If the link doesn't work here is the Address:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=46819
Be Warned, this is a no-holds barred, TV-MA (L) Rated destruction of the document in question. I appologise for the mistakes in spelling, but a lot of the things said within the document were not only horendously stupid, but offensive as well.
Replies:
[> The horse is pretty ripe by now -- Kansas, 11:34:35 07/13/04 Tue
I do agree with most of your counter-arguments, but I can assure you that the FAQ's creators have heard them all before. This is a dying controversy, and probably the best thing is to let it go quietly. (Please see my comments below; I suspect Benjamin's comments at Amazon.com were in large part an attempt to gain a new audience for the Kitten's complaints.)
[> [> The entire movement lost its momentum with Tara's replacement -- Charles Phipps, 13:43:29 07/13/04 Tue
When it just became about a bunch of fans witching about their favorite character being killed/super couple then it no longer was a lesbian feminist issue. Thus the entire thing was killed.
good for you joss
[> [> [> This I was unaware off -- Majin Gojira, 05:14:24 07/14/04 Wed
Which really makes me wonder why they are still referenced without a complete counterpoint on the mainsite.
Oh well...I guess the horse is now charcoal black by now...
The new ATPo--picking your brains -- Masquerade, 10:50:50 07/13/04 Tue
Alas, when Fall comes this year, we will be without new Buffyverse material to discuss. But I love this community bunches and bunches and that gives even more meaning to the words "Not Fade Away".
So as people have already noticed, I've expanded the official "On-topic" scope of the board (as if anything was ever "off-topic" on this board!), and now I want to pick your brains about discussion topics/projects/etc for the new ATPo.
Stuff we came up with in Chicago:
(1) Updating the character posts/essays on Existential Scoobies. This was last done three years ago, and there is a lot of updating that needs to happen! Some of you already have assignments, and should start considering writing them--good discussion starters, and they will become part of the ES site.
(2) The Season 6 project is about ready to take off into actual writing. Hopefully, we may have the first episode ready for viewing in late August or early September. I hope we can get discussion going on the episodes as if they were actual ME products ("analyze This!"). Rufus of course will be responsible for trying to weedle spoilers out of us.
(3) Rob informs me he plans to keep up the good work on the Buffy Annotations. As soon as the Season 3 annotations are done, I think he will be switching off between Season 4 BtVS and Season 1 Angel???
(4) Back to the Beginning was somewhere in the beginning of Season 2 when last we did it. That could be started up again.
(5) The Book Meelee is alive and well and in full swing, thanks to Ann!
(6) All future products by the writers-formerly-known-as-Mutant Enemy will of course be on-topic goodness. The upcoming Firefly movie, for example, the Wonderfalls DVD set. Also any movies/TV shows/etc featuring the AtS/BtVS actors are welcome.
(7) Other ideas for threads/projects/general philosophical mayhem??
Replies:
[> Re: The new ATPo--picking your brains -- skpe, 13:06:18 07/13/04 Tue
A few thought off the top of my head
the Book Meelee's are fun how about a Topic Meelee.
how about a guest poster from some of the other boards(don'nt have to be jossverse centric)ie. if there is a poster on one of the other boards that you like invite them to post on any topic that moves them
[> [> Topic meelees sound like fun! -- Masq, 14:08:01 07/13/04 Tue
Especially if they are BtVS/AtS related.
Want to flesh out how this might work??
[> Yes, I will... -- Rob, 13:15:16 07/13/04 Tue
I am almost done with Amends, so you can expect the Helpless thread by tomorrow or the next day the latest!
And once I get to season 4 BtVS, I'll be switching off between the two series...because I'm anal that way, and need the crossovers to line up!!! :-)
Rob
[> [> Re: Yes, I will... -- Masq, 14:06:24 07/13/04 Tue
because I'm anal that way, and need the crossovers to line up!!! :-)
You'll get no objections from me! I am also an anal purist that way.
Hmmm. That actually sounds kinda naughty.
[> [> Three cheers for Annotations! -- MaeveRigan, 08:02:24 07/16/04 Fri
I'm thrilled to hear that The Annotated Buffy (and Angel) will continue, and if Masq and the ATPo board will continue to support it, all the better. It's becoming a fantastic resource.
[> Anyone reading Astonishing X-Men? -- Pony, 14:29:01 07/13/04 Tue
I'm practically a Marvel virgin so I'd love to hear from others how Joss' run is comparing to other series. Also there are certainly lots of MEverse parallels that I've been noticing even after only 2 issues.
[> [> Ooh! Adding that to the list of things we can be philosophical about! -- Masq, 14:44:50 07/13/04 Tue
[> [> I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread on it already! -- anom, 00:07:24 07/14/04 Wed
I know for a fact that several ATPosters are reading Joss' Astonishing X-Men. I'm far from a Marvel virgin, but I haven't been reading comics for a long time, & I had no idea about some of the events referred to in the 1st 2 issues. I definitely want to get into a discussion on this (in its own thread, of course).
[> How about a weekly trivia question? -- Ames, 15:53:40 07/13/04 Tue
Preferably something not easy to answer, requiring a broad knowledge of both BtVS and AtS, bringing in outside knowledge, open to some speculation, answers which could surprise the poser of the question - that type of thing.
Examples:
How many times on both series did someone quote one of Shakespeare's plays directly?
Exactly what sources said definitively that demons are evil?
Who gave who the most gifts between Buffy, Angel and Spike?
What exactly do we know about Joyce Summer's art gallery in Sunnydale? What art work did it carry? Who bought from it?Did it do well as a business? Did anyone else work with her? Did she have any prior experience? Did she enjoy it? Did she create any art herself? Did she travel on business? Do we know what happened to it after her death?
[> A 'Best of the Archives' section at ES? -- OnM, 19:02:00 07/13/04 Tue
The ATPo archives are so extensive by now that no casual ES visitor could possibly wade through them all. Why not have posters look up their favorite threads by other posters from days (months, years) past and then edit them up into a neat, coherent 'finished' presentation? You know, as if they were going to be published in a book.
Which, BTW...
... ahh, but you're too busy with other projects already, aren't you Masq? Tsk.
Of course, when the going gets tough, the smart subcontract.
:-)
[> [> Re: A 'Best of the Archives' section at ES? -- The First Naughty Virtue, 15:15:15 07/14/04 Wed
I've been, ummm, kinda doing that...the gathering anyway, using the Strange/Cool/Memorable etc. posts from the MtP profiles. My original idea was to, at some point, link the posts from there so people could get to them more easily. A special spot in the ES would accomplish the same thing if people want to send me their suggestions. (Some idea of who or when would be much appreciated).
[> Re: The new ATPo--picking your brains -- Caroline, 21:58:58 07/15/04 Thu
You guys look like you are going to be really busy! Added to all the new topics that will now be on-topic, I hope you don't mind if I occasionally talk about anime and manga, both of which were really helpful in helping me through the ending of Buffy. In fact, I would recommend Rurouni Kenshin wholeheartedly for that.
Also, the new quote up on the board. That wouldn't happen to be the great and illustrious Second Evil?
[> [> It's Angel, from "Underneath" -- Masq, 22:27:25 07/15/04 Thu
Ghosts -- Kana (Although when I lose my soul I become Umbra. ), 13:47:05 07/13/04 Tue
Is it only humans who become ghosts when they die? What is a ghost? Soul and spirit (spirit being the basic personality and memories like the thing that the demon takes over when you become a vampire)? Can a vampire have a ghost? What about other demons? What about non-corporeal demons? We know Darla said she couldn't remember what happened when she was killed but she wasn't really of sound mind at the time. WHAT IS A GHOST DAMMIT!!!!!!! It's really bugging me. Oh yeah about the Umbra thing, just don't let me get too happy or my posts will contain really crazy nihilistic stuff when i lose my soul.
Replies:
[> Re: Ghosts -- David, 12:26:41 07/15/04 Thu
I think vampires can be ghosts, like Darla in Inside out who apparantly was in heavon for killing herself to save Connor. Also demons have spirits 'cause remember in the 2nd episode of season 5 of Angel, we see that Necromancer and we are told he puts demon spirits in into human bodies so they must have sometype of ghost. Also even though Darla couldn't remember what death was like, she was probably somewhere and her memory loss was probably just due to the resurrection. Or maybe some type of power doesn't let demons or vampires remember what hell was like for some unknown reason.
Demons do have souls because Lorna proves that since when we first meet him we find out he can only read those with souls and there were plenty of demons singing.
Hope this helps
[> [> Metaphysically speaking.... -- Briar Rose, 16:23:37 07/19/04 Mon
A "ghost" is nothing more than an energy trail left by anything that is created of energy. Therefore everything has a "ghost" trail.
LSatient or non-satient, everything in the Universe is created of energy.
So anything IN the Universe is capable of having an energy trail/ghost as it moves through the Universe. This also includes the energy left behind when that thing is "gone" from the Universe.
Look at it as a smaller form of black hole: The space where a planet or other physical object has left that space and created a void that still holds the energy that object left behind.
The question that is impossible for a most of us to answer is exactly how long that energy trail remains in existance. Some would say infinitely, while others say that is of a finite time that depends on the amount of energy that person/thing held in the first place.
In my experience, there are definitely "ghosts" and they have a limited energy trail time wise. However, there is also a way to stretch that time, if energy from some other source is used to keep it fresh. This is the case with many of the Gods and Goddesses, and the dieties from the many religions of the earth (and beyond), living humans put their own belief into something so strongly that they create a longer lasting energy trail for a person or thing, and can even manifest an energy trail for something that never actually existed at all.
It's a long and interesting meditation when you have the time to think on it... But for now, I'll just say that in answer to your question, everything that was ever in existance would have a "ghost" and that includes souled and un-souled beings.
Spiderman vs Angel -- Kana, 13:49:50 07/13/04 Tue
I don't really go in for these kind of posts but as i'm seeing Spiderman 2 on Friday, I'm kind of in the mood. So who would win, the vamp with a soul or the man with a web... coming out of his wrist.
Replies:
[> Re: Spiderman vs Angel -- Majin Gojira, 14:13:11 07/13/04 Tue
http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/s/spiderman.htm
This should really answer your question...
[> Angel-Man, Angel-Man -- Wizard, 15:47:52 07/13/04 Tue
(A-hem)
Angel-Man,
Angel-Man,
Does whatever an angel can,
Broods a bunch, all the time,
Stakes the vamps, makes them die
Look out!
Here comes the Angel-Man!
Is he strong? Listen bud,
He lives off of pig and rat blood!
Can he sing Manilow?
Let me say, oh hell no!
Hey there! There goes the Angel-Man!
In the heat of the night,
At the scene of a crime,
Like a streak of light,
He arrives just in time!
Angel-Man, Angel-Man,
Bumpy foreheaded Angel-Man,
Wealth and fame, he ignores,
Fighting is his reward to him!
Life a great big bang-up
Whenever there's a hang-up,
You'll find the Angel-Man!
(Bows to applause, and prepares to dodge rotten vegetables as necessary)
[> [> Re: Angel-Man, Angel-Man -- Kana, 16:02:32 07/13/04 Tue
Don't ever do that again. LOL!
[> [> LOL -- VampRiley, 07:04:22 07/14/04 Wed
Chicago Meet pics are up!! -- The Sidereal Coder, 20:43:28 07/13/04 Tue
Go here to see us in all our glory!
(Big thanks to Ann, who I borrowed all these from, so our non-LJ friends could see too! If anyone wants any taken down, just email me. Also, if anyone has more pictures, let me know, I'll post them! Unless they're embarassing ones of me sleeping, in which case they will mysteriously disappear.)
Replies:
[> Lady S, you rock! -- Masq, 06:33:13 07/14/04 Wed
I'll have some photos for you in a couple days!
[> Giggle!! -- The First Naughty Virtue, 11:47:51 07/14/04 Wed
If they're embarrassing pictures of LadyS sleeping then send them to me. Thay can then become the mysterious disappearing/reappearing pics!!
[> More Chicago Meet pics! -- Masq, 10:30:40 07/15/04 Thu
Same place, different camera. ; )
[> [> just gotta take a couple more pics & i can get mine developed! -- anom, 12:24:09 07/16/04 Fri
[> [> [> yeah, I've totally forgotten at this point who had cameras... -- Masq, 16:12:31 07/16/04 Fri
[> Frisby just sent me a bunch of pictures! -- The Sidereal Coder, 19:11:35 07/16/04 Fri
Send 'em if you got 'em!
[> [> People are gonna start thinking... -- Masq, 07:30:37 07/17/04 Sat
We spent all our time watching TV and drinking wine.
Oh, we did. Except a lot of that wine was soda.
[> And More Chicago Meet pics are up!! -- LittleBit, 20:22:35 07/17/04 Sat
Here
[runs and hides 'cause Masq is gonna KEEL ME!]
[> [> 'Bit, you devil, you! -- Jane, 22:06:37 07/17/04 Sat
You snuck in the Lindsey as tragic hero essay! That is just amazing! We all worked so hard on it; much wine was required...
[> [> OK, and I just really lame? -- Masq, 07:47:29 07/18/04 Sun
I didn't see anything worth killing 'Bit over. I am, thought, going to turn the "Masq typing" pic into an LJ icon. It is SOOO me!
[> [> [> OK, I hit the back button too soon! -- Masq, 07:49:43 07/18/04 Sun
But both the stand-alone pic of me, and the animated gif, are LJ icon worthy!
'Bit, can you turn that gif into a 100x100???
[> [> [> [> Your wish... -- LittleBit, 18:07:44 07/18/04 Sun
is something I felt like doing anyway.
[> [> [> [> [> LOLOL -- Ann, 18:10:05 07/18/04 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> Littlebit, you are a genius! -- Jane, 19:26:21 07/18/04 Sun
Waay cool icon! (pouts with envy ;0 )
[> [> [> [> [> Bravo! -- Pony, 21:14:42 07/18/04 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> Masq, when you get your book published that still can go on the dust jacket. -- Cactus Watcher, 07:22:51 07/19/04 Mon
[> [> And I finally did my Gathering Report -- LittleBit, 02:04:43 07/19/04 Mon
Which can be found here.
And a few more tidbits as well, like links to the Door Sign and updated Existential Scooby wallpaper.
"They Will Always Hate Us" - Astonishing X-Men -- AngelVSAngelus, 19:45:35 07/14/04 Wed
I'm a walking compendium of Marvel trivia, among other things. I spent a great deal of my childhood reading Marvel comics, but I found that by the time I turned twelve the writer's had lost the heart of what started my interest in the first place in almost every title.
