upon our desire to belong, to not feel alone or forlorn, to not feel the despair of insignificance, to not feel the anguish of the weight of our moral culpability on our shoulders. Hey, everybody else is doing it. And now we can belong to the great "everybody else." But it's a trap. As Sartre points out, the person who makes such an argument is merely "masking their anguish." That moral culpability will always be on our shoulders, regardless of what anyone else does. When we recognize that, and see that everybody else follows the pack, we will always feel alone and forlorn. But the question of our insignificance is up to us.

Xander returns to his true friends, and he returns as the superior accept-no-substitutes Xander. I don't think Buffy has yet recognized the social grounding that will support her spiritual growth, but she knows the pack is not the answer. We've read ahead, so we know what ultimately she will find. A family is the group to whom you belong. And the group does not include or exclude the individual, the individual includes or excludes themselves based on the way of life they live. So the group will embody the whole and be a testament to that way of life.

I think there are other suggestions of how our character and identity are influenced by external forces. Cute Herbert, for example, who is artificially dressed by external forces as a viscious razorback. One can't help wondering if a similar process is behind the behavior of the pack.

As a final thought, I think Xander's assault on Buffy is interesting, too, in light of Xander as metaphor for Buffy's heart. Buffy's heart is turned towards herself, and here aggressively so, in what represents a very narcissistic satisfaction with who she already is. By resisting her spiritual destiny, i.e., resisting being the slayer, and by voicing over and over again her desire for normalcy, her contentment with the average, with the values of everybody else, she is essentially saying that she is already all she wants to be. But even her weak heart is able to tell that at the base of that stance is fear. Buffy aggressively attempts to love herself as normal because she is afraid of who she will become if she really commits herself to this shadowy world of mysterious spiritual powers.

Anyways, its clear that the filming is getting better and better. A lot of style to this episode. But some contrivances in the plot (such as why they take off after Buffy when they have a weak kid to eat in the car after its been established in the dodge ball game that they will prey on the weak rather than mess with the strong) and the absence of Cordelia keep it from the top spot.

I should say, by the way, that while my interpretations are only my opinions, my ranking of the episodes is just plain fact, and you are all compelled to accept it.

That was a joke. Not very funny, I know. But don't fret. Not a one of these is gonna be on this list when its all said and done.




The Top Ten Percent (so far)

1. Never Kill a Boy on the First Date
2. Witch
3. The Pack
4. Welcome to the Hellmouth
5. Teachers Pet
6. The Harvest
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
[> Excellent! -- Rahael, 15:04:12 07/25/03 Fri

[> Re: Buffy's Spiritual Journey 1.6 (the Pack) -- Darby, 17:51:55 07/25/03 Fri

Very interesting connections.

Was it just time for a disclaimer of the non-vague variety, or is this a reflection of current conditions?

I noted family-centric issues in Angel too, just down below (until the next Voynak attack); I suspect that, if you seek them out, you can find them in a huge number of episodes. Not sure it really means anything, or maybe it reflects the familial atmosphere of early ME.
[> [> Re: Buffy's Spiritual Journey 1.6 (the Pack) -- manwitch, 20:49:28 07/25/03 Fri

Well, current conditions are not lost on me.

I think the family thing you notice in Angel is serving a very deliberate purpose. If I ever get around to posting on Angel, I'll try to go into it.
[> Re: -- aliera, 18:53:40 07/25/03 Fri

Really enjoying these. And one of my favorite eps for both Xander and about experiences in high school. Both Jesse and Buffy's initial meeeting with Cordelia in Welcome to the Hellmouth come to mind again. Thanks!
[> [> Re: -- manwitch, 20:46:28 07/25/03 Fri

I was lucky in high school. By then I was a generally decent guy and somehow seemed to be able to get along with everybody.

But this episode sure reminds me of junior high. The worst three years of everyone's life, I like to say.

A lot of things I would take back if I could. I guess I was possessed by the "great equalizer."
[> [> [> certainly the 3 worst of mine! -- anom, 12:27:21 07/27/03 Sun

"But this episode sure reminds me of junior high. The worst three years of everyone's life, I like to say."

It was junior high that was hell for me. High school was actually an improvement, although still not exactly enjoyable--purgatory, maybe.
Questions on 'Chosen,' were some items 'earned' by the plot? -- Earl Allison, 14:57:34 07/26/03 Sat

Yeah, I knuckled under and came back -- I have no control, I admit it :)

I have some serious issues with "Chosen," but wanted to throw two of the biggest (they probably have little issues within them, though) out here and see what you all thought. Here goes;

Buffy's "plan" to defeat the First and the hordes of Turok-Han: Does it make any sense? First off, when Buffy and the others enter the Hellmouth, the ubies are making like good little Uruk-Hai and banging away at the forges -- there was no guard, and no reason to belive they were about to boil over -- so why doesn't Buffy wait for Willow's "empowering spell" before leading the others to what could have been certain death. To me, there was no urgency or immediacy to it. Worse, we SEE that a handful of Slayers are no match for the endless hordes of ubies -- so IMHO, Buffy's bacon got saved by Wolfram and Hart, not her own plan. I say this because what we the viewers saw and knew of the amulet was vague and sketchy at best, and didn't seem to be a part of her plan at all, aside from a vague role for Spike in the strike team. I know others disagree, but to me, Buffy DIDN'T save the world, it was saved FROM her, or DESPITE her attempts. The amulet did the work, she and her Slayers did very little -- again, the ubies weren't massing for an attack, didn't rise up to attack Buffy and the others as they descended the stairs, nothing, until they made their presence known. Heck, at the rate of attrition we saw, Buffy's Slayers would have been overwhelmed but for the amulet, which (again, given what we the viewers were told and saw) was not an integral part of Buffy's plan because she never mentioned it. Maybe the writings Angel brought were more comprehensive, but something that important should, IMHO, actually be addressed on the show -- not left to fan speculation after the fact.

