July 2004 posts
Spoiler for angel finale:
Full circle -- luvthistle1,
13:14:06 07/15/04 Thu
All the character came full circle. They each had fought someone
that might have meant a lot in there life.
Illyria was an God in her days there for she fought "Izzy
" who could be taken for the devil.
Full circle:- she learn how to feel again. she also played God
to Wes, when she brought Fred back to life, for a brief moment.
Gun - he had a under went a "brain" upgrade. he wanted
to be smarter. when it start to fall, he start to doubt himself.
he felt that he needed it. he came to realize he was living a
lie. he could wear the suit, but that all it was. he wasn't an
lawyer. it was a mask that he wore. a mask that cause the death
of someone he love, because he looked the other way in order to
keep it on. - he fought the "Senator Brucker", who also
wore an mask. she appeared to be human, and for the people, but
like Gunn that wasn't who she really was. she was a demon, in
disguise
Gunn kill her and her crew was his way of of ripping off his own
mask, . by doing so, he went back to basic. he knew who he was
and like him.
full circle: Gunn was Gunn again, the muscle once again, and he
realize that he was important part of the group.
Harmony- seem to have betray the group, but in actually she help
the group by doing what she do best... being Harmony. her character
might have grown up, but she didn't change much. she was Cordy's
best friend, but when Cordy start dating nerd boy xander Harris,
(which wasn't cool) she turn on her. In disharmony, when ask to
be a part of the group, once she got around other vampires she
turn on the whole AI gang. but what why" didn't Angel stake
her? well , Harmony is loyal in some ways. who gave her a job,
and a place to stay, and she didn't have to change W&h. When
she work for angel, she was an great assistant. That is why he
gave her an reference. why stake someone for being themselves,
after all she doesn't have an soul, so things are much harder.
Full Circle: - when she tried to be head cheerleader she suck,
when she tried to be a a leader of an vampire she sucked. well,
she finally found a job she good in. she finally found her place
in the world.
Spike- he fought the legion of the Fell Brethren and took back
the baby. Spike felt indirectly responsible for Buffy's death...(Remember
his "everyday I save you" speech) he felt that if only
he had been able to save Dawn , Buffy would not have had to jump.
so, fighting the" Fell Brethren" in some way redeem
him.
full circle: - he kill the slayer Nikki, when her son Robin Woods
was still young. Therefore he had taken an mother away from her
child, he had taken an lot of mothers away from their children,
this time around ,he is giving an child back to his mother. full
circle indeed.
Wesley - As a watcher he is taught to separate real form illusion.
he forgot that fact when he listen to the giant hamburger, who
told him the father will kill the son. Fact: he knew Angel. he
also knew that Angel would never hurt Connor. Illusion: the prophecy
was fake, and planted by sanjan. Wesley has been trick by Illusion
more than any character on the show. he believe the cyborg was
his father, he believe that if he only had Fred memories back
that she would be alive again. Illusion are only fairytales, it's
nice, but we can't live life as an fairytale.
full circle: - Wesley fight Vail who is the sorcerer of the bunch
. The Illusionist he created the [i]Mind wipe" spell that
erase Connor from everyone memories. .. you can't learn from your
mistake if you do not know what they are" it's only fitting
that Wes, would be the one fitting him. he has been fight against
Illusion most of the series. he finally learn to separate the
two.
Lorne- killed Lindsey. killing a human is something we never seen
good nature Lorne do. he left his town of Pylea because he refuse
to fight. he let his family down, by running away. and branded
a coward.
Full Circle- he hate the idea of killing someone, let alone someone
he knows. a human at that. but this time he would nt run away.
he was a value member of AI. he killed Lindsey, because that is
what he was "told to do.". As much as he might not have
like it,. this time he didn't run. this time he refuse to let
Team Angel down. he was no longer a coward.
Angel- fought Hamilton and like Angel has a demon inside of him,
Hamilton has as the blood of W&h senior partners running thru
his veins. while
Hamilton accept the sp blood with open arms, Angel had alway fought
against his demon nature, never accepting it.
full Circle: - it was Angel demon nature that allowed him to win
the battle against Hamilton. what he had been fighting against,
he finally embraced. by
releasing Hamilton of the "senior partner's blood. he was
in some way freeing himself.. there was no prize at the end of
the battle, yet he fought anyway. he fought, for the same thing
that all human would fight for...his love ones. humanity.
Connor- he help his father, fight Hamilton.
full circle: Connor view himself as an "bully" because
he fought for all the wrong reason. he fought because he was strong
and fast. he fought because he was angry. this time around he
is no longer mad at his father for what he is, because he learn
"who" he is. this time around he fought for all the
right reason. he also forgave Angel, and through Connor, "acceptance."