X-Men became less about discrimination metaphor and more about convoluted story arcs and gimicky hologram covers.
Spiderman wasn't about Peter Parker anymore. In fact, they tried a storyline in which it was revealed he was actually a clone, but fans reacted so negatively to it they retconned as soon as possible.
Now I find myself, after years of independent and Vertigo title readership, returning to the Marvel fold, where new writers are bringing the promise back to what had been my favorites in childhood. Now Whedon's among that group, and what he's delivered thus far has been gearing up to be what Buffy, Angel, and Firefly fans have come to expect from Joss.
A number of interesting conflicts have already risen to the surface in just the first two issues:
Moving on: following the death of Jean Grey, Cyclops has become involved with Emma Frost, the White Queen. For the uninitiated, this is on par with Buffy involved with Spike: she's a mutant British socialite reformed villain turned X-Men member that's tried to kill the group on more than one occassion. Cold, callous, calculating, and a number of other scary adjectives that start with a c I'm sure.
Wolverine is opposed to this, feeling Scott is betraying Jean's memory rather than grieving.
What is a hero?: A question omni-present in Joss' work, X-Men is no different, as the group finds themselves trying to get back to their superheroic roots after a long time spent just trying to survive a world that hates them.
But with Frost a member of the group, a more cynical viewpoint is brought to the table, and they wonder how far they'll have to go to accomplish the goals of peaceful existence between man and mutant.
Kitty Pryde, the Shadowkat for which I believe our own poster here named herself, is nicely used by Whedon as a representative of innocence, or at least its memory, as she recalls her first days in Xavier's mansion and doesn't like the new face that Frost is putting on the team.
Assimilation/Normalcy: A scientist gives a globally televised press conference to announce something astonishing: she claims to have found a 'cure' to the mutant condition. Some of our heroes aren't particularly fond of their state, despite the power its granted them to do good. If you could get rid of the characteristic that people fear and/or hated in you, would you? Should you? That's a question the X-Men are split on at the moment.
Anyone else reading this? I'm digging so far, and I hope others are as well.
Replies:
[> I'm reading but not buying -- Majin Gojira, 06:17:58 07/15/04 Thu
I don't buy comics anymore...I wait for the Trade Paperbacks...I can never seem to keep comics in stable condition in my place. "Astonishing X-Men" is probably going to get a place in my shelf at this rate.
The Second Issue touches on several of the issues you raised as well assome nifty post twists...and my favorite mutant power: Manifesting your Nightmares.
For a little girl that's Spooky Monsters! I love Spooky Monsters!
[> I'm definitely reading!! (spoilers) -- Seven, 07:41:02 07/15/04 Thu
Joss and Mr. Cassidy have done an amazing job so far. I do very much like where everything is going.
My favorite ambiguous moment so far was in the second issue, when Emma explains to Kitty why she brought her on board. Was Emma sincere? Or was she trying to slowly gain Kitty's trust? Does she even know? HA! It's all so good!
7
[> note: spoilers above--& in here--for events *prior* to the 1st issue -- anom (already spoiled for them by reading the 1st 2), 11:44:41 07/15/04 Thu
I'd been away from the X-Men, & from comics in general, for a long time. So I read the 1st ish going, "Kitty left? When was the school destroyed? How? What--Jean Grey died? For real this time? For good this time? Emma Frost joined the X-Men? And she's sleeping w/Scott Summers??!! How long ago did Jean die? Oh yeah, & how come she's the only one who doesn't have to wear the uniform? (see above re sleeping w/Cyclops, maybe?)"
It does kinda bother me that a geneticist found that 1 gene ("the mutant gene") has such wildly diverse effects. Oh, OK, maybe it blocks the effects of multiple genes that are the ones that directly cause the effects we see in mutants. But Joss better provide more of an explanation than "the" mutant gene. [end science
And Joss, of all people, is putting them back into the uniforms? I hope he's setting that up just to knock it down. Oh yeah, & I think he tried too hard work the book name into the dialogue ("We have to astonish them!") Glad #1 didn't end on that note.
[> Re: "They Will Always Hate Us" - Astonishing X-Men -- DorianQ, 13:06:22 07/15/04 Thu
Joss's run is turning out much better than the other ones going on at this time, but it falls short of Grant Morrison's, whom he took over for.
Two problems so far: the artist is not good. It looks like someone crushed Beast's nose in, and the rest of the faces are bizarrely shaped as well. That would have been okay except he also brought back the costumes. He gave his explanation (there's super heroes and so they have to dress the part) however, that just lumps them in with numerous superheroe teams and nothing to distinguish themselves. Not only did he bring the costumes back, he made them ugly. Really, really ugly.
And secondly, the characterizations are off too. Scott and Logan are back to acting like squabbling schoolchildren over Jean, even though she's dead (yawn). And he can't seem to get a handle on Emma's character yet. He's seems to be writing like the other are (cold, evil, skanky bitch) which is so one-dimensional, it's pathetic. A shame, too, because she was such an interesting character previously. Now, it's unclear why Joss thinks she and Scott are even together.
Astonishing X-men still stands well above the other X-titles and could still fix these glitches, but it's still a letdown over the previous New X-Men.
[> [> Yeech! Pardon my typos -- DorianQ, 13:10:45 07/15/04 Thu
There's no e in superhero and the third sentence in the second paragraph should read, "He seems to be writing Emma like the other X-authors are: cold, evil, skanky bitch, which is so one-dimensional, it's pathetic.
[> [> [> Regarding the artist's depiction of the Beast..... -- AngelVSAngelus, 14:52:40 07/15/04 Thu
that appearance was established during Morrison's run, as a result of mutants around the world further mutating. His appearance has grown more beastly.
[> [> [> [> Re: Regarding the artist's depiction of the Beast..... -- DorianQ, 10:09:50 07/16/04 Fri
Yeah, but then he had the face of a lion or another large cat. Now he more resembles the overfed white longhaired cats in the Purina commercials with the really miniscule nose (I don't know exactly what breed it is). I liked the change the Quitely made to Hank, but the new version is just pug faced.
[> [> Re: "They Will Always Hate Us" - Astonishing X-Men -- Kenny, 14:33:29 07/16/04 Fri
I disagree with you about the characterizations. As far as Wolverine goes, he's been written so across the board that it's hard to find many things out-of-character. Beast seems totally in character, as Morrison never really dealt with the trouble he was having adjusting to his new felinity. Kitty also seems right considering the decisions she made after Peter's death.
I figure Scott and Emma are your two biggest issues, but I actually find them fascinating. First off, Kitty herself pointed out that Scott seemed "off", so I believe that Whedon is planning on addressing that. And I totally see this stemming out of Morrison's run. Scott's original decision after Jean's death was to leave Emma and not return to the superhero life. He allowed himself to grieve (the grief may never have ended for him, but Morrison didn't really show us that part of the future). Instead, Jean forced him to choose Emma. If Logan doesn't understand what Scott'ss doing, it's not that surprising. Scott probably doesn't understand what he's doing, since it's obviously not his natural reaction. It's an amazing coincidence that Morrison left Whedon this bit to play with, considering Dawn, Connor, Willow/Tara.
As for Emma, I still find her complex. If anything, I think Whedon's playing the ambiguity card more than Morrison did. GM focused that on her relationship with Scott, whereas JW is spreading that into how she goes about being an X-Man. With Morrison, I believed everything she said. With Whedon, I believe everything she says, including her speech to Kitty. But I also think that having Kitty question her, making Emma really prove herself, is a story well worth exploring. And she was quite bitchy under Morrison, too. The difference is that she had her students around, who have always brought out her more maternal side. They're dealing with that over in New X-Men (I believe, not really reading it), so it's totally reasonable that they do the more "adult" Emma in AXM.
[> Question on Emma -- Pony, 19:34:57 07/15/04 Thu
What exactly are her powers? I know a bit of her background but wasn't sure what exactly was going on during the fight scene when she changed colour.
[> [> Re: Question on Emma -- d'Herblay, 23:37:05 07/15/04 Thu
I haven't read the issue, but I assume from your description that she morphed into her "organic diamond state" or whatever they call it. In any case, everyone knows that the White Queen's superpower is fitting into her costume.
[> [> [> Thanks -- Pony, 07:18:08 07/16/04 Fri
Glad to hear she's using organic diamonds and not the pesticide-laden regular kind.
[> When did you start reading? -- Earl Allison, 09:04:11 07/16/04 Fri
Out of curiousity, when did you start reading? You mention the writing losing its heart, which makes me curious.
I really thought the X-Men were at their peak when Byrne and Claremont were both working on the books, say from about #120 or so through well after the Dark Phoenix Saga which culminated in Jean's death (at least, it was Jean at the time).
Haven't picked up Astonishing, and won't. Not so much because of Joss, but because the comics never last, the arcs become convoluted and messy (no matter WHO is writing, and I'll lay odds Joss does the same, or gets the rug pulled out from under him before resolving all his arcs), and characterization goes out the window for stories. I've been burned by both Marvel and Mutant Enemy enough that I'll be very wary before trying something new from either again ...
Take it and run.
[> [> Re: When did you start reading? -- Regnier, 21:58:25 07/16/04 Fri
I was an avid X-men reader up until Morrison. He ran me away from the x-books so quick it made my headspin. I've since became able to accept his changes but i hate Hank's new look. I despised Quitely's artwork. Being an artist myself it made me hurt just to read it. Joss has brought me back. His characterization to me is deadon for the first time since Morrison took over. Morrison wrecked the books for me but at least at the end he had the descency to say okay Jean affected the past so all the horrible character interaction came from her in the future. Maybe thats my personal retcon. But it allows me to read the books now without screaming every time cyclops kisses the White Queen. I'm glad at least Kitty sees her for what she is and always will be. Someone who is only good when it suits her purpose and moves her personal goals along. I'm loving Cassidy and Whedon. After three years seeing these leather clad Matrix wannabes with the wrong personalities habitating my X-bokks its great to have my friends of old back.
THANK YOU JOSS WHEDON!!!
[> [> Man, you're going to laugh at me... -- AngelVSAngelus, 13:19:38 07/18/04 Sun
Because I agree with you about Byrne's run being excellent. But I caught it in reprints, because when that was happening, I wasn't born yet.
No, I started reading X-Men when I was seven, which would have been 1990. Getting back issues quickly taught me that some of the older stuff was much better.
[> Ahhh the X-men...a ramble on best of the series, etc -- shadowkat, 15:28:09 07/18/04 Sun
I think the version you like of the X-Men is purely subjective. If you like rigid rules, structure, neat storylines, and plots, anything after the Jack Kirby/Stan Lee version would probably not work for you. To be honest, my favorite issues are some of the later ones, which develop the characters more and are less about fighting the monster of the week or a bunch of teenage misfits who save the day with their superpowers, than about how we deal with a random and at times impossible universe and other people who wish to impose their view of what that universe should be upon us.
I really did not like the Jack Kirby/Stan Lee books very much. Byrne and Claremount did change the books tremendously - adding characters, changing the theme from misfit kids who save the world each week to something far more complex. If it hadn't been for Byrne and Claremount, we wouldn't be having this discussion. After Byrne, came a serious of amazing artists, non-traditionalists, who believed you could turn art into poetry. People such as Jim Lee with his detailed expressions, to the extent that you could feel the pain in the character on the page. Jai Le who played with light to such startling affects on the page. These artists and others like them turned the comic books into graphic novels, challenged how we saw superheros and made them jump from the page.
To step back a bit, I started collecting in 1985, stopped entirely in 2001, with a couple of breaks in between. I have read every issue from X-men 1 - the issues in Fall 2001, during Grant Morrison's run. I stopped due to financial issues and the fact that I was more focused on something else - a little TV show called BTVS.
My favorite issues were the ones that evolved characters, broke new boundaries and explored new themes. Also I'm a fan of different visual styles - so when the art broke free from the lines around the boxes, it got more interesting.
Each run has fascinating stories. None are perfect.
John Byrne and Claremount's Phoenix tale had at the heart the problem that they didn't want to kill Jean Grey, so they came up with an out. They couldn't let her live of course, after everything she'd done. But they didn't want her to stay dead either. So we get the ret-con, where the Phoenix isn't Jean, but a spirit that took Jean's form helping her save her team. Byrne and Claremount were the first to really play with the idea of a hero turning evil because of power - an idea that must have fascinated Whedon because he does the same thing with Willow. And like Byrne and Claremount he doesn't want to kill her, so hunts a way out. Give Claremount and Byrne credit for killing Phoenix.
(For those who don't know the story: The X-Men save the universe, fly back to earth, on the way back something goes wrong with their shuttle and radiation seeps in threatening to kill them all. Jean knocks Scott out and has everyone go into the back crew quarters and she pilots the ship alone, using her telekinisis to keep back the radiation. But she's not strong enough to hold it back and it begins to kill her, and she knows soon the X-men as well, so a universal spirit known as the Phoenix reaches out to her and they join. Saving the day. The result unfortunately is Jean now has the Phoenix's power and can't quite handle it - the resulting tale is about how one deals with power, how one imposes one's power on the universe, and the resulting consequences. The writers unable to destroy Jean completely, did what Whedon sort of does in S6 BTVS, they came up with a contigency plan - they made the Phoenix separate from JEan. The Phoenix put JEan's body in a cocoon to heal and took her form, became her. So that it's the Phoenix power that was bad, not Jean herself. Never quite satisified with this outcome - they replay the Jean story off and on throughout the series. Just recently did it again.)
Another version of the hero becoming overwhelmed with his own power and turning into a villain - was the Professor X as villian series in the mid-90's, 1994-1996/1997. In this version, Professor X's alter-ego or telepathy takes over. He becomes a power no one can defeat or no one alone. Towards the end of the run - it is revealed that it is Magneto's essence or spirit that polluted Prof X that caused this. So once again we back away from the hero turning into the villian completely. This version is a little more interesting than the Phoenix story though - because here Prof X does something morally repugnant to Magneto. So it is the price he pays for using his power irresponsibly. What he does is shut down Magneto's brain completely turning Magneto into a vegetable.
While this appears to be the only way to save the day, it
carries a price.