Second, the infamous "empowering spell": First, I as viewer am asked to accept Buffy's rationale that the Slayer spell was deliberately curtailed or limited by the Shadowmen -- with no proof before or after. The only rationale I can give Buffy is that two Slayers were able to exist simultaneously without either suffering noticable (and if not to us, certainly to the Council) loss of power. Then again, two does not by default mean (we can have dozens or hundreds," IMHO. Where does Buffy's idea come from? HOW does she know that she can empower all possible Potentials (nevermind that it kills the arc from the beginning of the season, that the SiTs with Buffy were supposed to be the last -- but then again S7 abandoned so many threads, does one more matter)? How does she know that it won't exhaust the Slayer line, rendering the Calling of a new Slayer after this crop dies impossible? I can suspend belief, certainly, or I wouldn't be watching BtVS, but this seemed incredibly slipshod and sloppy. Willow can cast a vague spell with NO consequences, now? Wasn't it hammered into our heads that powerful magics come with a price? Wasn't it implied by some that Tara's death was a direct result of Willow's tampering with life and death (more here than the show, but certainly debatable)? How can she now cast an even more powerful spell with even broader-reaching effects, and it be portrayed as a wonderful thing? Are we the viewers asked to accept that White Magic is all good and fluffy, and Black Magic is a harsh mistress? Why are the Shadowmen by default evil and claimed to be keeping the One Slayer rule as deliberate? Does Buffy somehow know this? When was the viewer going to be told? Why is Buffy's idea to empower everyone a GOOD thing? Why is it automatically possible at all? It doesn't seem like the standard locator spell, or binding ritual -- Buffy in essence had Willow invent a new spell, whole cloth, and it works perfectly due to (IMHO) writer fiat.

Maybe I'm being unneccesarily harsh, I know many claim that any plot holes this season are no better or worse than earlier ones. I disagree. Many grandiose claims were made with this last episode that were never explained, dealt with, or expounded on. Maybe, MAYBE AtS might deal with them, but that was something that should have been addressed, IMHO, in this series.

Please, I'm trying very hard not to attack anyone or anything, but if people find this truly offensive, please let me know, and I'll ask Masq to remove it, and me, from ATPoBtVS&AtS. I've been reading the earlier threads, and I hope I have not contributed to the ill feelings here at all.

Thank you for your time.

Take it and run.
[> Re: Questions on 'Chosen,' were some items 'earned' by the plot? -- heywhynot, 16:23:02 07/26/03 Sat

First I am going to answer your second problem. Buffy knew she could activate all potentials because of the Scythe. It gave her the insight. Between the Scythe, the Guardian, and her encounter with the Shadowmen, Buffy also knew the origin of the Slayers. She knew that the spell, calling of the demon essence, limited to one girl being activated.

Buffy realized it was about power. Not physical power, that governed by the laws of thermodynamics, but psychological power. Physical power she turned down from the Shadowmen. She saw the limits placed upon the Slayer line were artificial, not natural laws but ones created by men in a position of power. Such power is based on manipulating fear for personal gain. Empowering people is to get them past the fear, so they can't be manipulated. Activating a Slayer is removing limits placed upon each potential.

The fact that Faith and Buffy coexisted was always showing this point. Once the limits are removed, both are able to be empowered. You throw the existance of two Slayers at once, what Buffy learned visiting the Shadowmen, the Guardian, from the Scythe and add some of Buffy's 6th sense and ability to see not out of the box but that there is no box to begin with, and you have why Buffy was able to know that all potentials could be activated.

In terms of Willow, she was not manipluating the world anymore. She was working with the natural order of things. Each potential had an artifical limit placed upon her. Willow's spell restored the natural order. We were hammered that magics must be used to work with the natural order of things not against them. Willow used her vast knowledge of magics, her inate instinct towards magics, Giles' knowledge, and the wisdom Buffy had (see above) to develop the spell.

I don't know if the Shadowmen were evil. They were like Giles when he killed Ben. They were pragmatic, end justify the means. Our heros tend to be once who believe the means also matter, like Buffy. They did what they did to save their society. They needed one slayer not an army. Multiple slayers would eventually challenge the power position the Shodowmen had in their society.

In terms of your first problem. The way I see it, Buffy knew the army was coming. The First was amassing an army, waiting to release upon the world once the forces of "good" were dwindled. No watchers council, a limited number of potentials that could be activated, etc. Basically the First was breaking the spirit of those that could oppose It before even sending his full army out. The strength of Buffy's forces were only going to weaken. With the Sycthe Buffy knew she could activate all the potentials. She devised a plan that would take advantage of this activation, taking the fight to the forces of the First. The key to overcoming the First was to have faith not give into despair. The plan had to have faith in the all the Slayers. Was their risk in this battle? The answer is yes, but there was greater risk in waiting for the First to carry out its plan. The odds were also better for success, a suprise attack. Buffy knew if they Slayers fell that Angel would have a second force waiting, at the very least her attack would weaken the First's army. And lets remember when Buffy rose after being stabbed, it seemed the tide/big MO, was swinging back into Buffy's favor.

I think it was also pretty clear that Buffy believed the amulet would be able to help them. Based on the readings, what Angel said, and her 6th sense. For me they did not have to state this as it was I have come to expect from watching Buffy for 7 seasons. Why they walked down before being activated? I thought it was so basically once the potentials were activated they would be fighting, adding to the suprise of the attack.

I think the biggest plot-hole in BtVS is the fact Sunnydale had a UC campus, a small liberal arts college, an army base, a secret army installation, a castle for Dracula, places of worship left and right, etc yet the bronze was the only place for young people to go. It was as if some greater power was adding things to the town in order to keep Buffy on the Hellmouth so she could keep saving the world ;)
[> [> Nicely done. -- Sophist, 17:34:17 07/26/03 Sat

[> [> Agree with Sophist, nicely done -- manwitch, 18:09:29 07/26/03 Sat

Also, as regards the first point, If buffy isn't her deliscious self, Spike doesn't go out and get a soul, and the amulet is moot.

That doesn't necessarily make her plan great, but Buffy is ultimately the source of the success.
[> [> Also, in regards to the activated Slayers: -- HonorH, 20:19:54 07/26/03 Sat

Buffy attacking, rather than waiting for the First's army to boil over, *was* to draw the Turok-han out. She and her Slayers would kill as many as possible, but if they failed, there would still be Angel's front in L.A., plus all the other activated Slayers out there in the world. If Buffy's army failed, at least the world would have defenders left in it.

Fact is, there was nothing they could do to avoid the First's army. Waiting would have done no good, as far as Buffy or anyone else could tell. So Buffy chose to go on the offensive, and to equip the world as best she could in case she fell.
[> [> [> Not quite my point, but here goes... -- Earl Allison, 03:59:14 07/27/03 Sun

HonorH,

I agree that the First had to be confronted, my question is more along the lines of "Why the false drama of the unpowered girls being charged by Turok-Han?"

Could Buffy not spare the extra five or ten minutes that the empowering spell took BEFORE taking her charges into the Hellmouth? There was NO urgency to it being then, an hour from then, or an hour earlier, so why lead the unpowered in at that exact moment?

THAT was more my point here, Buffy waited, but for no reason that I could see beyond adding artificial tension.

Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> Re: Not quite my point, but here goes... -- heywhynot, 06:30:18 07/27/03 Sun

To me that is all television & given it was a suprise attack it makes perfect sense to wait until the last minute to activate the potentials. Activate them earlier and well you alert the First to the plan (though the First probably had an idea of what was to come) or at least that is a reasonable line of thinking for Buffy and the Scoobies. Is that a great reasoning for it? No, but really activating before walking down would not of made the show any better. To me a minor point that does not take away from the show.
[> [> [> [> [> When messages get reversed -- Darby, 06:56:39 07/27/03 Sun

I'll try this one.

To me, the most disturbing trend of season seven was that Buffy was stupid. This was the girl who had been established as a great tactician, and all of her plans made no sense.

I feel that the feminist message of the show wasn't that a girl could kick butt - her empowerment on that front came from an external source - but that she could fight the good fight because of who she had always been. Right from the beginning, Buffy was the one who was able to assemble the clues and develop effective plans. It got a little crazy with the "Summers blood" thing, but, as shown in Helpless, and again with the Initiative, here was a female with classically "male" (don't jump on me, I know this isn't fair) abilities. Buffy was a better squad leader than Riley ever was (now there was a better source of his ineasiness!). This, combined with her emotional connections to her friends, is what made her probably the most effective Slayer ever - a melding of classic masculine and feminine traits, a full human being.

But that was all undermined during this season, and with almost no confidant character - remember how satisfying the Conversation with Webs was? - to draw out her feelings on the matter (I think we're supposed to believe that this has been building since her big resurrection, but that's entirely guesswork on our part because we've been neither shown nor told anything clearly about it), all that we have been shown is a Buffy that is more-or-less a shell for this great physical power. I see that as, if anything, a masculine image, and a betrayal of the character.

I want the old Buffy back, with all of her faults but all of her inherent strengths, because I believe that the show should really be about realizing potential, and except for a huge metaphorical moment at the end (and again, it was an external empowerment of physical power), the show has for month been about how Buffy's successes are due to wildly unlikely strokes of luck. Joss did what he says he hates - he manipulated the established story to fulfill an agenda.

Okay, stepping off the soapbox now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: When messages get reversed -- heywhynot, 07:32:36 07/27/03 Sun

But to me Buffy did what she always did of old. Her plans were usually based on her sixth sense. She was never like Riley as a squad leader, because she lead in a different fashion. Which is why she as a better leader. Season 7 she tried to lead in the military way instead of being true to herself. Buffy's brilliance is seeing that there is no box except that which we place ourselves in. Season 7 was about people trying to place her into a box, a role much like how the First Slayer was placed in a box. She turned it all on its head though and made them all see reality. She empowered, which is psychological. The reason it worked was because of Buffy being a tactition of life, seeing what is reality and what is not. She assembled all the clues that had been there sense well the begining and placed them together. Why can't all potentials be activated and choose to be Slayers is they so want? No reason except that is what was decided thousands of years ago by the Shadowmen and past down to each generation as the rule. Creating a plan to save the day because she was balanced and as such say what others refused to see. To me the Buffy of old you describe was who I saw save the day in season 7. She was not a shell of physical power. What we were shown of Faith and Kendra, neither could of done what Buffy did because neither was balanced like Buffy. Buffy had a Watcher and listened & learned from him but she was not beholden to him & the "rules" like Kendra was. Kendra would of lived in the box. Faith wanted to be outside the box. The problem was that there was no box. Buffy realized this & was able to save and change the world. It was her brain not her brawn.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: When messages get reversed-agree -- sdev, 09:06:05 07/27/03 Sun

I agree. Buffy was always the one with the street smarts, the non-book learning in contrast to Giles, Willow and The Watcher's Council. She came up with the plans. When you come right down to it the Big Bads were always bigger, stronger than Buffy alone so her strength was never the issue. Her smarts were the undercurrent of the Buffy Giles relationship, the unspoken I'm throwing out the slayer book on her. And I agree they betrayed that this season.

That idea of her "masculine" smarts made for great moments such as the scene in Season 5 when she takes the Watcher's Council test with the blindfold on and cannot understand the directions in Japanese (I think it's Japanese). Buffy the pragmatic strategist is shown from the very beginning-- when Giles challenges her to spot the vampire in the room in the Bronze, she spots the vampire hitting on Willow. How? His out of date dress. She turned the ditzy teenaged girl who notices what everyone wears into a vampire fighting skill. Now that's turning a cliche on its head. And when Angel follows her into the alley, she has the smarts to hide overhead and gain the attack advantage. She kills Luke by brains not brawn. And as someone recently said, in The Pack when she tries to tell Giles that something is very wrong with Xander he does not get it. He turns to book learning quoting classic teen boy behavior. She knows better.

But of course you're right, the quintessential demo of brain strength versus body strength is in Helpless when her body is out of the equation.

The end of Chosen when they all turn to Buffy and ask what's next rings a bit hollow because of the way her character was treated all season.

Great post!
[> [> [> [> [> [> I wouldn't call all of her plans bad/stupid -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:07:04 07/27/03 Sun

I personally still feel that Buffy's plan of attack in "Dirty Girls" was a very good plan considering they had no way to know how powerful Caleb was (yes, it ended horribly, but that had more to do with showing how no amount of planning can prevent people dying (as was explicately stated in "End of Days")).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> There's the one obvious problem -- Doug, 14:09:57 07/27/03 Sun

Caleb, who's boss the first seems to be quite good at observing Buffy, tried to goad her into a fight. The very simple fact that an unknown opponent who most likely has an aproximate idea of Buffy's tried to call her out into open battle is by far and way enough reason to avoid a confrontation, by any measure of tactics.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not necessarily -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:00:25 07/27/03 Sun

Buffy's plan hinged on the idea that the First Evil wouldn't be expecting her to bring in the potentials. After all, last uber servant of the First's that she fought, she specifically kept the potentials out of it and killed it alone. It's not unreasonable to think the First was expecting a similar move: for Buffy to tackle the problem in classic "the Slayer's always alone" fashion. So Buffy tried to surprise it and bring in the recruits. Unfortunately, Caleb happened to be strong enough that even such a surprise tactic wouldn't work. Also, she was prepared for the chance that the attack might not work, so she had backup outside waiting to get them out if things started going bad.
[> [> Don't see the Giles/Shadowmen comparison -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:53:00 07/26/03 Sat

Giles killing Ben was "ends justify the means", yes, but I don't see how having only one Slayer is the same. It was either a limit of their imaginations (unlikely) or it was an attempt to keep control of the Slayer (more likely). I just don't see how this is "ends justify the means" since the ends themselves seem to be selfish rather than good, which is the whole point of "ends justify the means" philosophy.
[> [> [> Re: Don't see the Giles/Shadowmen comparison -- heywhynot, 07:47:42 07/27/03 Sun

My point with the ends justifying the means regarding the Shadowmen was beause they decided to force a role upon a girl with potential in order to save/protect their society. Buffy's plan activated all the potentials but it is their choice to be Slayers or not.
[> [> [> [> OK, makes much more sense now -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:59:26 07/27/03 Sun

[> [> Sorry -- Darby, 21:11:17 07/26/03 Sat

Hey, I like a well-rounded explanation as much as the next person, but Earl's criticism stands - we the viewers deserve things to make some sense, and none of this was even implied in the presentation of the season. And it could have been, easily - a handful of lines of dialogue could have set all this up. There's a definite symmetry to your explanation, but I see virtually no evidence that you've inferred the actual intended story here.