Angel learn to forgive his father ( and forgive himself). it's
also through Connor, that Angel become a part of humanity. there
is one thing that Angel did that most vampire can't...that is
reproduce. so that is how Angel shanshu. through Connor he lives
on as human.
Lindsey - Lindsey always wanted to fight by Angel side. by fighting
the Sahrvin, he is doing just that.
Full circle: - Lindsey started with W&H he was their golden boy.
it's only fitting that his life ( as much as I hate it) ends along
with w&H . :-/
Replies:
[> Nice connections! -- LittleBit, 17:23:22 07/15/04
Thu
You've made me look at things from a different perspective. Thanks!
[> Wonderful post -- Lunasea, 17:37:20 07/15/04 Thu
I would add some things:
1. I would also include Fred in characters that came full circle.
The girl that used a handful of blood to lure the Angel!beast
away from the gang on Pylea later didn't think to even bring a
gun when on a dangerous assignment in Lineage. Then in Smile Time,
it was she who saved Wesley.
2. Spike. The baby is also Spike who was portrayed as such a momma's
boy it wasn't even funny. (no bashing, just stating an observation)
3. Wesley's character contrasts nicely with Lindsey's. Wesley
is such a somebody, the Thorns are interested in him. It's nice
that he is deliciously unstable, but he also has to have power
in order for the Thorn to take notice. There is even some possibility
that the Thorn sent the cyborgs to shake things up. Wesley is
sent after the hardest Thorn to get. Hamilton technically isn't
a Thorn. Wesley's world of demon's contrasted nicely with Fred's
science. This season, when a spell was needed to uncloak Lindsey,
it was Wesley that did it. This spell also revealed him to Fred.
I love how magic was used this season.
Lindsey on the other hand goes after a few gansters backed up
by a pacifist.
4. Angel dispatches the Archeduke Sebassis rather easily. He isn't
even there. This parallels how easily he tosses off the mantle
of CEO of Wolfram and Hart. We first see the Archeduke in Life
of the Party, when Angel is having a tough time dealing with the
crap that is necessary to be CEO. The Archeduke even offers Angel
some blood because we're all blood suckers here. Angel refuses.
This is how he manages to kill the Archeduke.
It's always the blood, which ties nicely to drinking Hamilton.
Earlier he drank Drogyn, but not much. Just enough for show. Angel
doesn't swallow much of the truth/Drogyn and sucks the primordial
power down so that he can become something.
[> [> Cordy! -- luvthistle1, 13:33:32 07/17/04
Sat
..I just realize that even Cordy, who had died in "your welcome",
came full circle as well. In "shanshu from L.A she keep asking
Wesley what was her role in all this, and was she even mention.
she wanted to play and important role in the finale battle, but
because she had died, before the finale battle took place, it
appears that it would not happen.
Full Circle: but in the end , it was Cordy's last vision that
told Angel who the players are, and what had to be done.
Fred's quilt -- Ann,
16:43:41 07/15/04 Thu
Quilt stuff
So ever since The Hole in the World episode the quilt behind Fred
s bed has been nagging at me. I used to quilt.
It has several names, two being the most popular: The Star of
Bethlehem and the Lone Star. This pattern first appeared in the
1830 s and was popular amongst quilt makers. Women who had many
scraps to put together into quilt form first made this pattern.
I love that Whedon et al picked this pattern to represent Fred
s home, her bed. Fred always liked tying the little pieces, the
facts together to discover the whole. The hole in the middle of
course extends the metaphor seen throughout the series. The Texas
roots also refer to Fred s heritage. The Lone Star could be Angel,
or it could be metaphor about how we all live and dream alone
therefore is placed over the bed. The Bethlehem link is fun also
because that is the episode, Slouching towards where Cordelia
having been lost reappears, just like Illyria is reborn. Also
ties in to Lorne s memory issues in that episode much like the
debate about Fred/Illyria memories. This is also the episode where
Wes loses what little he had with Lilah, repeated here with Fred.
These overlapping lined up and repeat plotted episodes are fascinating.
This pattern, similar to the Circle of Black Thorns pattern, and
the lobby of W&H is everywhere. Just like evil is everywhere,
from the home to the office and everywhere in between. No one
and nowhere is safe from its influence. Even a warm cozy quilt
doesn t keep you safe. Not black like the thorns, but safely tricking
you with its pastel colours. Whedon leaves no image of home/warmth/safety
intact.
Replies:
[> Wow -- Lunasea, 17:10:27 07/15/04 Thu
That's some details you've traced. Don't really have anything
to add. Just wanted to say, WOW. So WOW.