Then we have the Scott/Nathan/Cable/Apocalypse arc which bears a great deal of similarity actually to Connor and Angel and Holtz. After Jean died, Scott fell for and got involved with Madlyn Pryor, who we later learn is a clone of JEan Grey created by Sinister - a geneticist and mutant who is obsessed with the Scott Summers line. Maddie has a son by Scott, known as Nathan Christopher Summers. Scott's son gets infected with a virus and is taken forward into time to another dimension, a few years later, he returns a man in his 40s or 50s, rugged, scarred, not the innocent boy. And so does his twin who isn't scarred, who seems perfect. The twin, or clone of Nathan, resents Jean and Scott for abandoning him in the future place. And tries to destroy the X-MEn. The story is very similar psychologically to what happens in Angel S4-5, with two Nate's symbolizing one schizophrenic boy. By the end of the arc, Scott and Nathan come to terms, they don't exactly reconcile, but they do admit they care. It is in my opinion a far more satisfying story arc than the Connor one on Angel was.
And it doesn't stop with that arc, it continues, when Scott sacrifices himself to stop Apocalypse, an ancient Egyptian mutant who believes in survival of the fittest and wants to impose his views on the universe. Who is about rigidity and order and ritual. To stop Apocalpyse, Scott merges with him and goes through his own dark night of the soul, dealing with his own desires to impose control on the world around him. Scott is all about control and structure and strategy, he has to be, since he cannot control his optic blasts and lives somewhat blind because of them. Jean and his son, Nathan, help pull him out of it.
Then we have the other characters - Wolverine, who has suffered many of the same ills that Spike did over time, he's had mind controlling implants, behavior modification chips, and he may or may not have begun life as a weak boy who was cultured and could not fight, in the 1880s no less.
Emma Frost, who stopped being a villian way back in the early 90s because she got hurt and had to get help from her enemy. Her trajectory is actually closer to Darla and Lilah than Spike. She was a class act. Cultured. Selfish. Yet she cares for her charges, these kids. She too goes through an identity crisis in a lovely issue where she and Iceman change bodies and she figures out how to use his powers better than he does. It's an issue that examines both characters lives.
If you stopped reading after the Phoenix tale Claremount and Byrne did? You missed out on some of the best issues and most interesting stories of the series. The last run by Grant Morrison introduced Prof X's twin, who died in the womb, and is Prof X's shadow self, a woman who is as powerful as Prof X and has his vision but an incredibly twisted version - the opposite of it. Or why the White Queen can now go into diamond form - she developed the ability to change due to a blast that alterred her powers slightly. Once she was stuck in that form.
Whether you read or not - comes down to what you like. If you like neat, stories, that follow a straight line and are simple, the X-men aren't for you. But neither is BTVS or ATS. What attracted me to the X-men was their loose structure, the ability to break rules, to play with the form, to try new things, and have fun. It's the same thing that attracted me to BTVS and ATS.
PS: I did base my online identity on Shadowcat, but note I changed the name slightly making it my own. And I chose the alter-ego identity/or superhero name not the name Kitty Pryde. Why? Because I liked the metaphor of making the tangible intangible, of making oneself a ghost and walking through structures, disrupting them, catlike.
sk
[> [> The Death of Phoenix -- Earl Allison, 02:30:09 07/20/04 Tue
With respect ...
Actually, for a time, Jean WAS dead.
For a good read, try to find a neat little thing called "Phoenix, the Untold Saga," I believe. It's a one-shot which goes over alternate pages for issue 138, showing a depowered but alive Jean. It also has a lot of nice behind-the-scenes information on the storyline and its' then-conclusion.
The reason Phoenix had to die was due to Jim Shooter's insistence (he was, I believe, the Editor-In-Chief for Marvel at the time) that she pay for wiping out the planet of the asparagas people, as they were called.
One panel.
One panel that Byrne drew brought him to that decision. He felt that allowing Jean to live after wiping out an entire populated planet was the type of message he did not want to send.
Jean was only resurrected for the gimmick of bringing back all five Original X-Men in X-Factor, and it was a big deal at the time. It wasn't initially part of the plan to bring her back. Jean was dead, and it only changed later -- not like killing Buffy off in S5 knowing full well she would be back on UPN the following year.
It also, IMHO, cheapened the Dark Phoenix Saga tremendously. Sure, they tap-danced around the issue by saying that the Phoenix Force created a molecular duplicate, and that it behaved exactly as the "real" Jean would have, but it still took the emotional punch out of the storyline, and set an unhealthy precedent for death, indeed for ANY serious storyline within the X-Books to be retconned at whim.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> Re: The Death of Phoenix -- s'kat, 10:19:47 07/20/04 Tue
Yes, yes, I read all those and knew that Jim Shooter, and it was Jim Shooter - who was the editor in chief at the time and ironically the same one in charge when they brought Jean back, who made the decision to kill her in that final panel. (I wasn't kidding when I said I had all the X-men comics from the beginning to 2002, I even have special editions here and there...I wanted every part of the story I could get. Thank god, that obsession is over. )
What's interesting in the panel is Jean sets it up to kill herself, no one else has to do it. Which paves the way for resurrection. Also the title Phoenix paves it.
While I can understand yours and others qualms about her being brought back, I found the resulting stories to be more interesting, more multifaceted and far less black and white storywise than what came before. Jean Grey had to deal with what the Phoenix had done, she didn't get to just die. She had to deal with the dark memories. The choices power gives us. It is actually very easy to kill off a character - you don't have to deal with the moral issues any more, or struggle to have them deal with them. The other issue - was Scott's , a character who became a lot more interesting after Jean was brought back, partly because he had to deal with his mixed feelings for Maddie and Jean. What did not work was the clone storyline, when they chose to make Maddie, Jean's clone and gave Maddie superpowers - I had problems. I would have preferred they kept her human. But the reason they changed her was to play with the concept of Jean's dark side - the shadow self.
Which was fascinating to watch. I like the metaphors in the X-Men, the way the writers twist and bend and play with the tales. But you see, you and I come at a story from different perspectives. And want different things from it.
You appear to want a clear structure, clear result, clear themes, and clear ending. I like the muddle and the mess and
the complications. The soap opera. The unpredictablity.
One's not better than the other, just different desires and lucky for us - we've gotten both. Be a horribly unfair universe if we could just have one or the other, wouldn't it?
The ending of Angel - a perspective from down under (spoilers to end S5) -- Caroline, 07:29:35 07/15/04 Thu
Wow, managed to stay away from the board all year until Angel finished here, which it just did about 10 minutes ago. So now I can go back on the crack that is this board and discuss some of the stuff that's been going through my mind. Since I've missed the discussion of a good part of this season, I may be completely off the mark or repeating stuff that you've all been discussing for quite a while, so I hope you bear with me while I unburden myself!
I thought this season was an excellent portrayal of how power corrupts. Power didn't corrupt out heroes by making them align their perspective with W&H and the senior partners, rather it made them re-align how they fought evil. They went to an end justifies the means solution to the problem of evil. Rather than defending people, they decided that the whole problem is that evil is too intractable, too omnipresent and that they needed to potentially sacrifice their lives in this attempt. (This applies to the entire team - they only objected to Angel going over to the dark side, not wanting to do in the dark side for no coherent reason I can work out. Yes I know there was a vision but it was too damn vague for me to figure out!) I thought that Spike's comment about going all 'Manson' in the last episode and Lorne bowing out in disgust after killing Lindsay are all indicative of this view. The group would kill all demons aligned with the senior partners, which most likely acted somehow through the Black Thorn. Gunn, Wes and Spike all seemed to go with the flow Angel set up but Lorne had had enough.
I especially enjoyed Wes' deterioration. A harrowing protrayal of a man who has betrayed a man who is like a brother to him, was found wanting in his duties as a watcher and member of the gang, and loses the woman he has idealised for years, only to be tormented by her visage in the form of Illyria. I wasn't convinced by Wes' talk about not wanting to die. He had lost the plot long before the last ep. He had become a shell, little able to enter into Angel's plans. Thus, he was the recipient of the plan rather than an agent. His death, given the weight of his pain and his being intellectually and morally side-lined, was not a surprise.
Less well done was Gunn's arc this season. I enjoyed the intellectual superiority booster shot he was given and the horrible side-effect of its contribution, however unwittingly, to Fred's death. It did bring home to Gunn that there are consequences to artificial tweaking of one's brain and the guilt led him to take Lindsay's place in that special hell dimension. But in the end, he, too, became a cipher. Gunn contributed no intellectual genius to the plan, he was back to being muscle. Receptive, not active. His guilt played on him and he, too, became corrupted in the same way and Angel. For me, not a satisfactory, organic resolution to his plot.
Lorne's role is the most tragic. He was never a big mover and shaker but he maintained a moral sense even as he acted on Angel's plan to kill Lindsay if the latter survived his battle. That's why he wanted out. He didn't want to be in a place where the end justified the means. He'd become disillusioned with the new perspective and left Shell to join Greenpeace again. Or maybe just go somewhere incognito.
Fred and Cordy - a tragic waste in my view. The gang seemed emptier without them and their deaths evoked my strongest reactions in this season, consisting mainly of hurling epithets at the screen. Angel lost that someone who could simoultaneously put him in his place and inspire him with Cordy's death and Spike's not really a substitute. Spike was better than I expected this season and the brotherly bickering was quite enjoyable and showed us a side of Angel and Spike I quite enjoyed but it wasn't the same. Fred's death is something I'm still trying to figure out on its own merits, outside of being the nail in the coffin (literally and figuratively) for Wes.
Connor and the mind-wipe resolution was a copout. Although I give all props to VK, who is not only incredibly gorgeous but a great actor, the story didn't satisfy. Gee, thanks Dad for violating my brain and everyone else's, I've totally gotten over my suicidal state as at end of last year and really grateful that you gave me to a nice family. Hasn't ME been telling us all along that the quick fix is not fix at all? I didn't seen enough of Connor to believe that 9 months of having his mind-wiped would completely resolve all those issues and problems of last season. Angel got off the hook too easily, as did Connor.
My personal theory is that the senior partners would prepare for any eventuality concerning Angel, including one where he would try to annihilate them. That's why I was so suspicious of the whole Black Thorn arc and how easily Angel got in. I think that the senior powers and the Black Thorn really fell short in their due diligence, something I find hard to believe for an organization that has been around for as long as they have.
So, our heroes went out into the world, worked at the coal-face and found out how depressing and disillusioning it can be. And rather than taking Anne's approach and plugging away, they went for the quick fix, the final solution, the possibly suicidal route to eliminate the enemy. A real change in message from a few seasons ago where what you do has a great deal of meaning. I think that the time at W&H inflated the team's arrogance. They had access to incredible resources and power and began to think that they were the only answer and this was the only way. It was a wonderful and tragic corruption of their former ideals and that's why the show ended as it did - with one member dead and the fates of the rest uncertain.
Replies:
[> Re: The ending of Angel - a perspective from down under (spoilers to end S5) -- Brett, 09:52:25 07/15/04 Thu
I was really flumoxed with this ending. At least the last episode of Buffy had some kind of closure. But it seemed like everything was all over the place. And what's with Lorne just shooting Lindsay in cold blood, what did he do to deserve that?
I am a great Joss Whedon fan, and Firefly is fantastic, but this ending of Angel was just incomphrhensible..
Brett.
[> [> Re: The ending of Angel - a perspective from down under (spoilers to end S5) -- Caroline, 21:14:22 07/15/04 Thu
My assessment is obviously a bit more charitable than yours, since I don't necessarily see closure as something that is very necessary. I liked the uncertainty of the ending. Buffy is much more about the hero's journey and in that sense is more of a myth or fairytale, imho. Angel is much less abstract than that, much closer to what happens after the fairytale, and how one lives in the world and tries to continue to be a hero. That journey is less linear, more muddled, subject to huge steps forwards and back, less likely to be resolved nicely and neatly. I think that's what the ending offered us. Some people were mentally and emotionally broken beyond repair and left us, others were at various stages of their own mental and emotional battle. I would hazard a guess as to who lived and died according to their internal state, but then I guess that everyone else has their views too.
[> I agree hugely -- KdS, 10:14:28 07/15/04 Thu
See my topic at the bottom of the board. But in particular:
Power didn't corrupt out heroes by making them align their perspective with W&H and the senior partners, rather it made them re-align how they fought evil.
Connor and the mind-wipe resolution was a copout.
So, our heroes went out into the world, worked at the coal-face and found out how depressing and disillusioning it can be. And rather than taking Anne's approach and plugging away, they went for the quick fix, the final solution, the possibly suicidal route to eliminate the enemy. A real change in message from a few seasons ago where what you do has a great deal of meaning. I think that the time at W&H inflated the team's arrogance.
And I think that this is a wonderful perception which completely escaped me:
Gunn contributed no intellectual genius to the plan, he was back to being muscle.
[> [> Thank you! -- Caroline, 21:46:10 07/15/04 Thu
And I thought that your posts on S5 were comprehensive, well thought-out and quite enlightening. I might make my responses here and avoid the controversy down there! (BTW, any qoutage of Nick Cage is a good thing)
I completely agree with your first post down there. I didn't really talk much about Angel because I'm not sure of my stand on his actions yet but I think you have an extremely salient point when you mention that he can see no future for Eve. There was once a time that Angel would have cared. Eve is certainly an individual who is morally compromised but she is now helpless and Angel doesn't care. One wonders just how big the threat from the evil side was and did it really merit such a response? For a while Angel was pretending not to care about people to ingratiate himself with the Black Thorn. But in the end, while he tried to undo some of these actions, he still killed Drogan, had Lindsay killed and cast aside Eve. Formerly, he wouldn't have chosen those he would have helped so selectively. I think the problem of inflation of arrogance affected him greatly. W&H pulled him into their playing field, gave him the perspective, gave him their playing field. I can't help thinking that the game was rigged against him from the start and that he just couldn't or wouldn't see it.
As to your second post, I'm particularly struck by your 'demons are bad' argument as well as the 'magic as delusion' argument. It makes me even madder about the Gunn arc because I think there were ways that this could've been avoided and Gunn could've made a less regressive contribution at the end. Gunn was one of the characters least affected by the mind-wipe but I think that there should have been some repercussions for him on an internal level, not just the external one of culpability in Fred's death. I think if ME could've gone where that was, Gunn would not have had to regress to muscle. The boy had changed irrevocably, it doesn't make sense that he would just regress in this way.
Your argument about spiritual rescue being missing in S5 is an interesting one. I think that the new universe our heroes adopted narrowed their own perspectives of what spiritual rescue and redemption was possible. The lesson they drew from this experience was heroic battle with death a definite option. There was no living to fight again and again.