One possible weakness of the proffered explanation - if the purpose of the scythe was to activate all potentials, why wasn't it used by the Guardians long ago? Why bury it, embedded in a rock? Did the girls have to keep to their places until the time was right, even though it took millenia - where's the message in that?

One thing to add - I think we've got to stop beating up on the Shadowmen. They did a spell that empowered a single girl and somehow provided for multiple babies all over the world to be born with the potential to carry the power she was imbued with, which jumped one-to-one upon her death - would it have been better if they had filled that cave with teens and had their way with them? Would that have produced the same force for Good? Has Willow's spell really aided the fight the Shadowmen were fighting?
[> [> [> Re: Sorry -- heywhynot, 07:42:17 07/27/03 Sun

To me all if it was implied by the season 7 & themematically the entire series:

1) the whole one slayer thing was thrown out the door come season 2 with the arrival of Kendra, who showed us what a Slayer is like when she grows up under the ever watchful eye of a Watcher before even being called, a slayer who plays by the rules placed upon her. Faith showed that yes a Slayer can choose the side of evil and wants to rebel against the rules. Also that Buffy after Xander brought her back, was not weaker implying and Kendra & Faith were just as strong as she was showing the "Slayer Power" was not limited by the 1st Law. The fact there was another Slayer besides Buffy was brought up at various points throughout season 7 usually juxtaposed to the one slayer every generation line or the fact the Slayer is alone.

2) we were told the First wanted the Scythe for its own purposes.

3) The Guardian we saw was the last one as we & Buffy were told. We were also told they were wary of the Watchers Council. They created the Sycthe for a time/Slayer who could use it without it falling into the wrong hands which strongly implied the First and very well the Watchers.

4) We were told by Buffy she could feel that the Scythe was more than just a weapon. Faith could also feel the mystic connection to it.

5) The activating of the First Slayer was reenacted by Buffy & she learned of the Shadowmen.

6) Buffy was shown the amassing armies of the First by the Shadowmen. Her final battles with Caleb gave her greater insight into what was going on.

7) We were told about magic having to work within the natural order and trying to disrupt that leads to dire consequences over the course of the last seven seasons, especially seasons 5, 6 and 7.

8) We were told of Buffy's idea regarding the Slayer line.

To me it was all there. I would of feel cheapened if some character verbally connected every single line. That wouldn't of fit nor made sense. Would of seemed like an episode of the SuperFriends in my view.
[> [> [> [> Re: Sorry -- skpe, 07:56:08 07/27/03 Sun

I agree with all of your points and would add another. How do you fight an enemy that knows your every move? I would think that it would have to be as Buffy did it you 'wing it' go on the attack with only vague plans and go by instinct don't give the FE time to come up with a counter. In affect it was another 'Leap off the tower'
[> [> [> [> Very thoughtful and articulate stuff heywhynot! -- Dedalus, 20:32:03 07/27/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> Interesting points. I concur. -- jane, 22:40:39 07/27/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks, as you can see I really liked Season Seven (NT) -- heywhynot, 04:04:52 07/28/03 Mon

[> [> Sunnydale Setup -- Kenny, 13:58:22 07/27/03 Sun

I think the biggest plot-hole in BtVS is the fact Sunnydale had a UC campus, a small liberal arts college, an army base, a secret army installation, a castle for Dracula, places of worship left and right, etc yet the bronze was the only place for young people to go.

Eh, not so much a problem for me. With the exception of Drac's castle (and, IIRC, that just appeared when Drac showed up), that pretty much describes Huntsville, AL. And our club (actually, we might have two now, as Sunnydale did by S7) is nowhere near as cool as the Bronze.
[> [> I'm sure Tara would of liked the Jedi mind trick Willow did to the cop -- Falcifer, 03:09:21 07/28/03 Mon

and the equivalent of giving lots of girls steroid shots without asking if they wanted it. (gee in our society wouldn't that be a violation and against the law?) I mean Tara seemed like a nice level headed girl who understands the ends justifies the means, NOT!

Fanwank all you want but I'm staying in the camp of believing the story not the writer, or the fans. I was shown for seven seasons that being a Slayer was a horrible job, that Buffy's great plan was spoonfeed to her by the First Evil, and if not for the intervention of a known evil law firm Buffy and the SiT would be toast.

I was also shown that Slayers don't seem to get along with each other and that Buffy is unwilling to follow, she has to lead. What happens when there are hundreds of Buffys all wanting to be the law?

Lets see what did I get from Chosen? Buffy was a tool of the FE. She would of died a senseless death without W&H help. She and Willow have perhaps brought about the next apocalypse "the Slayer war" or at the very least violated young girls world wide, which when the shadowmen attempted to power up Buffy against her will she equated to being raped. Until Joss revisits this story that is what I'm left with, So yes the reason some of you might see this post as bitter or bashing it's because I am.

I agree with the original poster of this thread but didn't think he went far enough with the Harsh
[> [> [> Re: I'm sure Tara would of liked the Jedi mind trick Willow did to the cop -- heywhynot, 04:03:44 07/28/03 Mon

I do take exception to Fanwank. We can argue about how good the writing was such that all viewers got what they were presenting or not all we want but to dismiss my viewing experience is very disrespectful. I understand that many people did not see what I saw while watching the show. That is why I come to this board. To see others views and discuss them.

To me Potential showed all the SiTs has the ability in them naturally it was locked away though. All the SiTs were empowered and the artifical limits/rules placed upon them by a male society were removed. The violation by the Shadowmen was forcing a role upon a girl regardless of whether she wanted it or not. They tried to do the same again to Buffy, forcing themselves upon her to enforce their view of her role as the Slayer. Buffy did not force a role upon the girls. To me the comments in Chosen said that the girls did not have to be Slayers, it was their choice. Yes they can do harm but they can also do good, sit on their butts, etc. Having "Slayer" abilities in the buffyverse is now like have an aptitude for biology/chemistry in my mind. Yes you can use it to make deadly weapons but you can also help humanity out or you can just have it and not do anything with it. All up to the individual.
[> [> [> Re: I'm sure Tara would of liked the Jedi mind trick Willow did to the cop -- Malandanza, 06:32:31 07/28/03 Mon

"I was shown for seven seasons that being a Slayer was a horrible job, that Buffy's great plan was spoonfeed to her by the First Evil, and if not for the intervention of a known evil law firm Buffy and the SiT would be toast."