[> [> Wonderful observations, Ann! -- Jane, 20:38:26
07/15/04 Thu
I noticed that quilt. I love quilts - there's a shop just up the
street, and the variations in patterns is always interesting.
Love the way that you connect the quilt scraps to make the patterns
of the show.
[> Very cool observations. -- OnM, 17:22:30 07/15/04
Thu
[> Thanks everyone -- Ann, 13:34:52 07/19/04 Mon
Angel as EXISTENTIAL HERO
-- Lunasea, 19:33:16 07/15/04 Thu
There are a great many essays about how BtVS and AtS follow what
Joseph Campbell called The Hero's Journey. The similarities of
various stories illustrate Dr. Jung's theory of the Collective
Unconscious rather well. However, that misses that these stories
are different. These differences aren't just the spice of life.
They exist for a reason and are important. Angel is Joss Whedon's
existentialist hero. Existentialism not only shapes the universe
that Angel resides in, but it defines what is a hero.
A hero isn't just someone on a journey. There is a goal to that
journey. That is what makes it the hero's journey. The goal of
that journey is determined by the theme of the story. The existentialist
hero doesn't just realize existentialist ideas. He has to find
a way to cope with them. That is what transforms him from existentialist
to existentialist hero. This is the journey that Angel is on.
Existentialism is often seen as a very bleak philosophy. Life
has no meaning. Stop there and it is a very bleak philosophy.
Life is just a series of random horrible events in a random horrible
world. That isn't where existentialism stops. As Sartre said,
"Man makes himself." Freed from the search for meaning,
man then embarks on the journey of creating meaning.
Angel has had an extraordinary life. We can look at the chain
of events that inform Angel, but each of those events has a chain
of events and so on and so on, until Feigenbaum, Master of Chaos,
rules. Even if we can trace these events, there is still no inherent
meaning in any of them. There is no grand plan. No big win. No
great glorious end to all this. That is until Jasmine shows up.
Not even the Senior Partners are interested in "anything
so prosaic as winning." In the elevator scene with Holland
in "Reprise" Angel represents the belief in a big plan.
Angel has a big plan. "Destroy the Senior Partners. Smash
Wolfram and Hart once and for all." Holland shows him that
this big plan exists in a larger context and in that context,
it is meaningless. There is no end.
Jasmine manufactures an end and forces it on everyone by giving
them paradise. To do this, she must take away free will. It is
through free will that we create ourselves, so in order to prevent
each man from creating his own image, she has to eliminate this.
What results may look like paradise, but it is the existentialist
equivalent of death. "Our fate has to be our own or we're
nothing."
Christianity and other religions take a similar view. Men are
not God's puppets. There is no merit in doing good, if we do not
choose it of our own free will. That is not what Angel is speaking
about. He is not talking about merit. He is talking about the
simple act of creating ourselves. Man creates himself. Without
free will, we can create nothing. We are nothing. It isn't about
fate or some end. It is about the process of creation.
Jasmine ended this process. Man became nothing. The price was
too high to Angel's existentialist mind. Jasmine's paradise was
the existentialist equivalent of death. It isn't just about some
end that she can provide. "Let's run down the list, huh?
Rain of fire, blotting out the sun, enslaving mankind, and, yeah,
oh, yeah, hey, you eat people!" Eating people not only said
to the audience, "this is an evil creature," but it
showed the death that Jasmine brought. The physical death of the
people that she devoured echoed the philosophical death of removing
free will.
She did something else though. In order to bring about the great
glorious end of paradise, she had a grand plan. That plan centers
around Cordelia and Connor. She needs these two characters to
give birth to herself. What happens seasons two and three are
no longer just random horrible events in a random horrible world.
They are part of a grand plan. That cannot stand in an existentialist
universe. The best laid plan must be undone by random horrible
events.
In this case, two random events combine to undo Jasmine. The first
is that Fred is infected with Jasmine's blood. The plot twist
that is so integral to the Buffyverse is itself an existentialist
statement. This event involved much angst on the part of Fred
and later the rest of the gang as they come out of Jasmine's thrall.
Fred is turned into an outcast and hunted by her friends. What
happened to Fred was not only random, but horrible.
Same with the other event that is needed to undo Jasmine's thrall
on a grand scale. Angel must travel to a demon dimension to learn
Jasmine's name. He wouldn't even know about this if not for an
insect-like demon that has come looking for his goddess because
"we loved her first." As Wesley says when they find
the orb that will transport Angel to this dimension, "I think
the universe just handed us our first break." That break
is the result of being hunted by Jasmine's followers, like the
gang had hunted Fred, and forced into the sewers like rats.