I agree with you about the real-world political issues. In my view, we are not facing a struggle between secular democracy and theocratic Islam. I am not really pissed off by the right-wing pundits because I have a switch in my brain that I engage that edits them out really well! But I think the parallel that can be drawn here is how one's perspective can be skewed, depending where one stands, particularly if one stands in that place unquestioningly. Angel stood inside W&H, in the world they created, and allowed his horizons to become narrower and narrower, just as I'm sure there all people in the real world who do the same thing. Having just exited from over 8 years in a large, international organization, I can attest to the power of that.
You mention Joss' real world problems intruding upon his work. This is quite possibly so. Perhaps the narrowing of the horizons of Angel's team is the mirror to that which Joss experiences as his shows were cancelled. I don't think that ME would go somewhere with rocket launchers but maybe they felt like it, you know? And perhaps that was another level of (ironic?) commentary or exploration that Joss found himself in vis-a-vis his shows, the studios and the networks. At least I would like to think so!
[> [> [> Re: Thank you! -- cyp, 09:31:29 07/16/04 Fri
Very interresting read and I share for the most part your vision of S5.
But did Joss needed rocket lancers?Well,if they were aimed at himself,may be,because having worked with the networks for a long time now, he should know that you can't make a deal with the devil and believe he will hold its promises...unless he's a fool?
Joss' real problem,imo,with this season was that he needed to make a lot of changes(compromisings) to please the network,he had to bow to their wishes and he was cancelled nevertheless.And that's probably why we had this ending full of bitterness and,imo,pointless.
But how can he not be bitter?
If you think about it,he had to get rid(among other things) of the most ambigous,difficults(?) and complex characters of the show,namely Connor,Cordy and Lilah ...and forget about the Jasmine storyline.
How could they make a lighter and brand new show if they had these three to "darken" the storyline?It was almost impossible to deal with the aftermath of S4 in a believable way and lighten the show:Wes/Lilah twisted relationship,Connor and Cordy's screwed-ups,Jasmine...The story was so heavy in terms of repercussions in their lives...hence the mindwipe,Connor's brand new "life"(?),Lilah's disappearance and Cordy's never-ending coma.
As a replacement,we were given the popular Spike,Eve
and Harmony,clean,"proper" and virgins in the game.
(And when Connor and Cordy came back,we ended up with two very unsatisfying and unbelievable stories.It was almost like watching two strangers on screen.How could they not have been affected by what had happened to them???)
Angel was not a TV show,but an UFO,exciting,adult,sometimes messy or clumsy,far from perfect,but always fascinating.
This year,we had some great eps and some very cool moments,but Angel was just a very good (and PC!)TV show,entertaining,sure, but without warmth and passion.
Joss gave the WB (and the viewers) what they wanted,not what they needed and...his show was cancelled!Ain't it ironic?
Oh,yes,it is!And what a great lesson!If you're a creator,bow in front of noone,follow your ideas ...and don't try to make original TV shows on commercial networks...this is the wrong medium:no freedom for creation!
English?Not my native language,sorry for the mistakes.
[> Re: The ending of Angel - a perspective from down under (spoilers to end S5) -- Darby, 10:40:00 07/15/04 Thu
Although I don't know how much validity my reaction has, I can't shake the feeling that the creators gave us significant shorthand for details they had firmly worked out in Angel's last season, whereas in Buffy's last year they just lost the thread repeatedly. The official story from ME was that little was changed to "wrap things up," and it might have been mostly that very last Alamoish scene, with everything else part of the Season Plan, a plan that actively engaged the fans as partners to put the pieces together.
I agree that Angel was much more effectively about power than BtVS had been, and some of the details you see make a lot of sense. I don't think that the central paradigm changed, though - AI has always had a ruthless approach to the "evil" demons, and had been more accepting of collateral damage, and that thread ran through the W&H year as well. I think you hit upon an important aspect when you speak of arrogance, though, and that may be the aspect of power that most corrupted the group (and probably one of the more annoying corporate power traits ME has run into, especially lately) and was the critical addition. That, and clarifying everyone's role within the greater battle.
Let me toss an alternative take on Connor, though - could he be metaphorically schizophrenic? Trapped between the real world and a fantasy world, potentially homicidal, the mind-wipe could represent an effective treatment that provides a "normal" life for someone who isn't really normal but wants to be. The two Connor episodes then become examples of a schizophrenic, feeling incomplete, "going off his meds," something with limited short-term complications, and who knows where that might lead?
[> [> All about Connor -- Caroline, 21:55:31 07/15/04 Thu
So Connor chose Normal Again?
Given how Normal Again played out, I could completely understand Buffy choosing to be a mental patient and disowning the 'delusions' of Sunnydale. I have more of a problem with that here. Connor didn't exhibit any of the problems or behaviours of someone who was split in the way you hypothesize. Joss seems to have gone to some length to show things are good with Connor and not good in a Stepford way but good in a good way. The comparison I would make is the forgetting spell in Tabula Rasa - Buffy was completely devastated when she got her memory back but Connor was not, despite the fact that he was arguably in worse shape at the time of the mind-wipe. If they could have had Connor saying or doing something to show why he dealt with it so well, I would not be so critical. I thought we were going to get it when Connor killed Sahjan but it didn't happen. Connor was facing BIG HUGE ISSUES and then all of sudden he wasn't. Disappointing from people who tend to wring out every bit of angst they can.
[> [> [> The answer is simple -- Masq, 22:24:25 07/15/04 Thu
He's not dealing with it. He's making Angel think he is, but he isn't. He couldn't be. No one, no matter how well adjusted, can get back what Connor got back and not suffer some ill effects.
But I can see him trying to repress it, trying to pretend it doesn't mean anything.
Then the nightmares come, the ones about Quortoth. He's given to ocassional fits of anger and depression he tries to deny. After a while it gets to be too much for him and the people around him and he goes into therapy. But how can he explain his truth to any normal therapist? "I thought I lived one life, but really, I lived another, and no matter how much I try to cling to the life I thought I had, the real one keeps coming back to me, I need to deal with it somehow."
They tried to explain it in Origin, that the false good life is kind of an inoculant that helps Connor deal with the true bad life. But I don't think it's ever that easy.
We just won't get to see the story that would have come next--Connor and Post Traumatic Stress.
[> [> [> [> Yes... -- Darby, 05:29:16 07/16/04 Fri
I see at least one more huge development as well. I wouldn't classify it with PTS, though, since Connor's life hasn't really been that traumatic or unusually stressful - to him.
And to Caroline, I didn't say that Connor was schizophrenic (and if he was, I wouldn't use the "split" imagery, which doesn't fit well), but that he's kind of the metaphor for that type of illness, a classic Buffyverse metaphor for an unusual situation (Normal Again was in the neighborhood but took a different tack). Sufferers often can't distinguish reality from nonreality - of course, Connor's world was a mix of two actual realities that he had more and more trouble dealing with, until he accepted bad things (starting with Jasmine) as totally okay, which led to more bad things. He became dangerous to himself and others, and needed an artificial "fix" - the new family and history, a metaphor for antipsychotics. He was changed, but the new Connor wasn't the "real" Connor (a common reaction to medications - yes, I'm better, but I'm not me anymore), and the two contacts with Angel were like small steps in stopping one's meds. In real illness, it can take a while for the voices to come back, it seems like the sufferer can deal, but that's rarely the long-term solution...
[> [> [> [> That sounds like the plot... -- Caroline, 07:19:40 07/16/04 Fri
for a movie, or maybe what happens next season?
[> [> [> [> [> Well, *I am* in charge of the Season 6 project! -- Masq, 09:19:14 07/16/04 Fri
Not that I'm pushing any sort of Connor agenda, or anything. ; )
[> [> [> [> [> we *are* gonna see this... -- anom, 09:45:24 07/16/04 Fri
...in the S6 fic, aren't we? I realize the writers can't devote all the "screen time" to it that it deserves, but there could be a few scenes that let us--& at some point Angel--know that Connor isn't as OK as he seemed.
There's a difference btwn. his situation & Tabula Rasa, though: The Scoobies didn't get any replacement memories. The ones Connor was given could help him cope w/the "new" ones he got back, but the idea that he could integrate the 2 sets as quickly & painlessly as he seemed to is implausible.
The worst part is that he has no one to talk to about it. Certainly not his parents, when he feels such a strong need to protect them. And as Masq says, he can't go to a normal therapist. Well, at least now he knows there are doctors w/claws & might figure that there are therapists out there who could deal w/what he needed to tell them. But oh, wait, the only place he knows to find them is--Wolfram & Hart, which isn't there anymore. So he knows this other world exists, but he doesn't know how to find it (in the real life he can now remember, it usually found him). And the only people he knows who can tell him are gonna be really hard to find, w/everything going on.
I have 2 ideas for where this could go in the Sixfic, but I should probably post them in the LJ where the planning is going on--now that I finally can!
[> [> [> [> [> [> Not could, did -- Lunasea, 10:23:04 07/16/04 Fri
The ones Connor was given could help him cope w/the "new" ones he got back
Wesley even says as much. The purpose of the created memories are "To endure it" it being the truth. That's point 1 I want to make on the memory wipe.
the idea that he could integrate the 2 sets as quickly & painlessly as he seemed to is implausible.
Point 2 is these memories aren't integrated AND it is stated as much.
"No. I don't want to make a thing. I get what you did. You know... I'm grateful. That's as far as I want to take it...OK? "
He's not integrating the memories. What he is is called dissociative. He isn't schizoid. What he is doing is similar to Scarlet O'Hara's "I won't think about that right now. If I do, I'll go crazy." He describe the two memories as "Kind of like, uh...a bad dream I had, I guess, a very strange and violent, at times, inappropriately erotic...dream. " Do you sit there and integrate every dream you have?
The fun part is picking out just what about those memories would affect Connor. Just as many didn't agree with how Wesley reacted to the undoing of the memory wipe, I pretty certain that people wouldn't be happy with the directions ME would take Connor in. We already saw PTSD Connor when he returned from Quortoth. Been there, done that. Chance of ME going back is pretty slim. I have a feeling they would have gone somewhere amazing that would have fit whatever the theme of season 6 would have been.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> "could" = "were able to," not "might" -- anom, 18:55:18 07/18/04 Sun
I replayed the scene, & Connor actually calls the created memories "the new ones," implying he thinks of the returned ones as the originals. Wesley's take on the restored memories isn't necessarily the same as Connor's; if any TV shows are complex enough to deal w/that possibility, this is 1 of the few.
"Point 2 is these memories aren't integrated AND it is stated as much."
That's what I meant by "he seemed to" integrate them: that he didn't really. But the lines you quoted from Not Fade Away don't really address whether the 2 memory sets are integrated. Connor does say the memories he got back are "mixed in there with the new ones," which of course is not the same thing. "I'm grateful" implies to me that he appreciates that his current life is better than the one it replaced. Integrating the 2 is going to be a long process, & I wouldn't rule out the possibility that it's already begun, if only on a subconscious level. It's unclear whether "That's as far as I want to take it" means in his own life or just in talking w/Angel, just for now or in the long term.
"Do you sit there and integrate every dream you have?"
No, but my dreams aren't an entire hellish other life...at least as far as I know. Saying his memories are "like a dream" doesn't mean he thinks either that they were one or that he won't have to deal w/them any more than he would w/an actual dream.
And I wouldn't stick a label like "PTSD Connor" on one possible path for a character & say ME wouldn't have revisited Connor's efforts to reach some reconciliation w/his past, or between his pasts. They could approach it from another angle; the very fact that Connor has the memories Vail built means it would have to be different from what happened in S4. For one thing, they'd have to address the effects on his family & his relationships w/them. And it's not like ME hasn't ever explored different aspects of similar developments in the same characters, like, say, Angel's darkness & his fear & shame associated w/it, or Wes' insecurities stemming from his relationship w/his father.
[> [> [> [> Depends on Connor's point of view, though -- Finn Mac Cool, 23:28:48 07/16/04 Fri
I'm not saying regaining his memories shouldn't change Connor in some ways; it should. However, I must question whether he would define Quortoth, Holtz, and Angel as being his real life. He might view the life Angel created for him as the real one, and view the memories he regained as being of a life which was effectively erased from existence. Think of the Wishverse for example: that alternate timeline was very much real; as long as Anya's curse was in tact, Buffy really had never come to Sunnydale and the town really had gone to hell. The fact that Cordelia and Anya remembered how the timeline had gone before didn't change the fact that the Wishverse had become the true reality, and the Sunnydale they remembered one which no longer existed. Of course, this comes down to how much reality was altered due to Vail's spell. Was it something really big, something that actually changed the past, or was it merely memory alteration with a few physical alterations as well (such as anything Connor might own post-"Home", for example)? Yes, several people (Vail, Lilah, Eve, Cordelia, and Angel) remembered Connor as Angel's son, but I refer you back to what I said about Anya and Cordelia in "The Wish". And, while Connor retained his supernatural strength, that doesn't mean reality wasn't fundamentally altered, just that Vail might have made sure that present day Connor's body wouldn't be affected, just like he did for the memories of a few people. There's even a suggestion that this is the case when Vail says the Orlon window let people see the past "as it once was". Not "as it really is", but "once was", implying that the past itself has been changed, not just memories of it.
Of course, Connor might also view both sets of memories as equally valid. On the one hand, he knows the Angel memories are the originals, with physical confirmation due to his strength, and that his non-Angel memories were created via a spell. However, whenever he doesn't get mixed up in the supernatural squabbles of LA, everything around him conforms to the non-Angel memories. I guess I'm kind of edging into some "1984" style philosophy here, but I tend to believe that, if an event is remembered a certain way, and no physical evidence contradicts it, than the event DID, happen that way, regardless of what originally happened. So, yeah, in a sense I support the notion that it is possible to rewrite history just by getting people to collectively remember it a different way, so my view on the mind-wipe is a little different. Connor is presented with equally strong memories of two different lives, with physical evidence around him validating each; in his position, I'd be inclinded to accept both sets of memories as valid and go on from there.
I'm not saying Connor would or should view things this way, only that he could.
[> Gunn and Flowers for Algernon(spoilers to end S5) -- Rufus, 20:06:28 07/16/04 Fri
I think that all the characters suffered because of the cancellation of Angel. The Illyria storyline would have been a big one for season six, and it's highly doubtful Wes would have been killed off. Furthermore the results of the battle with the Senior Partners would have been the struggle for next season as well. The end was abrupt leaving little time to properly wind up anyones storyling.