In fact, the reality of being a slayer was reinforced in Potential when Anya points out that Dawn being a potentials means:

Anya: Well, it is a mixed bag, you know. If she gets to be the slayer, then her life is short and brutal. And if she doesn't, then it smells of unfulfilled potential. My swallowed analogy looks pretty sweet right now, doesn't it?
(TWIZ transcripts)

But Buffy never had a choice to be slayer -- she couldn't retire because there would be no one else to take up the burden (unless the WC had Faith killed). The new slayers do have a choice -- not a choice to decline the powers, those were automatic, but a choice about whether to use them or lead a quiet, normal life of unfulfilled potential. And those who do choose to fight will not have to fight alone -- there will be other slayers helping to shoulder the burdens. When the weight of the world gets to be too much, they can take a break and let someone else carry it for a while.

However, I agree that it appears the FE wanted the slayers activated. I believe the FE and the First Slayer are the same entity - that the amorphous demon the shadowmen bound to their helpless captive is both the source of power of the slayers and the First. Now, among its various plans, the First said it wanted to be made flesh, and the Eye said that Buffy was responsible for the current weakness in the slayer line -- it seems to me that if the First wishes to be made flesh, and requires a slayer to do so, there are many more opportunities available now than ever before. So the First dug up the axe, led Buffy to it, prevented Caleb from killing Buffy or taking the axe, killed the Guardian only after she had given Buffy the information the First wanted her to have, and concocted an apocalypse that required multiple slayers to prevent. It had the knowledge of all the villains Buffy had killed, so knows what motivates Buffy. Basically, I believe either the First was the most subtle villain ever, or it was the most incompetent bungler in the Buffyverse. I lean towards the former.
[> [> [> [> The Eye did not say Buffy was the weakness. -- fidhle, 08:51:04 07/28/03 Mon

From Showtime:

Beljoxa's Eye: The mystical forces surrounding the chosen line have becomd irrevocably altered, become unstable, vulnerable.

Anya: Something the First did?

Eye: The First Evil did not cause the disruption, only seized upon it to extinguish the lives of the chosen forever.

Giles: Than what has caused the disruption? What--what is responsible for letting this happen?

Eye: The Slayer

At the time Beljoxa's eye said this, there were two slayers. Both Faith and Buffy are alike and kicking and are slayers. However, the Eye did not say which slayer caused the weakness. Most people, including Giles and Anya, believe that it is Buffy, but I disagree. Faith, because she was incarcerated at that time, was fairly safely out of danger of being killed, and Faith's death would be necessary, so it would seem, to call forth another slayer. Certainly, we know that Buffy's death in Prophecy Girl called forth Kendra, and that Kendra's death activated Faith, yet no new slayer was brought forth by Buffy's death in the Gift.

The weakness of the slayer line was that Faith was both incapacitated and safely alive. She was not likely to be killed in the battle with the First because she was physically prevented from being in the battle. Further, I believe that the attack on her in the prison was designed to weaken, but not kill her. If the First could then kill all the potentials, while leaving Faith alive, then the slayer line itself could be killed off. Buffy is actually irrelevant to that strategy, except that she would be a leader of the potentials. Buffy could live or die without affecting the future of the slayer line. Faith, on the other hand, would affect the slayer line.

Were Faith to die or be killed before all the potentials had been killed, then a new slayer would be brought forth, and the First would be again faced with a situation where the death of that slayer would bring forth another slayer, and so on.

The weakness in the slayer line was Faith's incarceration because it gave a chance for the First to kill all of the potentials before then killing the existing Chosen Line slayer.
[> [> [> [> [> Script quote above is from Buffyworld.com transcript. -- fidhle, 08:56:27 07/28/03 Mon

[> The way to look at Season 7 -- Diana, 13:38:44 07/27/03 Sun

Season 6, Joss has said that he said "au revoir Monsieur Metaphor." Season 7, he does the reverse. It is all about the metaphor. Sure a lot of things don't make sense and seem counter-productive or downright stupid when looked at literally. They weren't really functioning on that level. Maybe all of Joss' literal brain cells went to "Firefly." All his well-crafted arc ones went to "Angel." What "Buffy" got was symbols, symbols and more symbols. Because of this it is really easy to literally rip it to shreds.

Maybe that is a reason that some people didn't like it.
[> Re: Questions on 'Chosen,' were some items 'earned' by the plot? -- Kenny, 14:07:07 07/27/03 Sun

so why doesn't Buffy wait for Willow's "empowering spell" before leading the others to what could have been certain death

Just mentally insert this line:

Willow: Well, yeah, I think I can do that Buff. But, according to "The Annals of Rectus," we're gonna need a big pool of demonic energy, like, ya know, the Shadowmen tried to use on you. Too bad we don't have one of those lying around...
[> Well well thought out and a welcome post (to me anyway)... -- ZachsMind, 22:27:28 07/27/03 Sun

To your first point, you may have tugged on a plot thread that's being laced into Angel season five. The fact that it was technically Wolfram & Hart which saved Buffy's bacon is a hint at what we can expect from the fifth season of Angel. Wolfram & Hart isn't so much changing sides as it is proving that it NEVER ever took sides. Wolfram & Hart is not evil and it is not good. It is simply there. It plans to survive after both evil and good have played out their little armaggeddons, and Wolfram & Hart wants to be able to claim it was on the side of the winning team all along, even though it played both sides against the middle since day one.

I've longed believed that Angel has repeatedly attempted to pull itself away from Buffy as a series (in many ways but here specifically) by one major detail. On the series Angel, good and evil has never been quite cut and dried. On the series Buffy, good and evil are forced absolutes, even and especially when it doesn't make sense to make them such.

Lorne is a green devil with horns and yet he's the sweetest most gentle creature with an alluring voice and a sensibility that can be nothing less than charming. What's not to love about this guy? He's the liason oftentimes between the normal world and the not so normal. He's connected to humanity, but he himself also has "contacts" and repeatedly is forced to admit that even though he adores Frank Sinatra and apple pie, he's about as human as a cat is a dog. So will he be up against the wall when the revolution comes? Hardly, but he also won't be holding the gun. More likely he'll be selling tickets to the festivities, or booking the entertainment for the preshow.