Jasmine's grand plan is undone by these random horrible events.
Angel learned season two that there is no grand plan. No matter
how big the plan, to Angel it is still minor in the grand scheme
of things. There is always a bigger picture. The same cannot be
said of his friends, especially Wesley.
The mind wipe of Connor was necessary to redeem the irredeemable,
someone who had fallen victim to the existential dilemma and couldn't
get out. That does not explain why the mind wipe was applied to
Angel's friends as well and not Angel. Jasmine's grand plan was
undone by random horrible events, thus righting the Buffyverse.
Wesley, however, is still big picture guy. The mind wipe removes
an important part of his big picture.
This is seen as a horrible violation, tantamount to what Willow
did to Tara. By removing the past, Wesley is not able to make
sense of things. We see a Wesley that is lost for most of the
season. This is a horrible event, but one that is necessary in
order to transform Wesley. It makes Wesley's world random. He
cannot order it through cause and effect. He not only does not
know what the causes are, he doesn't even know that he doesn't
know. His world just doesn't make sense. With what he knows, he
doesn't understand why he would be at Wolfram and Hart. Without
Connor, Wesley cannot understand why Angel would accept their
offer.
Season four, Wesley dealt with the events that surrounded his
betrayal of Angel. The mind wipe erased all of that. It not only
erased the betrayal, but how he dealt with it. When it is undone,
the guilt of the betrayal comes back. It is similar to what happened
when Angel is resouled. Wesley now has to find a way to make sense
of everything. To do this, he has to realize that things don't
make sense, we make them make sense. Wesley's two sets of memories
allow him to do this.
There go I, but for the grace of god. Were it not for the events
surrounding Connor, the gang would have been happily playing Jenga.
Wesley can see not only the chain of events, but how that didn't
have to be the chain of events. Wesley believes in prophecy. He
believes in an ordered chain of events that lead to things. He
believe the Loa, that Angel will kill his son. Two sets of memories
show that things didn't have to be that way.
The rape of his mind pales in comparison to this. Wesley, as big
picture guy, understands why Angel did what he did. Wesley realizes
his role in everything and accepts responsibility. He is not going
to blame Angel for what was necessary because Connor was sent
to Quortoth because of Wesley's betrayal. Just as the two memories
show Wesley what life would have been without Connor, Wesley realizes
there are different paths in life. If he had believed in Angel,
Connor wouldn't have been taken to Quortoth and the mind wipe
wouldn't have been necessary.
Wesley starts to realize the power of choice. Angel's choice to
help others to essentialist Wesley shows that Angel is good. Angel's
choices spring from him. The mind wipe and dual memories show
Wesley something else. Season five, Wesley is trying to make sense
of why they are at Wolfram and Hart. It is his actions season
three that explain this. They not only explain that, but why Wesley
is the way he is. His choices don't just show who he is. They
make him who he is. Man makes himself.
This is an important epiphany which allows Wesley to be an existentialist
hero as well. To be an existentialist hero, he has to become an
existentialist. His function on the show prior to this is to contrast
with Angel's existentialism. It takes something drastic like the
mind wipe and dual memories to shake up his world. He is reluctant
to let go of that world.
Wesley: There is no perfect day for me, Illyria. There is no sunset
or painting or finely-aged scotch that's going to sum up my life
and make tonight any... There is nothing that I want.
Fred "represents even part of what you think makes the world
worth fighting for" for Wesley. When she dies, so does Wesley's
perfect day. There is nothing he wants. "The truth is that
Fred is gone. To pretend anything else would be a lie. And since
I don't actually intend to die tonight, I won't accept a lie."
That is the essentialist world. Fred's essence was consumed in
the fire of resurrection. She is gone. Truth and illusion can
be separated. Wesley comments that this is hardest to do in the
world of magics. Illyria tells him in "Origin" that
she cannot tell the difference between "2 sets of memories
those that happened and those that are fabricated." Truth
and illusion. Which is real?
Not only does Wesley understand the power of choice because of
the mind wipe, but he understand the purpose of illusion, "To
endure it," it being the truth. As an essentialist, he still
must pursue the truth and cannot accept a lie. He becomes an existentialist
hero when he decides to accept a lie. He uses his power of choice
to give something meaning.
That is what makes someone an existentialist hero. In a world
that is meaningless, the hero is the one that gives it meaning.
This is the way out of the existential dilemma. It is something
that Connor was unable to do.
Before continuing, a disclaimer is necessary. The Buffyverse is
an incredibly rich place that exists on many levels. For the purposes
of this essay, I am not looking at the psychology of the characters.