As for Gunn. I liked the connection between his mental upgrade and the novel "Flowers for Algernon". Gunn got the upgrade because of his lack of confidence in himself. His need to be more than just muscle, but just like the character of Charlie in "Flowers", Gunn learned that intelligence can be misused. As he became a walking legal encyclopedia, he lost that emotional connection to the world. He lost that heart that made him the protector of the street kids he used to run with. Gunn kept the smarts but in a painful lesson learned he found out how to incorporate his heart into the equation as we could see when he helped Ann to unload that truck.
[> Enter the Dragon -- manwitch, 06:58:09 07/17/04 Sat
My Angel knowledge and skills are way below my Buffy ones. And I really don t know if this has been said before, or if its known to be stupid. But I offer these thoughts you ve sparked such as they are.
I don t want to put words in your mouth, for I may be misunderstanding you (and KDS and Darby). It seems to me you are suggesting an intended message of pessimism for the Angel series, or at least the final season. That the deaths and unresloved outcomes indicate a sense of dread, a cautinary tale, anxiety and fear over taking the wrong path. If so, I can kinda see where it comes from. I thought the last episode was kind of akward for the same reasons. At any rate, I did up until the end.
But ultimately Joss Whedon tends to give messages of great empowerment and inspiration. I expect that s what he did with the Angel finale.
Angel had, throughout the season, been forgetting why he came back. While he had orginally been surrendering his own desires to help people, he now thought he could change the outcome. By working at W&H, they could have a positive impact on the results, put a few more dashes in the win column. He was treating people, even his own people, as means to his ends. The Shanshu, his ultimate end, resurfaced, as did the other ultimate end, Buffy. They were the results for which he acted. But they both turned out to be illusory.
I have mentioned that the writing this season seemed much more Buffyesque, in that Angel became more clearly delineated as the single protagonist to which all other characters were pointers.
In this sense, the characters were reflections on Angel. Spike emerged as a ghost haunting Angel as a reminder of the original purity of his purpose. Gunn took the upgrade for the same reason Angel did, a lack of confidence in what he had been doing, an arguable selfish need to know that he was something worthwhile. And their upgrades had the same consequence.
Fred was the true impulse to life, that comes from the heart. She was life in the moment doing what the heart says must be done, not concerned with the consequences the mind fears. We don t save Spike because we can, or because of the result we will have after. We save Spike because he is worth saving. Right now. He s worth fighting for, whether we win it or not. Its an argument Angel should be making abouthimself as he slips further into Wolfram and Hart. And this vitality of Fred I think is why they all responded to her ailment as though she was God s gift to humanity. Because in this respect she was. She was life. The actual living, burning moment that the heart inspires.
Wesley was the opposite. He seemed to me to become a reflection of Angel s paralyzed consciousness. Wes is worry, anxiety. Wes is what if. What if this happens? What if I allow this? What if it hurts? What if its not fair? What if I disappoint? What if I don t live up to my father s expectations? Wes embodies this sense of the result. I am a means to an end, Wes thinks. And what if the end isn t good enough or isn t the right one. Wes seems to be afraid of life in the moment, always thinking of the consequences. This is the state of Angel s mind after Connor.
In our culture, there is a symbol that has been used to represent this concept for at least a thousand years, at least as far as Beowolf. It is the dragon, one that hoards gold and guards virgins. The gold is the richness of life, and the virgins are the pure impulse to life, and the dragon, unable to use or experience either, simply restrains them, holds them back. Traditionally the hero, of course, must confont this dragon, which is metaphorically himself. It is his own fear of life that holds him back, preventing the riches. But the pure of heart always find the dragon s weakness, usually a missing scale over the breast. Because the path to the heart is what slays the fear, turning its power to the service of life rather than repressing it. Whether it s the dragon Ripley must face in the basement or the dragon that Bilbo must face, or the dragon that Seigreid kills, it is ultimately the same symbolic dragon that must be slain. There are certainly a number of images in the season that suggest we are seeing a medieval hero tale. Angel is the hero who must release the power of his own heart, his pure and true impulses. Who must slay the fear of consequences.
For our fear of life s consequences always longs for the moment that forgets them, the moment that is truly alive, just as Wes longs for Fred. And yet its that very fear that keeps it separated. Fred s demise into Illyria teaches Angel an important lesson, and its not pessimistic. This thing here, this body, is just a shell. Its not Fred. Fred shines
So Wes dies in Illyria s arms, but Fred shines through the shell, and at last Wes can exist in the moment, he can stop judging it, but merely be there, in a pure moment of the heart.
That s Angel s realization. Angel figures out why he was brought back, why he s here. And it s the same reason, the only reason, why any of us are here. Forget the consequences and really live.
So in the end, they re standing in the alley, and one of them, Wes, is dead, not because they ve followed the wrong path, or as an ominous warning against the consequences of power. But because Angel s worries are dead, his concern over the outcomes, his tormented preservation of these shells has been dissolved in the moment of life itself. The outcomes of the characters are unresolved because outcomes, Angel realizes, are unimportant. What matters is the moment. This moment. What we do right now.
I don t know about the rest of you, but I want to fight a dragon.
[> [> Wow, manwitch...That was brilliant! -- Rob (saving this for annotations), 15:54:34 07/17/04 Sat
[> [> [> I agree. Bloody brilliant post! -- Jane, 22:00:41 07/17/04 Sat
[> [> [> [> Thanks, both o' yous, but the ideas not fully worked out -- manwitch, 12:39:28 07/19/04 Mon
I think Caroline's issues below are very legitimate, although I try below to suggest how they might be dealt with. I'm just not convinced that bitterness and despair are meant to characterize the series. But maybe its really that dark, and I'm just looking at it a little childishly.
[> [> [> [> [> Angel -- Rahael, 15:53:59 07/19/04 Mon
I think that there is a kind of despair to Angel's story, his ending. A triumphant despair, that of Samson.
That destructive, conflicted, anti-hero, who is convinced that his heaven gifted strength is best used for killing.
Exiled from God, exiled from sight, redeemed for one moment for his bloody end.
It jars, terribly.
To my mind, Lorne achieves a true nobility, and takes centre stage at the last. He is there, to reject Angel right at the end.
I felt elated at the end of Not Fade Away, because I think Not Fade Away is a fantastic episode, that carries its premise with flair, panache and wit.
But I think as we start to examine the concepts that underlie the ep, and the resolution ot the season, I come up with stuff that is extremely troubling.
It is not Angel the character who lost faith and, then found it to go out killing himself and his team in the process. It is Joss, who lost faith in his hero.
Honestly, do you not find the millenarianism, and the evil cabal of demons responsible for all human suffering, the rejoicing in the 'noble death', the 'warriors death', does it not sit uneasily with you?
NFA convinces us for a moment that it was necessary to fight the Black Thorn, grind it to a halt. But I don't believe that the world of Angel is a world controlled by the Black thorn. I believe that in the Angelverse, Angel stood for our own internal conflicts, and that his body and soul (and the buildings he inhabited) was the crucible for that conflict.
Wolfram and Hart won in Season 5
[> [> The dragon has left the building. -- Caroline, 17:32:24 07/17/04 Sat
I thought about positing Angel as the one seeking the holy grail and continually asking the wrong questions, rather than the one who slays the dragon but neither seemed right to me. Angel does not ask the right question, he does not find the treasure hard to attain . He gave up the treasure when he signed the contract to give up the possibility of becoming human. I would speculate that the reason that the Black Thorn asked Angel to give up shanshu is precisely because in the process of attaining it or in actually being human, he would have really found that treasure and, as a result, have been a greater threat to the senior partners and the Black Thorn. This is not the end of Angel s journey by any means, this is just another of the cul-de-sacs he s hit.
I think that Angel reached a sense of purity of purpose at the end but not a sense of purity of heart. Because there were a whole bunch of moments where he took a whole bunch of really questionable decisions. Where was his purity of heart when he killed Drogan, when he ordered Lindsay dead, etc. Purity of the heart is not selective. I don t interpret Angel standing firm with the gang in the alley facing a horde of demons as representing his newfound purity of heart. He s there for a battle that he has set up and staged and done very questionable things in the process. I can t separate out how he got to that point from what happens from that point. I can t separate how the means are related to the end. If Angel s heart had become pure, would he have acted in such as impure manner? Can purity of heart be reached through impure actions? Can the end justify the means? That kind of reasoning chills me to the core. It also completely throws out all those realizations of earlier times that there is meaning in the things one does, that the means are important, that no-one is a pawn or a means to and end. Your post actually highlights for me even more the inflation of Angel s arrogance he forgets how he gets to where he is because it is unimportant. And if you then argue that Angel reaches his purity of heart after all his questionable actions, that would not ring true to me at all it would have all sincerity of a deathbed conversion.
I'm not sure I agree with your representation of Fred, Wes, etc. as part of Angel s psyche. But using your definitions though, both Gunn and Angel s upgrades were the catalyst for killing Fred and therefore killed Angel s impulse to life. Wes death is the end of his doubts and what ifs, only caring about the end. So, at the end, Angel is left with no doubts but no impulse to life either, rather a potentially suicidal mission. Yes, the body is just a shell but is that the message that Angel has learned from Fred/Illyria and if so, how has it manifested? I just don t see that what Angel knows standing there in the alley is a purity of heart. And although he considers the goal he seeks important enough to risk his life but is it really worthy of that sacrifice? Are the compromises to his values worth it? And, using your schema, what did Lorne represent and where did he fit in? One could say that Lindsay is a dragon or nemesis to Angel, Lorne is the instrument that kills him off then why is Lorne so disgusted with himself, why does he withdraw from the gang never to return? How cynical does one have to be to use one s enemy as a tool and then eliminate him? This is lies and deception and cynicism and it doesn t reflect too well for Angel. If Angel had slain the dragon within himself, if he had found the treasure hard to attain, then I would agree that the shanshu prophecy was an illusion. But the sum of all his actions and the playing field within which they took place convince me that he didn t. The shanshu is still out there.
[> [> [> Well said, thank you -- Rahael, 16:59:41 07/18/04 Sun
Manwitch's post was dazzling, but it's dazzle obscured for me things that you have pointed out.
In fact NFA seems to me characterised by the comforting lie. The lie of Illyria-Fred comforting Wesley as he lay dying. The lie of Angel as a hero, the lie of Connor saying that he was okay with what Angel did (he may have been meant to be sincere, but it makes me cross with the writers). It seems lies are okay as long as you can puff yourself up into a hero, while you have blood on your hands.
There's one thing that breaks this miasma, which initially parades itself as heroism and honour.
that is Lorne's voice, perhaps the same shrill, disruptive song he used to help Lindsay fulfill his part of the mission.
For me, NFA was all about Lorne, who showed us in this incoherent text of an episode that the truth may be sombre, but it'll leave you a whole lot not-dead.
Angel is a hero, in one shard of glass lying on the ground in the aftermath of the big fight, but if you step a different way, it suddenly looks like he's what he should be fighting against.
He chills me to the core too. God (or the powers that be! heh) defend the people from such a champion!
(Until Powerplay and NFA, for me Angel was the biggest hero in the Whedonverse as far as I was concerned. A faulty, failing, loveable hero.)
[> [> [> [> Beautifully said -- Caroline, 17:43:19 07/18/04 Sun
In fact NFA seems to me characterised by the comforting lie. The lie of Illyria-Fred comforting Wesley as he lay dying. The lie of Angel as a hero, the lie of Connor saying that he was okay with what Angel did (he may have been meant to be sincere, but it makes me cross with the writers). It seems lies are okay as long as you can puff yourself up into a hero, while you have blood on your hands.
I completely agree. And the sad thing is that you can see how they got there, you can see how and why they come to believe the lie, they need to believe the lie. The most obvious for me was Wesley just before his fight, telling Illyria that his need for an authentic experience is greater than his need for happiness. Yet as he lays dying, he accepts the inauthentic. They all do, even Lorne who obeys the final command, then vanishes. Can we define a hero as someone who has so much blood on their hands, who can be so cyncially and viciously cruel? Angel got caught in his own lie. While he was trying to convince the Black Thorn that he was one of them, he became caught up in the less-than-ethical methods needed to persuade them of his change of loyalty. When the misdirect is revealed to us, we don't see much difference in Angel's behaviour. He keeps on killing when expedient, even though we know his goal is the defeat of the Black Thorn. This is what troubles me about these discussions of Angel as hero - he has so much blood on his hands, he is so compromised. Compromised people, like Herakles/Hercules usually spend a lifetime atoning for deeds just like the ones Angel has committed and then become heros. Angel has regressed to Hercules before his labours and now needs to start those labours all over again to rediscover the hero within himself.
[> [> [> Purity, Drogyn, etc. etc. -- manwitch, 12:46:08 07/19/04 Mon
I am very possibly wrong. Let's just get that out right here.
I am writing this offline, so I apologize that I can only paraphrase what you have said that I am responding to. And again, I am not as conversant with Angel as others are, and I don t have Angel on videotape to go back and look at some of these things. But still. You raise some important and interesting questions, but I think some of your concerns can be addressed.
For example, I believe you asked "Where was Angel s purity of heart when he killed Drogyn?"
Obviously, I don t have an answer at my finger tips, but I expect the answer is there, and I can tell you where I would look for it.
First, I would want to consider what Drogyn represents, beyond what is depicted by his character. Drogyn is a "pure warrior," I believe I ve heard someone say. That is not entirely insignificant, since Angel should be the same thing. But Drogyn is also the keeper of the ancient ones, or something like that. So its possible that his character is symbolic of some aspect (or blockage of that aspect) of an individual s pyschology. And its therefore possible that Angel s overcoming of Drogyn, or killing, or dispensing with, makes sense symbolically as an appropriate overcoming of whatever that blockage is.
Second, I would want to consider Drogyn s condition prior to being killed. Is there any way conceivable that Drogyn s condition alive is worse than his condition dead? Is there any possibility that Angel s killing of Drogyn can be seen as merciful or noble? I don t remember well enough to answer.
I would want to know, similarly, is there any sense in which Drogyn is a willing participant in his death? Is it only a brutal murder, or is there some kind of cooperation. Again, I don t remember, but I would want to check.
I will readily admit that a brutal murder of a good (morally) character is difficult, but not impossible, to see in a good light.