Connor is a lad who is human, born of vampire parents, who is raised by a victim of his genetic father's wrath, and gets involved with a woman many times his age who was almost his father's love interest. Oedipus Wrecked. Talk about screwed up. Connor's not evil, and never did things that were evil. Having absolutely no moral compass, and a VERY distorted and limited point of view, he did what made the most sense at the time, which rarely bore fruit in the consequences. Some loved him. Some hated him. I just took pity on the poor guy. An alien to his own skin.

And now there's Wolfram and Hart. Wolf. Ram. Hart. Creatures of sacrifice. Creatures of nature. Creatures of instinct. Wolfram and Hart doesn't so much commit acts of evil or good as they do commit acts of survival. It is how amoral humans would interact with an underworld of bile and villiany. If you can't beat them, and you don't want to join them, the least you can do is make a profit off them. Turn your enemy into a client, sit around a table with him, break bread and see if there can be some arrangements made. Deals with the devil never run smoothly, but Wolfram and Hart does its level best to exist in a world gone mad.

Yes, in Angel, the world is not cut n dried. Black n white. The world is not even grey. It's many colored and multi faceted and if one stared at it all simultaneously for but an instant it would drive one mad. In this regard, Angel and Buffy are dynamically different worlds, because WE are seeing them through dramatically different eyes.

The concept of good versus evil is to Buffy a very cut and dried thing. She views the world through eyes that wear rose colored glasses. Sure, they're cracked and smudged glasses that have been destroyed and put back together, but they're still rosy all the same. Or perhaps I should say monochromatic. Things are either black or white, or sometimes grey, but when it comes to the supernatural Buffy sees herself as the last line of defense for a moral compass, and what she says goes. She is right even when she's wrong. Kinda like Madonna when she's complaining to her assistants about her dressing room.

A vampire just coming out of the ground is evil cut n dried, even though it hasn't yet been given a chance to prove anything one way or the other. Even though it's not lived a century and been shown what its actions cause. Even though it's not been reprogrammed with a chip in its head or given a soul. As she saw in the final scene of Beneath You, sometimes even when things are what they seem, they are not what they seem. You think you know someone, and then they turn themselves inside out for you.

We see a change in Buffy in Conversations With Dead People. In seasons past she'd just kill what came out of the ground. Even in the first episode of season seven, she looked at a vampire as a specimen. A guinea pig to use as practice for her sister Dawn. She had little regard for what that thing was and whether or not it deserved to live. However, in Conversations With Dead People, it wasn't quite so cut n dried anymore was it? I mean yeah, Webster still felt the same connection to that all consuming evil that was gonna destroy everything in a blaze of glory, but we also saw that the human side of Webster still kinda existed, and there was a connection between him and Buffy that was tangible. She almost gave as much to Webster in words as she had given to Spike and Angel in actions. He got under her skin, did some dimestore psychology on her, and convinced her to give so much of herself, telling secrets and thoughts that she hadn't confided in her closest friends, and then to discover that Webster was sired by Spike, who in turn had been sired (after a fashion) by Angel. Quite a shock to the system. Could this guy have ever turned out like Angel or Spike? Doubtful, but there was that outside chance. Given the right guidance, and perhaps a soul or a chip or some other manifestation of control or conscience, and yeah, Webster didn't have to become a statistic. Another scratch on Buffy's stake. Yet, that's all Buffy had. She couldn't just let him run around loose.

As we learned in Grave, and as Buffy learned in Beneath You, Spike got the soul not for himself but for her. The supposedly evil Spike, in his twisted way, tried to give himself as a gift to Buffy. Then AFTER he recieved the soul, he realized that giving himself as a gift to Buffy was a selfish, and perhaps even evil act. Like someone who gives gifts to people from the crap that's been accumulating dust and cobwebs in the attic, or stuff one was going to throw out anyway. It appears like a selfless act on the surface but it's not really selfless at all. Souled Spike saw this and so much more, and by the end realized that though he still loved her, the love would not be reflected in her, and he came to a certain peace with that understanding:

"I love you." She told him.

"No you don't," he returned with a smile, as the century plus old vampire faced his own mortality, "but thanks for sayin' it anyway."

At season's end, Buffy came to a realization. Playing by the rules of reality as it was being presented to her was no longer working. Now she could do one of two things. She could accept that she was supposed to be the one true slayer and admit defeat, or she could rewrite the rules and claim her own destiny on her own terms. Is this feasible? Does this go against the grain of some things said in the show? No. Even when it DOES. Even if one could find evidence to the contrary, the truth of the matter is there's a possibility that more than one slayer can exist at the same time. That IS canon. So there's no reason to assume that there can't be dozens, scored, hundreds, hell MILLIONS of Slayers running around. No reason at all. Except that we say it isn't so.

It is called Buffy the Vampire Slayer after all, and if she wants to relinquish her right to be The Chosen One by sharing the power, who is there to argue? What god would step forward and interrupt such a decision? Hell, the gods proved themselves afraid to bring back Tara. Certainly they wouldn't dare question a Slayer's reasoning.

But who died and made Buffy god of her own destiny? Why does she get to rewrite the Shadowmen's vow? Good question. The answer is circular logic. It's her reality. Her subjective perspective. So who's to say she can't?

Frankly, if one were to dissect the series Buffy too deep, the entire construct would buckle and crumble. NOT because it's a poorly designed series by happenstance, but because it's a poorly designed series on purpose. We see the world through Buffy's eyes, and sometimes even she was forced to realize that her perspective on reality is very closed-minded, yet still she trudged on, because she had to. This is what we find in episodes like Earshot, The Body, Normal Again, Selfless, and Grave. She's given a glimpse that the world is a much bigger place and so many things happen outside of her realm of control, and yet she does her best to manage to function within the confines of her own... shall we say, jurisdiction?

She knows for example that her justice is limited to that of the supernatural. She cannot kill a killer if that killer is human, and operates with mundane means. A creep like Ethan Rayne or The Triad is fair game, because even though they are human, they utilized magic and therefore fell out of the realm of power for common ordinary police - only Buffy stood between them and ill-gotten gain. However, that line was very thin, and when Willow crossed it (going where even Buffy did not dare), all hell threatened to break loose.

Which brings me to your second point. We saw with season six that Willow had reached a point of no return. She'd tasted the forbidden fruit and liked it far too much. But what exactly was her sin? Was it the action of magic period? No. This is why so many disliked Willow's reaction to magic after Tara left her, treating magic as if it were to blame for her failure. Treating all magic as if were evil. That was Willow's folly and her ignorance.