I am not looking at their issues beyond how living in an existentialist
world affects them. Connor was irredeemable for important reasons,
but those reasons aren't necessarily important to this essay.
The importance of love and family even though it is one of the
themes of the Buffyverse is not important in and of itself. It
is what Joss choses to use to give things meaning, but that could
be anything. As such, it isn't something I will be discussing
here.
Season two, when Angel finds out there is no great glorious end
to everything, he falls into deep despair and even tries to lose
his soul so he won't care any more. Without a reason for the fight,
Angel has no reason to struggle to be good. What Angel does in
"Epiphany" is create a reason to continue to fight,
"All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because - I don't think
people should suffer, as they do." He makes himself in that
statement and the actions that belief cause him to do. This is
why Angel is the existentialist hero. He temporarily fell into
despair because of the existential dilemma, but he did find his
way out.
The same cannot be said of his son. It can be debated whether
Connor would have eventually found a way. Given the extreme nature
of Connor's upbringing, I would venture to say that we were supposed
to believe that he couldn't. He was one of the few characters
in the Buffyverse that had been damaged to a point where he was
irredeemable. This was so he could be contrasted with Angel and
what he would become after the mind wipe.
Angel found his way out of the existentialist dilemma because
he could find meaning. I have traced the evolution of his epiphanies
which can be found in the May archives, so I am not going to repeat
myself. These epiphanies are what allow Angel to create himself
because he believes things do matter. Season five Angel goes from
being an existentialist hero to THE existentialist hero when he
decides, "when Fred died, I wasn't gonna let that be another
random horrible event in another random horrible world. So I decided
to use it, to make her death matter." He not only gives the
fight meaning, but he takes a random horrible event and gives
it meaning. Connor can't do this.
There is one random horrible event in Connor's life that stands
out above all others, his abduction to Quortoth. That event more
than any other needs to makes sense to Connor. It doesn't. "But
not enough to hang on, dad. You let him take me. You let him get
me. You let him get me." The memory wipe and dual memories
allows him to see beyond this pain and he is finally able to give
this event meaning in a very beautiful moment. "I kinda think
I should. I need to take care of my parents. This isn't their
world. They really don't feel safe here. You gotta do what you
can to protect your family. I learned that from my father."
The memory wipe can be seen as horrible violation of a person's
mind. It is also a great act of love that Angel is willing to
do to protect his family. Not only does he do the mind wipe, but
he is willing to accept Wolfram and Hart's offer of the LA Branch,
thus putting himself in the belly of the beast. Angel is willing
to do what he can to protect his family. Being taken by Holtz
is no longer because Angel didn't love Connor enough to hang on.
It can be seen as what it was, a way to save Connor's life.
Wesley needed the mind wipe in order to put him into the existentialist
mindset. Connor needed the mind wipe in order to get him out of
the existentialist dilemma. The rest of the gang came along for
the ride. Since their stories have little to do with Connor, the
mind wipe didn't affect them that much. The mind wipe, like the
reversal of it in "Origin" was about Wesley and Connor.
Both of their stories allowed them to contrast with Angel as existentialist
hero.
In the end, all three were willing to accept a lie. Wesley died
in the arms of his beloved. Connor went back to his "family."
Angel decided that "for one bright, shining moment, we can
show them that they don't own us" is worth dying for. He
even has to kill truth (Drogyn) himself to do this. He confesses
to Nina, "I know I've spent years fighting to get somewhere...
to accomplish something... and now that I'm close to it... I don't
like what I see, what I am." Angel pushes forward, making
himself with every action. He is fully aware that is what he is
doing. He is becoming somebody.
The existentialist is still human and as such still strives to
understand. We cannot exist without meaning. Meaning creates a
framework for us to act in. Without meaning, without a mission
there is no answer to "Why We Fight." Without an answer,
the fight becomes that much more difficult. Morale is very important.
Angel has been fighting the Senior Partners for 5 seasons. If
there is no great glorious win, why fight?
Angel, being the hero that he is, comes up with a reason. "Maybe
they're not there to be beat. Maybe they're there to be fought.
Maybe fighting them is what makes human beings so remarkably strong...Maybe...
but I keep thinking that once this world was theirs and now it's
not." Angel gives meaning to his existence. Angel gives meaning
to the random horrible event of Fred's death. Angel even gives
meaning to the existence of his enemy. In doing that, he creates
a new meaning for the fight.
His "Epiphany" dealt with people suffering. He didn't
want people to suffer. When he was ineffective in stopping this
suffering, he became an example to show the world what it can
be. All of these are just motivation to act. Angel finally realizes
that is what is important. The existence of the Senior Partners
motivates Angel to act, to fight. In this, he becomes strong.