I would also notice that Drogyn s name is very similar to the word Dragon. That like a dragon, he lives in a cave and guards things, and only the noble hero can enter his domain. Certainly one of the things he is charged to guard is Illyria, who seems to me to be some form of comment on religion as the source of moral action. She suggests the idea of reaching back to the traditions of the past for the justification of our moral behavior. But that world is dead. Illyria has no kingdom to bring forth. God, the afterlife, the kingdom of heaven, these are ineffective at justifying action. So to a degree it seems that Drogyn perhaps guards a truth, the truth that there is a hole in the world. To some degree that my memory does not leave me able to articulate fully, I suspect that Drogyn s function as this Dragon-guard and his identity as "pure warrior" converge to make him the symbol of Angel s dragon. If so, then Drogyn is what must be slain by Angel.
Now, as you know, in most dragon stories, the dragon, which is symbolically the hero s own fear or hesitancy at living the full life, must not only be slain, but its power must be assimilated. Seigfried, in the most famous example, slays the dragon and tastes its blood, at which point he hears the song of nature. He can understand the birds and animals. This is because, while the outer shell of the dragon represents the repression, the thing that holds us back and holds us in, that which is in the dragon, its blood, is what we are trying to release. The dragon s blood is in this sense the boon that the hero is seeking. And one hears the song of nature after one assimilates it because nature intends for us to live fully, out of the true impulses of our heart, not out of contrived structures or imposed worries and fears.
In the writing of Joss Whedon, this "dragon" motif is used at least twice. First in Alien Resurection, Ripley is brought back as the reincarnated saviour. She has slain the Alien, very explicitly called a "dragon" in Alien 3. The Aliens represent our "alienation" from ourselves as a result of symstems that determine everything about us from who we can be to what we can produce. Consequently, the spiritual offspring are monstrous. But in the fourth movie, that Joss originally wrote, Ripley comes back not simply as Ripley, but with the blood of the dragon coursing through her veins. She has tasted the blood, so to speak, and assimilated the power of the dragon. She can also hear the song of nature. She knows where the aliens are, what they are doing, she can hear them, even when they are not visible or immediately present. And of course, it is this blood that she has assimilated, the assimilation of the alien (or the dealienation), that allows her utlimately to abort the spiritually monstrous offspring of the alienated world so that at the end a new world becomes possible.
Joss uses the same idea again in Prophecy Girl. Buffy descends into the subterranean church of the master, which is metaphorically the descent into her own psyche, her own subconscious. And it is there that she must confront the dragon that has been holding her back, denying her life possibilities. That dragon must be slain. And guess who that dragon is? Buffy. Its not that Master that s been whining and kicking, trying to avoid life. So its Buffy that needs to die. If she had gone down there and killed the Master, she would have gained nothing. But by surrendering, by allowing the dragon that is herself to be killed, she releases the power of her subconscious, of her spiritually true heart. So when the Master drinks her blood, that is symbolically Buffy tasting the blood of the dragon. And afterwards, Buffy, like the others, hears the song of nature. "How do you know where he ll be?" asks Xander. "I just know," says Buffy. She is in tune with the order of things, just like Seigfried.
So we can deduce that Angel s last line, the closing to the entire series, is not a throw away. My suspicion is, although again I don t remember, that Angel drinks Drogyn s blood, which would symbolically be his assimilation of that dragon power, releasing the pure warrior that he has himself been holding back while concerned with hereafters and what s to come. Its possible and perhaps likely, that after drinking Drogyn s blood, he exhibits some form of extra or supersensory awareness, which would be the song of nature, the clue that he has put himself back in accord with what life intends. If I m wrong and that didn t happen, well, ok. I would look for some other subtle suggestions of the same type of theme. If its not there its not there.
At the end, Angel s impulse to life is not gone. It has returned. That s what happens when he assimilates the dragon power.
As you point out, using corrupt means to achieve your ends is no good. But then you must have been chilled to the core by Angel all season long. When Angel hands over McManus to be eaten, that s not good or just. Its hideous. What Angel does to that spook that was bothering Spike is hideous. All season long, Angel has been using everyone as means, rather than recognizing them as means in themselves. He has even been using himself as a means to some end, as he confesses to Miss Werewolf. But there are only ends. Everyone is an end in themselves. Angel is the end in himself. So at the end of the series, Angel changes. He recognizes that what killed Fred, the pure impulse of the heart, is living as a means to an end, making deals and compromises that are themselves morally ambiguous hoping foolishly for some positive result.
Anyways, I would look to see if any of this holds up, if I could. I would look for similar kinds of things in the other characters, Lindsay, Lorne, whatever. The series began with Eve, hell, and the grail. It ended with a dragon. My goal would be to tie those together.
Like I said. I'm very possibly wrong.
Your original post suggests, unless I am mistaken, that the final message of the series is that we will ultimately be corrupted, that there is no redemption, that we will be unable to escape the darkness, and ultimately will fall to our uncertain, but disagreeable fate. Its just too hard not to make bad choices and face the consequences. If that s not what you think its saying, then I m curious as to what you think it is saying. Was your response to the ending despair? Mine was exhileration. Not cuz it was murder and mayhem. But because I felt redeemed.
[> [> [> [> Re: Purity, Drogyn, etc. etc. -- Ann, 13:48:32 07/19/04 Mon
I would also notice that Drogyn s name is very similar to the word Dragon.
Yes. He was the pure.
I don t remember, that Angel drinks Drogyn s blood, which would symbolically be his assimilation of that dragon power, releasing the pure warrior that he has himself been holding back while concerned with hereafters and what s to come." He did drink and accepted goodness.
Angel also drank of Hamilton giving Angel the evil powers of the Senior Partners.
So within Angel for the fight, was both the power of good and evil. He accepts both I think by using his power as a vampire to recieve and accept the reality of Liam and of Angel and of Angelus, they become one when he raises the sword.
Trinity thing happening here too.
[> [> [> [> Re: Purity, Drogyn, etc. etc. -- Caroline, 17:28:27 07/19/04 Mon
I guess we are just gonna have to agree that we have different interpretations, because if Drogyn is the good, pure warrior representing the dragon, then when Angel killed him, he killed his the good, pure warrior within himself.
I, too, am not as conversant with Angel as I am with Buffy. I will admit to missing several episodes this season because life got in the way and lack of a television set and I didn't tape any of the shows. But I have followed Angel's journey and I think that the exploration of some of his darker elements this season was terrifically done. Angel got his hands really dirty this season and I did have problems from day one with the decision to go to W&H because I was watching my S2 Angel dvds at the time and I remembered Lindsay's words about not playing on W&H's playing field. Events flowed in a way that is complex - good ends, questionable means. And I'm not being judgey, just observey. I like Angel - if a character has to be lily-white for me to like him then my passion for the Mayor is wrong!
Thanks for getting my neurons firing!
[> [> [> [> [> disagree to agree -- manwitch, 09:51:17 07/20/04 Tue
"I guess we are just gonna have to agree that we have different interpretations"
Well, I wouldn't go that far. I don't really have anything invested in an interpretation of Angel, I'm just rambling. So I'll still hold on to the possibility that I might come to agree with you.
Curious though. Is Lorne excused do you think? I mean, if Angel is doing something bad by having Lindsay killed, how is it any statement of morality for Lorne to actually do it? And yet, if what Lorne does is OK, why is Angel on the hook for it? It seems that Lorne is particularly sad, because his moral stance really just comes from fear and exhaustion, rather than courage and conviction. He doesn't actually have what it takes to refuse to be Angel's hit man. (Doesn't Lorne have a history with Lindsay? Some hostility there?). And he doesn't have the courage to stand by him in the alley. He just murders someone, and then sneaks off. I'm not even sure it could be argued that he took any kind of moral stand. He just couldn't do this anymore. Just pop one more sucker in the chest before I go. That's dark.
And then when you figure that everyone voluntarily agreed to join in Angel's crusade. If his crusade is ultimately corrupt, then they basically all said, yeah, we're corrupt too, and we'll follow you down a really dark path for reasons insufficient to justify what we're doing. Very dark.
What I do find intriguing, and an argument for the dark side, is the complete expulsion of the feminine or female from the series. By the time we get to the end, all the women are either dead or have been sent packing. Anne, the lone extender of Buffy into the Angelverse, lets us know that she thinks their conclusion is lame ass.
Its all especially dark because no one actually makes a bad choice, other than to come anywhere near Angel. I mean, does the demon eat Cordy alive? Is that her fault? Does she do anything to warrant what happens to her? Does Fred? Of course not. So there's no escape. Its not tragic. Its pathetic. Just a lot of people getting crushed by the misery of life. They have no (or little) agency in this destruction, yet they are not excused.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Agree to agree (and some stuff about the feminine) -- Caroline, 00:09:12 07/21/04 Wed
Lorne - it's completely dark. Lorne at least recognizes that the means are not what Angel would have done in the past, so he recognizes the means/end disconnect. He hasn't aligned his way of doing things with the way the senior partners and Black Thorn do things. But he does it for a bunch of reasons - love, loyalty, camaraderie, gratitude to Angel. Perhaps there's also a dash of thinking that Lindsay is irredeemable. But at least Lorne has the awareness to be disgusted with the plan, the orders he was given and with himself for executing them. But is it the crusade that's ultimately corrupt or the means they use to achieve the the objective of the crusade? Because the struggle against evil probably should continue.
I was very angry at the loss of the feminine this season. Cordy not being there was a discordant note for me and it affected my enjoyment of the show. Having her come back was great, having her die was heartbreaking. It took me a while to get over that anger and pierce the emotion to sort out what was going on. I would hasten to add that my thoughts are very preliminary and I haven t had the benefit of reading the archives since my time at the board since my exile ended has all been spent on the main page! I don t feel that I can do a more abstract post on the meaning of the loss of the feminine until I have explored a bit more specifically what Cordy and Fred meant to the gang this season.
My contention is that Fred was the circle the gang all revolved around after the loss of Cordelia, loving her in their own ways, protecting her. When she was gone as well as Cordy, the center was gone.
Cordy spent most of the first part of this season in a coma and then emerged far too briefly for one episode, where she gives Angel hope. Angel is struggling with his role and position at W&H, wondering what to do, whether he is doing the right thing. Cordelia affirms that she will always be with him, that he can find all the answers he needs within himself. He is a champion and he has to trust that within himself his core is solid. By giving that hope to Angel, by reassuring him, she gave him confidence within himself and the courage to go on. She was the nourishing, nurturing feminine. Cordy then left because, according to the PTBs or whomever, it was her time and Angel seemed to be able to handle that loss okay. He then did what was right, but in a wrong way (refer to previous posts in this thread. I would emphasize that by the wrong way, I mean that Angel wasn t being true to his own previously stated values, I m not trying to impose my values onto him!) So why did the hope and information that Cordy gave to Angel not prevent the subtle corruption/realignment of Angel s values? Maybe we have to look at Fred s death for that.
I through that Fred this season could be compared to Pandora of box fame. Pan dora means many-talents or all-gifted. She was the first woman created by Hephaistos at Zeus command, she was perfected and endowed with qualities from each of the gods and she was given a box which she was never to open. However, with natural curiosity in my view, she did open the box and all sorts of ills came out. She hastened to shut the box and the only thing left inside was Hope. Similarly, Fred is the first woman the only one in the gang, she has many talents and gifts physics, the sciences in general, the resource to survive Pylea, courage, beauty, purity and innocence, etc. And she was presented with a box that she wanted to open. This box did release ills into the world Illyria was supposed to take over and rule. The first thing she ruled was Fred herself destroying Fred and using her Fred s shell as her form. There was no hope of Fred s return, she was gone. Where was the hope here? I think that the hope did not emerge from the box.
I would argue that each man in the gang was individually affected - Gunn was affected particularly harshly since his upgrade contributed to Fred s death. He signed the customs documents to bring Illyria into the country, unwittingly leading to a chain of events that caused Fred to open Pandora s box. Wes loved and idealized Fred and was subsequently crushed by her loss. He wanted to love and protect and fight alongside her but he could do that no longer. It is crushing when we cannot have what we love but also when he are separated from our ideal. Angel had to deal with his role in Fred's death - the guilt of knowing he'd brought her into W&H with his mind-wipe and began a chain of consequences that were unintended but critical in Fred s death. Fred s death was empty and useless and random and had no meaning at all, the gang was determined that her death would not be for naught. And they were willing to pay a high price - the loss of hope and the corruption of means that I noted earlier - without these women to help them, without these women to defend, without these women to give them a good swift kick when necessary, Angel and Wes and Gunn lost a balancing pole morally.
I wouldn t say that the loss of the feminine was completely responsible for the corruption of values we saw this season but it definitely played a role. But I think that a case can be made not only for the decay of values we saw this season but the contribution that the loss of the feminine had on the remaining members of the gang. I would also hasten to add that these thoughts are really preliminary and I would appreciate any input!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree to agree (and some stuff about the feminine) -- Haunt, 05:36:10 07/21/04 Wed
This is my first post here. I truly love reading all of the fascinating ideas and theories here, but as much as I appreciate "deep thoughts" I'm just not really that qualified to express mine.
I did just want to jump in an mention that at this year's Slayage Conference, in one of the very few panels focused specifically on AtS and not BtVS, it was posited that the loss of the feminine on the series was a deliberate move towards examine what happens to the masculine in its absence. In other words, the men were rapidly sinking into hell no only because of the literal evil they were facing, but because they'd lost the feminine spirit that helped maintain them. The suggestion was that this was an intentional motif that the writers were planning to explore. Odds are they just ran out of time due to the cancellation.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree to agree (and some stuff about the feminine) -- Ann, 07:42:53 07/21/04 Wed
it was posited that the loss of the feminine on the series was a deliberate move towards examine what happens to the masculine in its absence
My take on this was that it is not the feminine so much, as the loss the the whole. When you cannot be a complete person when parts of you are compartmentalized. I realized this when Fred and Cordy died, that AI was not whole anymore although little bits had been chipped away through out the series beginning with Doyle. The circle was broken already and the Circle of the black thorn was just one more circle to be broken. When they were all standing around Fred's bed each a chip to be broken. They circled around attempting a save, but only to be continually broken.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree to agree (and some stuff about the feminine) -- Caroline, 08:21:10 07/22/04 Thu
Thanks for that, haunt (and welcome to posting here!). You reminded me of something that I'd like to share. For many years I worked at the World Bank, where the main mission is to alleviate poverty. In the 1970s, an economics professor in Bangladesh by the name of Muhammed Yunus was concerned about the problem of poverty and decide to try to assist poor people improve their lot in life. He found that traditional banks wouldn't extend credit to poor people - they had no collateral, and banks only lent to people who already had money. So, he set up a bank called the Grameen Bank. He would lend a group of poor women a very nominal amount of money (something now called microcredit) to help set up a business. All the women in the group would have to guarantee that each member would repay the loan - each loan was a group responsibility. The bank worked amazingly well and now Prof. Yunus is as celebrated as he was reviled 30 years ago (international organizations can be so grrr-inducing sometimes) and microcredit is now an accepted device used by international organizations to relieve poverty. The important point here is why Yunus lent to women - he found that the women would use their added income more wisely - heath care for the family, education, clothing, clean water and food, shelter etc. When men had extra money, they would build roads, buy tractors and large machinery that was not necessarily useful to the local population etc. The way women spent their income contributed directly to their own welfare and that of their families, whereas the way men chose to spend their money did not. It also led to a much lower rate of default on the loans, since the women's businesses proved more successful then the men's, thus allowing the bank to make money to be subsequently re-lent.