This ignorance is mirrored in mankind. The rain forests are being depleted by greedy corporate interests and must be stopped. The act of reaping the wilderness out there is demonized, so that across the board it becomes unacceptable behavior. Even though there are positive ramifications of such behavior, otherwise the corporate interests would recieve no profit. The answer here is to find a compromise. Instead of seeing things as black and white, the universe is far more complicated. HOWEVER, if the world is simplified into black & white, it makes it easier to deal with.

Another example. Sex is not an evil act. Sorry to burst some people's bubbles out there, but in a perfect world we'd all be walking about without clothes on (except for times when it was common sense like wearing clothes to protect oneself from various hazards) but instead nudist colonies are put far away from mainstream society, and people have to pay to lustfully watch other people prance about wearing nothing. Rather silly actually. The actual act of sex is a beautiful thing that has been demonized because quite frankly had there not been a theological institution to make sex something you can't do just anywhere, well it feels so good that people would be doing little more than having sex all the time and there'd be no progress. Okay that could be a bit extreme but such procreation without proper and careful planning also makes the world more complicated. Out of wedlock, a child is more difficult to raise. Not less loved, or less deserving of life, but again if you want your life less complicated, you'll see things as black and white and come to the belief that a child should only be concieved under the umbrella of a family structure. Conservative, closed minded indivdiuals concoct the idea that children born out of wedlock is "wrong." It's why there was the concept of "bastard children" for centuries. Thankfully we've begun steering away from this childish notion over the last few decades but at the same time, without the illusion of black & white, good & evil, the world gets more complex.

So what precisely is wrong about magic? Nothing. It's simply there. Just like nudity or rain forests or bulldozers. It's not these things that are evil. It is how they are used. In Buffy's world good and evil boils down to whether an individual is acting selfishly or selflessly. If one commits an act that grants oneself little to nothing positive but puts one in some kind of jeopardy, in hopes that such an action will cause positive things to happen to someone else? That's good. If someone uses power of any kind to aquire personal wealth or power at the expense of others? That's wrong. That's evil. That's bad. Good is never properly rewarded. Evil seems to always lead to personal gain. Unless of course someone comes along to put right the wrongs and find a way of returning a sense of balance and justice to the universe. However, such actions are only bandaids on the festering gaping maw of a wound. Perpetually, evil is rewarded and good vainly struggles, because Buffy's world appears to be upside down.

How dare the sky be blue when Buffy wants it to be pink. It's her world. If she wants it to be pink, it'll be pink, whether things really are supposed to be that way or not. However, she only has a bandaid. She can't actually cure the universe of what she sees as a disease. At best she can pacify her own concerns with what power she has at her disposal.

The only time this is different is when an individual who subscribes to Buffy's point of view (or is forced to subscribe by the meddling of the Scoobies somehow), turns evil. The penultimate example of this is Willow. When she did magic for selfless reasons, like to help the gang defeat a bad guy, there were no ramifications, except of course when things would go wrong due to Willow's own inexperience and inadequacy but that's a whole different thing entirely. By season four, even D'Hoffryn had to tip his hat to Willow's accomplishments and potential. It's not like D'Hoffryn went around doing that every day. He only did that when he saw a potential recruit for his own operation.

Now, when Willow skinned Warren alive, that was a selfish act. When Willow enchanted Tara into forgetting they argued, that was a selfish act. Whenever Willow used magic to entertain, empower herself, or simplify her own life, she got a little bad karma which eventually added up to Dawn's broken arm and Tara's broken life and other things. It wasn't magic that was causing evil. It was Willow that was accumulating evil through the use of magic, and it had to have somewhere to go.

This is very important. I shoulda put it at the beginning of this tirade. MAGIC IS NOT EVIL. WHAT WILLOW WAS DOING WITH IT WAS WRONG. She had to stop magic cold turkey not because she no longer trusted magic, but because she could not trust herself with magic, and in that way her experience is identical to drug abuse. It's not 'recreational drugs' which are bad, but one's misuse of them that causes potentially bad things to happen, be they bad trips or trips to the morgue. Good things can happen too, but usually such good things are short-intervals and empty hollow experiences. There's many variables along that spectrum but the vast majority of indivdiuals who go further than token usage in recreational drugs tend to end up worse than Willow, and in that respect the correlation that was made between excessive drug use and excessive magic use on the part of Willow was quite valid and evident.

However, with Willow's spell at the end of the seventh season, when Buffy willingly GAVE the power of the Slayer to whomever CHOSE to have it, that was a selfless act. Further, it wasn't Willow's will that was being done. Willow was not acting in a selfish way. In fact she made it very clear that by doing this she was taking risks that she couldn't properly convey to Kennedy or others. It was dangerous. Everything had to be just right, and even then she was unsure of the outcome, so she saw no personal benefit from doing what she was doing. Willow was functioning as a conduit for Buffy, so Willow had no direct selfish greed involved. Okay, you could argue that indirectly she got something out of it cuz she was able to give the power to her lover Kennedy, but even then you were wrong. It was Buffy's explicit instructions the power be given freely to whomever CHOSE to recieve it, and that Willow, even after Sunnydale cratered, could feel new slayers awakening all over the world. So when Kennedy became a Slayer, it was Kennedy's choice. Not Willow's.

So her act was a selfless one, and therefore in the Buffy Universe, was a "good" thing, and Willow got that nifty feeling and didn't go all veiny and crazy. Cuz in Buffy's universe for good people, the world is not topsy turvy. You do good, eventually you get rewarded. You do bad, while you don't necessarily get punished quite the same way as a weirdo crawling out of his own grave, you will find yourself on a road to redemption that you may or may not safely traverse.

So in closing...

"White Magic is all good and fluffy, and Black Magic is a harsh mistress? Why are the Shadowmen by default evil and claimed to be keeping the One Slayer rule as deliberate?"

Cuz it's Buffy's universe. Or rather, it's Buffy's eyes through which we see the universe. The Shadowmen were not exactly ever evil. They did what they had to do eons ago to save their people. They sacrificed a girl and made her the conduit for an energy powerful enough to defeat their enemy. However, they did this without giving the girl a choice, and in Buffy's eyes, that's wrong. So that in turn made them wrong. The end did not justify the means.

Is that right? Maybe not in your world or my world or even in Angel's world but it's Buffy's world, what she says goes. It's her show. =) You dissect it any deeper than that and you might as well be watching Doctor Who and get ticked off at the cheap and cheesy special effects.
Buffy's Spiritual Journey 1.7 (Angel) -- manwitch, 15:41:33 07/26/03 Sat

If there is a common theme to these posts I am writing on Season One, it would be that Buffy must overcome her resistance to her spiritual destiny. It has been established that she is the Chosen One, but it has also been established that she has not yet chosen to embrace that destiny. It is "really not" what she is interested in. She's retired. She wants to be a cheerleader. She wants a normal social life. She resists the life of spiritual commitment that is set before her.