He becomes something. He makes himself.
Angel realizes something, though. The fight isn't enough. For
his last day on earth, he spends it with his son. As he goes off
to face the full-on-hell that Wolfram and Hart have unleashed
because they have killed every member of the Black Thorn, he tells
Connor to go, "as long as you're okay, they can't" destroy
Angel. It is as beautiful a lie as Wesley dying in Fred's arms.
For accepting all these lies that give their lives and deaths
meaning, thus allowing them to endure the truth that life is meaningless,
Wesley, Connor and Angel become existentialist heroes. By being
aware of the lies, thus consciously making themselves, they become
existentialist heroes. Connor once said, "You can't be saved
by a lie." By realizing that is the only thing that can save
you from the existentialist dilemma, all three go from just existing
in Joss Whedon's angry atheist existential Buffyverse to becoming
heroes. Not just men that are on the hero's journey, but real
heroes.
Replies:
[> This was really cool -- Unitas, 21:52:46 07/15/04
Thu
[> Re: Angel as EXISTENTIAL HERO -- Seven, 15:59:12
07/16/04 Fri
Interesting take on the whole idea. However, I must ask, are you
saying that the meanings that Wes, Connor, and Angel have created
are lies?
"For accepting all these LIES that give their lives and deaths
meaning, thus allowing them to endure the truth that life is meaningless,
Wesley, Connor and Angel become existentialist heroes."
Is this existential? I always liked to think that the meanings
that one creates aren't lies, they are just your perception. No
one can argue with the way one sees something. Is the cup half
full or half empty. It's all how you look at it.
Are Wes, Connor and Angel accepting lies or are they simpy making
the former lies the truth? I think I get what you are saying but
it is almost impossible to say that what was once a lie is now
a truth without fooling oneself. What you said above and what
I said above may be worded slightly differenlty but they are essentially
the same thing just with different spins put to them, which is
almost the point. (Ok, now I confused myself)
7
[> [> I use the word lie in this essay for 3 reasons
-- Lunasea, 09:20:16 07/17/04 Sat
1. It is so much easier than typing "useful fiction"
or "manufactured meaning"
2. I wanted to use the very strong connotations that go with this
word. When everything is a lie, the word actually loses its meaning
and truth itself is redefined. The first thing to go in this redefinition
are these strong negative connotations that go with the word lie.
A lie no longer is a "bad" thing. It is just a thing,
it is all things. The glass is neither empty nor full, let alone
with the designation of "half." The glass just is. The
question becomes is it enough to quench my thirst or water this
plant.
3. It's the word the show has used.
From "Home" You can't be saved by a lie."
From "Power Play" Everything you think you know,
everything you've heard, is a lie."
Lies are so important this season, that one of the characters,
Drogyn, is based on his inability to tell them. Where does this
fit into the plot? This little piece of information is mentioned
more than once, yet it never is needed for the plot. It is needed
for the symbolism. We can dissect this character and his role
in the story and learn more about the 'verse Joss created. What
is the Deeper Wells? Why does it take Drogyn, who cannot tell
a lie, to guard them? What are the Old Ones? What is Illyria?
These things were not important to this year's plot, but are vital
to the Buffyverse.
Also, the importance of the memory wipe wasn't the violation that
the audience wanted avenged. It was the manufactured ones that
are "to endure" the truth. The memory wipe was used
not just to cause Angel pain, but to illustrate the way out of
the existential dilemma and show how life works. It turned Connor
and Wesley into heroes. It mirrored the process that Angel went
through this season. In one brief episode, "Origin"
what Wesley has to go through quickly is an encapsulation of what
Angel goes through in the 17 episodes prior to that. The next
episode "Time Bomb" is what gives Angel his way out.
An interesting thing to note, lie is part of the word believe.
[> My take on your thoughts -- Ender, 18:15:17 07/16/04
Fri
I get what you saying, I really do. But I have some fundamental
disagreements, although Angel does fit into an existential heroic
mold; I don t think that he is the example in the Buffyverse,
much less his show. Certainly Angel has a more blatant existential
theme (his epiphanies and the ambiguity of Jasmine as a former
PTB to name a few); but in its core Angel (the show) reflects,
in my opinion, a want to see the forces that shape the world and
their relation to the actions of individuals. Angel seems to have
a cooperative vision of destiny where those with choice walk the
path of destiny with their eyes open. As Gunn put it, no one can
fix the game- that last shot is always yours to take but maybe
there s a synergy (best word I could think of right now) between
how one chooses and what one is destined to do. This is a tangent
that I didn t mean to get on, but there are theories that try
to incorporate free will and determinism. I like them, but I m
not weildly with the speech-a-fying of them. So I ll move on.