So, part of the feminine function within all of us is the maintenance of our own physical and emotional welfare and the welfare of those around us. That function slipped away from the men in AtS after they lost the women. There are other functions of the feminine besides nurturing - the warrior, the erotic, the creator and destroyer.
There is also a parallel on another level - we can look at the relationship of gods and goddesses in myth over time (from Sumerian to Roman myth) and see how the masculine and feminine interact, how the masculine and the feminine inform each other and also what they represent. This is not a relationship that remains static - for example, the Ares/Aphrodite relationship shows Ares to be a lumbering boob who thought with that part of his anatomy that wasn't near his head whereas Mars had a lot more smarts about him. The functions and identifications of the masculine and feminine in myth changes over time - it would be interesting to explore how those functions shift and change in Ats.
Hmmm...that's novel for me - a post on the feminine!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The loss of the feminine. -- Rufus, 03:13:10 07/23/04 Fri
Now the point has been made that there was a loss of the feminine in ATS, and that was the point. Along with that loss however was the eventual influence of the feminine upon Illyria, who started out a "male" God-King. The memories that were Fred caused a change in Illyria that I suspect helped lead the former "king" to fight along side of the Angel and the rest. It also allowed the former higher, better, and whaver than thou, Illyria to slowly identify with human emotions...you know...that offal type stuff....;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The loss of the feminine. -- Caroline, 07:58:35 07/24/04 Sat
Now the point has been made that there was a loss of the feminine in ATS, and that was the point.
Huh? I understood the point being made. I just don't quite get yours. Do you want me not to post on this or did you just think that I misunderstood Haunt? Maybe my non-linear response contributed to the latter perception but I'm still rather confused by what you mean here.
Along with that loss however was the eventual influence of the feminine upon Illyria, who started out a "male" God-King. The memories that were Fred caused a change in Illyria that I suspect helped lead the former "king" to fight along side of the Angel and the rest. It also allowed the former higher, better, and whaver than thou, Illyria to slowly identify with human emotions...you know...that offal type stuff....;)
The point you are making is very valid but doesn't really fit the argument I was trying to set up. But I see where you are going with it. While the boys are losing the influence of the feminine, the ex-god/king is coming under the influence of the feminine. Corruption from evil to good. Nice mirror. But what I was talking about was how the loss of the feminine contributed to the corruption of the boys. Viewed through that prism, I don't see how Illyria's battle with the feminine contributed to that corruption. I was thinking of her as more of a vehicle of torment for the gang - a bitter reminder, something else that contributed to all their torment. Illyria as part-cause and consequence of that torment. Any femininity she was influenced by didn't seem to be able to avert the decay.
Or I could be completely off-base.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The loss of the feminine. -- Rufus, 15:56:24 07/24/04 Sat
I'm not just answering to you. ATS has always been a bit more of a boys club, but the loss of the women left an imbalance that kept Angel in a "fight fire with fire" mode. This leads to a rejection by the feminine based Slayers when it came to leaving a damaged Slayer in W&H's hands to deal with. But as the feminine influence is being minimalized it can't be totally erased. This is shown in Illyria. Illyria may seem like a vehicle of torment but Wes did say to Angel..
WESLEY: I'm not in love with this thing, Angel. But... for some reason, I need it right now.
Interesting choice of words considering the topic of our discussion.
[> [> [> [> The wonderful symbol of Drogyn -- Lunasea, 14:49:22 07/20/04 Tue
Drogyn's purity isn't illustrated by his sexual status, though I doubt he gets any living in the Deeper Wells. It is specifically mentioned several times that he cannot lie. What he symbolizes is illustrated by that.
Angel did not mean for Drogyn to die. He specifically chose him to put the wheels in motion because he "knew Drogyn could handle himself" when he sent assasins after him. He did this so that the Thorn would think he had killed one of his lietenants, so that he didn't have to actually kill one of his lieutenants.
Bad Angel. Bad Angel for killing Drogyn, but really what choice did he have? He had a choice not to put things in motion, but if Angel had said, "On second thought, I don't want to be a Thorn," what would have happened at that point?
There is another characteristic of Drogyn, he was given eternal youth. When we see him at the Thorn Initiation, he doesn't look young. Hamilton and the Thorn's beating on him, no longer making him demon bane, have had an effect on his appearance.
His role as keeper of the Deeper Well and jailer of Illyria is a great symbol to explore. The relationship of them as they play video games and she attempts to protect them is chocked full of stuff to play with. The relationship of the Old Ones to the Wolf, Ram and Hart as well as their change in power merits careful examination.
I'm not so sure she has to do with religion, as much as the standard demons = issues. I find deconstructing the mythology to be loads of fun. The Old Ones are old, no longer in control and guarded by a man that cannot lie. She cannot exist in this world and has to have her power drained. Her time is no longer. Is that what she represents or does what she represent no longer have a place in this world? Interesting things to play with.
Another thing to note is that Angel kills Drogyn by snapping his neck, not by draining him. Izzy remarks that they got him "super charged Warrior Juice" but Angel barely drinks it. It is more for show. He doesn't incorporate this into his power. He reluctantly has to kill Drogyn and he does not want to benefit any other way from this act. It is Hamilton he sucks down.
And Drogyn thanks him when Angel removes the bag from his head.
Wonderful interpretation of Buffy's death. I always look forward to things you have to say about that series.
[> [> [> [> what the show showed -- anom, 21:03:03 07/20/04 Tue
Not much of a philosopher here, so I'll stick mostly to episode content & what it may mean in the context of your post.
"Drogyn is a 'pure warrior,' I believe I ve heard someone say."
Angel said in Power Play that he needed the Circle to believe "someone as good & as pure as Drogyn" considered him an enemy. I don't remember if anyone called Drogyn a warrior, & Angel's line actually seems like something of a retcon to me. OK, so Drogyn can't lie...if it's because he's so good, why does he threaten violence to keep people from asking him questions? The inability to lie could just as well have resulted from a curse, or he could have vowed never to lie because something horrible happened last time he did (& now he's stuck w/it). But we never find out one way or the other, & before Power Play there's no indication that he's especially good or pure. He does seem pretty defensive & even hostile some of the time. Oh, & he seems to have no qualms about torturing a would-be assassin.
"But Drogyn is also the keeper of the ancient ones, or something like that."
Of the Deeper Well. What the distinction might be between guarding the Well & guarding those in it, I'll leave to...well, you. (As well as the statement that the world we know is also a Well--hey, maybe that's why there's a hole in it!) And it's more his job than his identity--he says he's only been doing it for the last several decades of a nearly 1,000-year life.
"Is there any way conceivable that Drogyn s condition alive is worse than his condition dead? Is there any possibility that Angel s killing of Drogyn can be seen as merciful or noble?"
I don't see how. Drogyn has his hands tied & there's a hood over his head. He's being beaten w/thick wood sticks (it looks like). When Angel comes in & pulls the hood off, he says, "Thank you--thank you!" He seems to think Angel is rescuing him, although I suppose there could be another interpretation. That's when Angel goes into vampface & bites him, & then breaks his neck. Before that, Drogyn doesn't seem to be in such bad shape that he couldn't have recovered. Apparently Angel needed the Circle to believe not only that Drogyn thought him an enemy...but that he was right.
"I would want to know, similarly, is there any sense in which Drogyn is a willing participant in his death?"
His "Thank you" would seem to rule that out.
"Certainly one of the things he is charged to guard is Illyria, who seems to me to be some form of comment on religion as the source of moral action. She suggests the idea of reaching back to the traditions of the past for the justification of our moral behavior."
Illyria appears to have little if any concept of morality. She tells Angel something like (OK, I'm not checking everything either) that a ruler's only guide should be his ambition, & she says in her time even betrayal had no moral content.
"My suspicion is, although again I don t remember, that Angel drinks Drogyn s blood, which would symbolically be his assimilation of that dragon power.... Its possible and perhaps likely, that after drinking Drogyn s blood, he exhibits some form of extra or supersensory awareness, which would be the song of nature, the clue that he has put himself back in accord with what life intends."
Angel does bite Drogyn, but it doesn't seem to give him any increased awareness. He learns the identities of the Black Thorn members, but only because they unmask themselves after he's proved himself to them.
As Ann points out, Angel also bites Hamilton. While I like Ann's idea--that this means Angel is mixing good & evil within himself--as a concept, I have trouble accepting it as what the writers had in mind. Drinking Hamilton's blood is very clearly set up as something Angel deliberately does for the purpose of gaining his Wolf, Ram, & Hart power. There's no hint of that when he bites Drogyn, or that Drogyn's blood has any more effect on him than that of any human.
"When Angel hands over McManus to be eaten, that s not good or just. Its hideous. What Angel does to that spook that was bothering Spike is hideous."
Someone (probably Gunn) says later in the ep that the yucky supper club is being shut down. I don't think there was any more eating. It's still pretty awful that Angel--& the others--let the guy think he was going to be eaten alive, but I'm reasonably sure it didn't actually happen. As for Pavayne, they made it seem like there was no other way to keep him from resuming his evil, bloody ways once he was recorporealized, or from going back to terrorizing souls & sending them to hell if they killed him (but yeah, it was still hideous). As for Angel's questionable (to say the least) actions in the last 2 episodes, I don't see anything intrinsically good in them. I think Angel thought they were necessary means to good ends. And it doesn't look to me as if he learned any different at the end.
But maybe he would have. One of my favorite quotes is one from Martin Luther King, Jr., that I cut out of a newspaper way back in jr. high school: "Means and ends must cohere, because the end is preexistent in the means, and ultimately destructive means cannot bring about constructive ends." From comments by David Fury (I think) on the plans for the next season that have been discussed here, ME may have intended what looked like bad means to good ends to be exactly that & would have made Angel & the others deal w/the consequences if they'd had another season to do it in.
[> [> Re: Enter the Dragon -- Rufus, 19:46:18 07/17/04 Sat
In our culture, there is a symbol that has been used to represent this concept for at least a thousand years, at least as far as Beowolf. It is the dragon, one that hoards gold and guards virgins. The gold is the richness of life, and the virgins are the pure impulse to life, and the dragon, unable to use or experience either, simply restrains them, holds them back. Traditionally the hero, of course, must confont this dragon, which is metaphorically himself. It is his own fear of life that holds him back, preventing the riches. But the pure of heart always find the dragon s weakness, usually a missing scale over the breast. Because the path to the heart is what slays the fear, turning its power to the service of life rather than repressing it. Whether it s the dragon Ripley must face in the basement or the dragon that Bilbo must face, or the dragon that Seigreid kills, it is ultimately the same symbolic dragon that must be slain.
The dragon does serve that dual function of representing big "E" evil represented by Wolfram and Hart, and the evil or faults of the hero that must be overcome in order to deal with the big "E" dragon. When Angel or any hero realizes that the dragon is within themselves as well as around him/her can the power be found to defeat both.
Wolfram and Hart encouraged the impulse to hoard and control, keeping Angel and the gang occupied while it went about causing suffering the distracted heroes couldn't see because they were too self involved. I guess it could be said that many little dragons create the larger whole, and it takes a hero to see that we start with ourselves and progress to the outer world using knowledge and understanding to back up the sharp swords...;)
[> [> Anne and the Dragon -- Pony, 08:00:55 07/18/04 Sun
Excellent post! I agree with much of what you're saying, and yes I don't read the ending as pessimistic at all. Yet I do also agree with Caroline - the only way NFA works for me is to see Angel as largely corrupted. To have the murders of Drogyn and Lindsey seen as laudable or the necessary actions of a leader "not afraid to get his hands dirty" would be a much larger philosophical break from the rest of the show than I could handle. To me Angel's signing away of his shanshu was a direct link to his statement in Just Rewards about being damned but still trying to do the right thing. Angel in the end is giving up the idea of himself as a good person, he kills Drogyn the pure warrior, he ends any possibility of Lindsey redeeming himself - these are aspects of himself that Angel is destroying. Shanshu wasn't really about the possibility of becoming human it was about being judged by Someone and being found worthy. Angel gave up on this idea of himself but still kept fighting.
All this makes me consider the figure of Anne in the episode. Perhaps she is not being presented in contrast to Angel's actions. If we believe that Angel is a hero then his day to day work is slaying the dragon, making the grand gestures. So when we see Anne's response to the idea that none of it matters, that the odds are overwhelmingly against them and that what they do may not change anything, we are also seeing Angel's - slaying the dragon is another version of loading up the truck, a job that needs doing, that can be done with grace, leaving it to others to find any sort of meaning in it.
[> [> Interesting take -- Lunasea, 09:29:55 07/19/04 Mon
To be honest, and I probably shouldn't say this here, I'm sort of tired of the whole "try to find some negative subtext in order to show that Angel was bad, immoral or otherwise wrong."
There are two moments that I am not going to negate by doing this.
1. The end. If Joss had meant for there to be some such subtext, I really don't see that last shot happening. That was triumph every bit as much as Buffy's smile in "Chosen." I agree that Joss tends to give messages of great empowerment and inspiration. He didn't end AtS on anything less than that.
2. Cordy's parting had an express purpose, to get her guy back on track. If she didn't, her exit is demeaned. I didn't exactly like the character, but I'm not going to take away from her exit. It was every bit as beautiful and meaningful as Doyle's.