We can think of Sunnydale as the landscape of Buffy's soul. She wants to live her life on the surface, like everybody else, in the realm of waking consciousness. They wander about on the surface, engrossed in their daily lives. But underneath that surface lie mysterious powers, the powers of the subconscious, the existence of which surface life denies. But they are always bubbling within, appearing in dream, waiting for the opportunity to explode forth in conscious life. The sewers and tunnels represent the labyrinthine paths to the subconscious. The subterranean church represents the hidden chamber of Buffy's spiritual power. The Master is the personification of that spiritual power, the power that Buffy resists and fears. And while she resists it, he is stuck like a cork in a bottle, blocking up those subconscious urges. While she fears those powers, they appear evil and terrifying.

Buffy has come to Sunnydale to start a new life. Joyce says so, Flutie says so, Buffy says so. But while she thinks its to start a life with a clean slate, what she actually has is the opportunity to start a new spiritual life, a life of spiritual commitment. So of course the subconscious powers of the spirit represented by the Master begin to bubble forth from the subterranean chamber of her spirit at the same time.

I would argue that Angel is contrasted to the Master. While the Master represents the aspect of her spiritual and subconscious power that Buffy fears and resists, Angel represents the aspect of those powers that Buffy desires. When she is with Angel, that deliscious representative from the shadowy and mysterious realms, the lights dim everywhere else. When she is with Angel, there is only Angel. When she recognizes her desire for that spiritual commitment, there is only that spiritual commitment. But for Buffy, this spiritual destiny, even if she desires it, is still intimidating, still frightening. These subconscious drives are still mysterious and unknown, and therefore they still contain a dangerous and demonic aspect, symbolized in Angel's vampire visage. Buffy is just plain frightened of this spiritual commitment, both of the aspect she resists, and of the aspect she desires.

And what does Buffy see in the dangerous face of Angel? She sees a threat to her mom, the risk of losing her childhood. In this epsidoe, Angel, we see Joyce in the parental role. She makes it clear to Buffy that it is Joyce's house, that Buffy must say goodnight to Angel. Its too late for tutoring. Even as Buffy disobeys, we see Buffy as a dependent member of the family. And when she screams in terror, her mom comes to comfort her. When Buffy comes home and sees her wounded mom in the arms of a vampiric Angel, her worst fears are realized. I will lose my mom and I will cease to be a child, she fears. Embracing these subconscious powers will end her innocence. Buffy needs to protect not only her family, but her role within it.

So she throws Angel out the window. Out the front window, mind you, and boy would I like to see just how she got him from the kitchen to the front lawn without a word til after she'd done it. The girl's got some power when she's angry. You really first see it when Angel is threatened by the Three. When Angel is stabbed, Buffy becomes superBuffy for a couple of seconds, just enough for them to make their escape. They go to Buffy's house and their feelings for each other are revealed. Not only does Buffy want to embrace this aspect of her mysterious subconscious spiritual power, but that power also wants to embrace her. At which point she is confronted by her fears.

"Can a vampire ever be good?" asks Buffy. And Giles, the metaphor for conscious mind says basically, no. The conscious mind deals with rules, categories, classifications. But Buffy feels that it doesn't make sense.

Now the Master has a family of his own. This episode references that over and over. "As she has taken so many of my family," the Master says of Buffy. And the Master has his child, the Anointed One, that he teaches and trains. And the Master has Darla, his favorite. And the Master remembers Angelus, the most viscious creature he ever met, who was to sit at his right hand come the day. There is a suggestion here that Angelus is in the role of son to the Master, that Darla and the Master are his mystical parentage. Darla in fact is Angel's sire. She made him. She is attempting to bring him back to the family, to return him to his role within it. But Angel will not go.

We know that the character of Angel did not bite Joyce, but nevertheless, the separation from mom that Buffy fears is exactly what Angel is there to represent. Moments after telling Buffy that he killed his own family, Angel kills Darla, his sire, his own "mom" if you will. Buffy doesn't kill Darla, Angel does, ending his vampire childhood forever. The message to Buffy is clear. The spiritual quest, Angel seems to be saying, is not for those who wish to remain children, and it cannot be undertaken while in a state of psychological dependency. It is time to move on. The character of Angel, it turns out, is really about Buffy.

So whereas last week we saw that "family" did not mean the pack, did not mean surrendering to the values of the group, we see here that family does not mean surrendering to the dependent roles of the nuclear family either. There is more to family than simply family.

Now I'm an ignorant person, so I knew nothing about the winged lion or the Book of Kells until I read the posts in Darby's thread from Anneth and Diana. I am grateful to them all for enlightening me. I particularly liked Diana's explanation of Angel's mocking of God in his claim to be "king of the beasts." I think also that, at least at this early stage, Angel has yet to be his own character. I mean obviously he is his own character, but he still exists in the show to tell Buffy's story. He is not yet the Angel of Angel the Series. Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, it would appear that Angel's tatoo is a real image, taken from something called the Book of Kells. Its an image of a winged lion that is associated with one of the four Evangelists, in this case Mark. Now it's a flaw in my personality that I just figure such an image can't possibly refer only to Angel, but must refer back to Buffy. So the earlier posts sent me scurrying back to the Gospel According to Mark.

It would appear that the significance of Mark is that it is the earliest Gospel. It is the first recounting of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. In addition, the Gospel of Mark includes nothing about the virgin birth. Mark does not, except for its first sentence, explicitly describe the occasion of Jesus's divine lineage. This has apparently been the source of some argument. In Mark, the messianic career of Jesus begins not from birth as the son of God, but from the baptism by John, from an act of spiritual commitment. The Spirit descends to him like a dove upon his baptism. One might say, Jesus chooses to be the Messiah.

And this is, of course, exactly what Buffy must do. While she is already the chosen one, she has not yet chosen. Her messianic career can only begin with a baptism, with an act of spiritual commitment in which she chooses for herself to embrace the mysterious powers of her subconscious and live her spiritual destiny. So while Angelus may once have thought himself the king of the beasts, Angel is a reminder to Buffy, in more ways than one, that she must choose.

I really liked this episode.

Please note: while I have credited other posters, any dumbness in this post is mine alone.




The Top Ten Percent (so far)

1. Angel
2. Never Kill a Boy on the First Date
3. Witch
4. The Pack
5. Welcome to the Hellmouth
6. Teachers Pet
7. The Harvest
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
[> Another excellent post! -- Rahael, 15:53:03 07/26/03 Sat

I really love the idea of Angel and the Master representing Buffy's fear and desire; I had never thought of Angel in that way before.

How intriguing.

Current board | More July 2003