My point is this, although Angel (the show), strongly puts out
the importance of choice and purpose (or lack there of) of choices;
I think that the show hinges on definite distinctions between
Good and Evil, right and wrong, and the involvements of the PTB
and Wolfram and Hart in the lives of those in the Buffyverse.
Remember Angel s final show of defiance to WRH (Angel s free choice)
was a path that, in the least, was set before him to walk with
Cordelia s vision. I think it becomes difficult to argue that
Angel is an existential hero when he is given a vision by the
PTB on the final confrontation with the Black Thorn.
I would argue that Buffy fits the existential hero mold better
than Angel, both in context of show and character. When I think
existential hero, my mind jumps to Niech. s overman. Now maybe
this isn t quite what image one is supposed to conjure when thinking
of an existential hero, but I think that attaining an overman
status is the ultimate accomplishment of existentialist- it is
as heroic as one could get being an existentialist.
Side note- If I m wrong about that, then I think it becomes a
very silly conversation about how to make sense of what an existential
hero is.-
What I would want to say is that Buffy is the character who throws
off all previous definitions given to her about what she is and
recasts her own image in such a way that frees others, as well
as herself (a reference to the calling of all potential slayers).
The act of redefinition came after a speech that prepared the
potentials for the choice that lay before them. This plan of Buffy
s was not the culmination of the machinations of a higher power
(at least not apparently) but was the culmination of her development
as both a slayer and an individual. A development that was marked
by her continued defiance from what she was expected to do to
how she thought life was best lived. Although Buffy was chosen,
I would claim that the destiny that was marked for Buffy found
its culmination with the closing of season five. The last two
years of BTVS was watching what comes after destiny, or better
the realization that purpose and choice coincide to forge the
destiny that the characters must inevitably take. Compare the
two big bads; one: evil that controls the gears to a machine that
is grinding to an inevitable conclusion that, an impersonal evil
(WRH); two: an evil that takes advantage of the opportunities
presented and formulates plans based specifically on the vulnerabilities
of those it is in competition with to the point of becoming that
which can affect the combatants most effectively, completely personal
(the first). The First is the ultimate existential villain, I
think directly poised to combat the ultimate existential hero
Buffy. BTVS is based around the maturation of a girl into a woman,
and common to this type of story is breaking away from the chains
that family friends and society place on the individual. Angel
is based around living in the world as an adult and coming to
see the real divisions and powers in the world, and trying to
come to terms with that through the personal perspective that
we all must view the world through.
But that s just my opinion
[> [> Could someone define what existenialism is?
-- Finn Mac Cool, 21:19:18 07/16/04 Fri
From what I'd heard before, the philosophy in a nutshell was that
life has no meaning. However, Lunasea seems to imply it involves
life, for lack of a better phrase, "sucking on many levels".
Is this an actual part of existentialism, or just something that's
often read into it?
[> [> [> Link to *Existentialism, Mini Lecture #23,
Revisited -- Solitude1056* -- Rufus (never forgets a good
lecture), 01:21:17 07/17/04 Sat
Existentialism,
Mini Lecture #23, Revisited -- Solitude1056, 14:27:56 07/28/03
Mon
You could also query "existentialism" in the archives.
[> [> [> [> We really do need a "best of the
archives" set of links -- Masq, 07:16:01 07/17/04
Sat
[> [> [> [> [> great idea--i'll start! (in a
new thread) -- anom, 21:53:39 07/22/04 Thu
[> [> [> [> Re: Link to *Existentialism, Mini Lecture
#23, Revisited -- Solitude1056* -- Random, 00:58:20 07/20/04
Tue
It does mean that life has no meaning except self-created meaning.
Life sucked for the average peasant in the Middle Ages, but they
weren't existentialist. Indeed, one of the reasons life sucked
-- beyond poverty, starvation, disease, lack of medical facilities,
indadequate shelter, oppression by tyrants, lack of opportunities
for advancement, the ennui of being stuck in one place your whole
life except for pilgrimages or displacement by war, brutal work
environments, illiteracy, et cetera -- was their profound belief
in a world that was filled with evil and pain and the looming
spectre of hell always hanging over them.
The existentialist assigns no actual value to existence. It is
innately meaningless, and suffering is going to happen, but suffering
happens no matter what philosophy you choose.
[> [> [> [> [> oops...meant to reply to Finn
-- Random, 00:59:27 07/20/04 Tue
[> [> [> I like philosophy -- Lunasea, 10:25:42
07/17/04 Sat
From what I'd heard before, the philosophy in a nutshell was
that life has no meaning. However, Lunasea seems to imply it involves
life, for lack of a better phrase, "sucking on many levels".