This rush to crucify Angel is driven by a need to condemn certain actions. I would like to know when the board became full of moralizing malcontents. What Angel did, namely the mind wipe, as far as I understand is imposible to do. The rush to condemn him misses so much. Talking about it is like talking about Spike. If you don't have a certain highly emotional point of view, best not to bring anything up. It was a very very very bad act and that is all we need to know.
I love what Joss says about Season 6 BtVS and Spuffy, "Au revoir metaphor." He didn't say that season 5 AtS. Drogyn isn't some pure warrior that Angel is a very very very bad man for killing. Drogyn is truth itself. The Senior Partners aren't just evil. They aren't the First. They are something symbolic. I don't think I've seen one discussion about what they represent all season and this season they were pretty prevalent. They are just pegged as evil and Angel is corrupted because he agrees to go into the belly of the beast. Symbolism is the lifeblood of the series. It is how Joss can tell a story that is both entertaining and informative.
Which brings us to that wonderful dragon. You have a wonderful take on it. I see it a little different. Dragons are not demons from this world. When I saw that flying beauty, I thought back to "The Gift" when the walls between dimensions were being destroyed. The Wolf, the Ram and the Hart were not just giving Angel their standard apocalypse that the Fang Gang and Buffy have stopped many times. This was an interdimensional phenomenon. In becoming someone, finally, Angel had taken down all those personas inside himself.
This ties to what he says, "I've always wanted to slay a dragon." In his office, the one that is probably destroyed as the building comes down, are his Celtic and Samurai sword, symbolizing Liam and Angelus. Angel is finally able to move beyond his past. He isn't just a monster, like he feared in "Amends." He was able to tap into the primordial forces of the Wolf, Ram and Hart in order to use that strength to continue to struggle to be strong. Now, he can slay that beautiful Celtic symbol and truly move on. He has the strength to do it. He has the strength to deal with being without walls.
There is that great wall of demons, with the dragon hovering overhead. Demons represent our issues. Angel now can face all of them, including the idea of no personas, of dimensional walls coming down. He can slay the dragon that has been his biggest problem.
I like your take as well. I just wanted to share mine as well.
[> [> [> A moralizing malcontent speaks up -- Pony, 10:03:58 07/19/04 Mon
If you're tired of people finding negative subtext then I am equally tired of the move to accept Angel's every action as good because he is the supposed hero of the piece. I totally agree that Angel's killing of Drogyn had a symbolic meaning, just as I believe Angel's ordering of Lindsey's death was on a symbolic level the end of Angel's belief in redemption (I know, I know you think Lorne did it on his own, vive la difference) - however on the literal level we are still left with two dead bodies, one with tooth marks. If we are to cast aside all ideas of morality then what exactly separates Angel from W&H? That he won't kill babies but is ok with killing grown men when it suits his purpose? Is there a time when we must finally look at Angel and judge him, as Lorne does?
Angel stepped away from his own ideas of living by example some time ago, by his own beliefs he saw himself as damned - for him there was no reward or promise of transformation in that alley, there was just the moment and the decision to fight on, that I do find inspirational in the tragic cathartic vein. But I can see all that without laying aside morality. And if we're supposed to, then I have a bigger problem with the series than dangling plotlines.
[> [> [> [> Well, no one moralizes more than I do -- manwitch, 12:52:40 07/19/04 Mon
Perhaps there's some suggestion that we all have blood on our hands, but nevertheless we still have to live. I mean, we can't all just throw in the towel. Having blood on our hands does not mean we can't find a way to be heroic.
Perhaps.
Anyways, that's all I'm looking for. I just don't think this was Chinatown. There is hope, despite our past, despite our crimes. Its not too late. Does that mean we have to be redeemed in a more christian sense? I don't think so. We redeem ourselves by continuing.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, no one moralizes more than I do -- Bjerkley, 14:16:55 07/19/04 Mon
I like that take a lot, and I'm willing to an extent to believe this was the intent, but still, the end of the show left me with a nagging doubt that Angel had given up on hope.
It's not the blood on the hands that worries me, it's Angel's willingess to get blood on his hands for some greater good. That's a marked change I think.
There's also the attitude to Lindsey and Harmony among others. He believes that Harmony will betray him because she's incapable of anything else. He has Lindsey killed because he'll always be part of the problem. As far as we can tell, Angel's point of view is that these people will never change. There is no hope for them, and so no chance.
Given his own past, what does that say about the way he views himself? That it's about the struggle to find meaning in a bloody world, to do good as a penance or that he fights because he knows nothing else. If he thinks the blood on the hands of others condemns them to their fate, is he condeming himself too?
Hope that made sense.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, no one moralizes more than I do -- Caroline, 17:34:12 07/19/04 Mon
Okay, that's part of what I have been trying to say. I'm not saying Angel is irredeemable. This is not the end of the story, we're still in the story, Angel continues to try to find his treasure.
Maybe Joe Jackson thought it was in Chinatown, but do you think that Angel will find it there?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, no one moralizes more than I do -- Pony, 06:47:23 07/20/04 Tue
I certainly don't think Angel is irredeemable. Just because he thinks he's damned doesn't mean I that I believe in any sort of thing, though I think his own belief has huge consequences (I pause to shake my head at just how much of my ideas of the afterlife are based on Sandman comics).
What I do think is that Angel's murder of Drogyn is exactly the same as Connor helping to kill that girl to bring forth Jasmine. Both believed they were acting for a larger good, both seeing themselves as having no other choice. Both acts marked their commitment to a path that would lead to their own destruction. Of course Connor's death was of a different sort, maybe Angel's will be as well. Like Caroline I'm hoping that we'll get something more someday.
[> [> [> [> I have to hand it to Lunasea -- Rahael, 15:04:00 07/19/04 Mon
I love the name Moralizing Malcontent.
A moral malcontent. Yes, that fits just nicely :). Heh. In fact, I think that fits my entire career on the board!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I have to hand it to Lunasea -- manwitch, 17:49:48 07/19/04 Mon
"Heh. In fact, I think that fits my entire career on the board!"
I don't. I think you're a joy.
You're so kind, even when you disagree. Saying I dazzle, even when I might be dazzlingly dumb.
Always saying nice things, even when you know I don't like Prince.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Ha! You're too sweet. -- Rahael, 03:35:41 07/20/04 Tue
You always dazzle (and never dumb or dull) regardless of whether I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you!
(and even though you don't like Prince! LOL)
[> [> [> [> [> It'd make a great t-shirt! -- Pony, 06:36:04 07/20/04 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> This is the second name.... . -- Caroline, 07:33:42 07/20/04 Tue
that Lunasea has given to me, the first being QueenC. I like Moralizing Malcontent just as much! Watch out for my evil alteregos - QueenC and Moralizing Malcontent. Or should that be Queen Moralizing Malcontent? LadyS, Rob, hand me the tiara!
[> [> [> [> [> [> You want the tiara, Caro? You'll have to come to NYC (7/1/05) to get it! -- cjl, 09:38:45 07/20/04 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You want the tiara, Caro? You'll have to come to NYC (7/1/05) to get it! -- Caroline, 08:06:55 07/24/04 Sat
I'll try, cjl, but not sure I can make those dates - August/September is actually much better for me in terms of travel to the US next year. If I came in early July, I could only take 2 weeks and that is just not enough time to see everyone, as I discovered in March.
You know, Sydney is only a 24 hour flight from NYC. There's no reason we can't have a meet here...
[> [> [> Re: Interesting take -- Caroline, 17:14:13 07/19/04 Mon
It's a sad day when you stigmatize those who don't agree with you as moralizing malcontents. I don't condemn or judge Angel, I merely observe and question his actions. My view is that his ends are just and his means are questionable. He's a complex guy. I can see how he evolved there, how each decision and compromise got him further and further away from his values and ended up pigeon-holing him to the point where he felt he had no other choices or potentials. Good story-telling, a romantic, semi-heroic ending with the potential of more to come, if ME can structure those movie deals. All I said was that this is not the end of the story. I'm looking forward to more. But I don't have to reject the text that is there to show that Angel actions weren't completely good. The Angel in my head can survive that.
[> [> [> Re: Interesting take -- Lunasea, 18:55:48 07/19/04 Mon
I am sorry that what I said upset some. You are entitled to your opinion as am I. Even though the show has ended, I still love it and find lots of philosophical yummies and layers that can be dissected for years to come. I have stated my opinion, and I see no need to repeat myself on this matter. I have lots of other matters I may speak about one day, after my wrists have healed and I can type for long periods of time again.
[> [> [> Re: Interesting take -- dlgood, 11:52:35 07/21/04 Wed
If Joss had meant for there to be some such (negative) subtext, I really don't see that last shot happening. That was triumph every bit as much as Buffy's smile in "Chosen." I agree that Joss tends to give messages of great empowerment and inspiration. He didn't end AtS on anything less than that.
There's a secondary analysis:
Namely, if Joss meant the last scene to feel "triumphant", how successful was he in making it actually work. The extra-textual claim that he intended is not, IMHO, a guarantor of acutally success.
I dimly recall fully intending to strike batters out with my so-called curveball, yet watching said "curveball" disappear over the outfield fence upon said pitches failure to actually curve.
The viewing experience is interactive. Should I try not to hit an offering that appears to be a hanging curveball just because The Author intends to strike me out? I think not. Whether or not the pitch is actually a hanging curve, whether I make contact, and where the ball goes, is a separate matter.
What Angel did, namely the mind wipe, as far as I understand is imposible to do.
So what? Isn't the mindwipe symbolic of any number of morally dubious acts we might entertain in the attempt to "fix" ours or other peoples' problems?
Cordy's parting had an express purpose, to get her guy back on track. If she didn't, her exit is demeaned. I didn't exactly like the character, but I'm not going to take away from her exit. It was every bit as beautiful and meaningful as Doyle's.
Again - I fail to see what is necessarily so wrong with the possibility that Cordy's exit is "demeaned". Why is this act any more sacred than any other act we've debated here? (For example - Spike gaining the soul.)
History and literature are replete with examples of people sincerely believing in the goodness, rightness, and beauty of their great acts, only to have such acts revealed as less beautiful as previously thought in hindsight - and sometimes, very rightly so.
It is quite possible that an action that seems wonderful in it's own context, is not necessarily so wonderful if viewed from a larger perspective. Analyzing an act from multiple perspectives, IMHO, is perfectly valid.
Such an analysis does not "negate" the moments - it illuminates them. Perhaps we risk losing the innocent view. But we also stand to gain a better and deeper understanding by considering additional possibilities, particularly those antithetical to our preferred wishes.
[> [> Exit the tiger and/or unicorn -- fresne, 23:17:41 07/19/04 Mon
Red and White dragon grappling teeth in tail and twist of mobius curl. The Tower cannot stand and the half demon child, the Magician, who would be sacrificed explains the Echer perspective instead.
There s a sword in a stone. There s a cup in a temple. There s a candle in the dark. Masks and roles and hearts at the other end of the year from the day of the dead. Heading to the longest day and the shortest night. Knight.
The king of cups would like a picnic, but it is not his birthday.
Enter the dragon.
Dagon, Drogyn, Vlad Draco of Flim Flam gypsy magic.
Angel the wounded king. He sips the dragon s blood and speaks the language of the birds of the air and the fish of the sea, as they bleed from one into another. He stumbles as the dragon s burning blood splashes his eyes and he is blind.
The cup lies on the ground, an empty shell, as the water seeps away. Stains the earth. Where once mercy fell, as gentle as a rain, fire falls.
And yet, fire pretty. The sin of foresight, to steal fire and brave vultures. The Queen of Swords cutting through thorns. The fool with her goods in a car driving to tinseled town. A bird, a fish, a fool going towards the shiny end.
The song is over, but the melody lingers on.
Enter the dragon with his ecstasies of gold.
And the tower falls down. Heroes at the end of themselves; except the end is the beginning.
The king is un-dead, long live the king.
Kill the dragon, or become the dragon. You are what you consume. Red and White. Fire and Water. West and East. Swords and cups. Thrones and Dominions in the fields of the Nephilim. A work in hydra progress, except somehow you ve set fire to the golden appled tree at the same time.
A post all the more streaming, because I ve been coding VB at the same time, but I ve been feeling far too mute and thus incoherent sprawl of post. If you can thread a point in all of this, you re doing better than I.
[> [> [> Circle of Thorn Story Arc -- Roy, 11:39:33 07/24/04 Sat
Had the "Circle of the Black Thorn" story arc been planned since the beginning of S5, or was it added at the last moment, following WB's decision to cancel the show? I had the feeling it was the latter.
More "Wonderfalls" DVD Info... -- Rob, 13:07:27 07/15/04 Thu
from savewonderfalls.com
July 15, 2004
We have a bit of Wonderfalls DVD news for you! The release is still (tentatively) scheduled for December 7 of this year, and the episodes will be presented in 16x9 widescreen. Bryan Fuller and Todd Holland have already recorded commentary on "Crime Dog," "Lovesick Ass" and "Caged Bird." They'll be joined by stars Caroline Dhavernas and Katie Finneran for "Wax Lion" and "Safety Canary" commentary, and by Caroline, Katie and Scotch Ellis Loring (Dr. Ron) for "Cocktail Bunny" commentary. The disc set will also contain a documentary on the show and most likely a few deleted scenes and outtakes. Other features are TBA.
Also, a quick note for California fans: the second Knitting Factory screening (scheduled for July 23) has been pushed to July 30. Times and prices are still the same. Anyone who bought tickets in advance should have received an e-mail detailing their options (which include a full refund if you can't make the screening on the 30th). The San Diego Comic-Con screening (July 25 from 2-4 p.m., room 20) is still a go. Tim Minear, Bryan Fuller and Todd Holland will screen "Lying Pig" and "Cocktail Bunny" and take part in a panel discussion. It's going to be a lot of fun!
Replies:
[> Speaking of ComicCon -- Dochawk, 13:25:16 07/15/04 Thu
First off Rob - made my day with the switch of dates since I will be at Comic Con on the 23rd, now I can see the two Wonderfalls episodes!
Is anyone going to Comicon? There are NO Buffy/Angel panels, but there are the following: Eliza Dushku doing a Q & A on Friday, Sarah Michelle Gellar doing her first con appearance ever (for the movie The grudge, but I have to guess there will be Buffy Questions during the Q & A) on saturday and Joss is going to be there with the Serenity gang for clips and a Q & A on Sunday (I can't be there on Sunday) which will be followed by the Wonderfalls showings (I have seen both episodes they are better than anything that was aired).