Is this an actual part of existentialism, or just something that's
often read into it?
In a nutshell, Sartre coined the term to mean this: Existentialism
maintains that in man, and in man alone, existence preceded essence.This
simply means that man first is, and only subsequently is this
or that. In a word, man must create his own essence: it is in
throwing himself into the world, suffering there, struggling there,
that he gradually defines himself. And the definition always remains
open ended: we cannot say what this man is before he dies, or
what mankind is before it has disappeared.
Life has no meaning is an important part of existentialism. Since
life does have no meaning, Viktor Frankl described what can result
as the existential vacuum. This is when the individual falls victim
to the existential dilemma, namely that life has no meaning. Because
of social pressure, individualism is rejected by most people in
favor of conformity. Thus the individual relies mainly upon the
actions of others and neglects the meaning of his own personal
life. Hence he sees his own life as meaningless and falls into
the existential vacuum feeling inner void. Progressive automation
causes increasing alcoholism, juvenile delinquency, and suicide.
Sounds a lot like Connor season 4, doesn't it?
The question has to be asked, why does it take the individual
coming up with some sort of meaning for life (whether that is
through social pressure or invidualism) to avoid this existential
vacuum? Answer is simple, life needs to be coped with somehow.
We need a way to explain things. That's because as Joss puts it
"My life happens to, on occasion, suck beyond the telling
of it. Sometimes more than I can handle." "Everything
here is ... hard, and bright, and violent. Everything I feel,
everything I touch ... this is Hell. Just getting through the
next moment, and the one after that." "Nothing in the
world is the way it ought to be. - It's harsh, and cruel."
That's why we have philosophy, theology and things of this nature.
We are all just trying to find a way to deal with this. This is
an important part to existentialism. If life was wonderful or
even neutral, we wouldn't need meaning. My problem with existentialism,
and why I'm not a pure existentialist, is it takes a very grim
view of humanity. I agree with random horrible events in a random
horrible world. I don't agree with we are not good, generous,
sharing creatures and that we basically remain greedy, manipulative
brats our whole lives.
And stupid me just figured out what the Senior Partners are supposed
to represent. One thing that existentialsm says is that man is
best when we struggle against our nature. That's what the Senior
Partners are in a nutshell. Holland pretty much says as much in
"Reprise." That is what Angel's speech to Lindsey is
about. Since I really don't agree with this, I missed it. Can
someone else go back and do the essay about how Drogyn and the
Senior Partners and the Thorn and such all tie into Existentialism?
I have too much to do today.
[> [> [> [> That's kind of the same problem I've
had -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:54:32 07/17/04 Sat
My personal experience in life has really been a pretty happy
one. I do understand that there are a hell of a lot of people
out there who have it far worse than I do, but I don't see the
concept of "life is hell" holding up if gaining a happy
life becomes an achievable goal (unlike the mythical figures of
Tantalus or Sisyphus, who continued their struggles despite that
fact that they literally could not succeed). However, I do agree
with the prospect of life having no meaning, or at least no higher
meaning. I don't believe in some higher plan, and, while I'm undecided
on the subject of destiny's existence, since no one can ever really
know what destiny has in store, it doesn't really matter. I also
believe in higher powers who do have their own goals and agendas,
but that they are hardly all powerful or all knowing, and they
many times work against each other.
So, yeah, I see no real grand meaning in life; I see things like
beauty, morality, and duty to be simply human constructs, that
before people came around in invented these terms, things like
good and evil, beautiful and ugly, did not exist. However, I view
this as being a really wonderful thing. I don't have to worry
about what my part in the grand, cosmic scheme of things is; I
don't have to worry about what destiny or God/gods/the universe
has in store. I'm free to pursue whatever makes me happy, and
that, I feel, is the personal meaning of life. It's not ordained
from up above, it doesn't fit into any grand plan, but it's all
that matters to me, and, deep down, I think it's the same for
everyone else: to be happy. Nothing matters to the morally and
philosophically neutral universe, so I don't worry about that.
I just worry about myself and the things which bring me happiness
(which includes friendship, love, and the sense of having done
something my moral code deems is right); that's all.
[> [> Re: My take on your thoughts -- StarryNightShade,
06:37:01 07/17/04 Sat
Arguing who fits the existential mold better, Buffy or Angel,
isn't the question here....although it might be one suited for
imploding the mind.
Angel is created when given his soul....his slate is literally
clean since this is a new thing, a vampire with a soul. For 100
years is nearly nothing since he so seldom interacts with the
world...he simply exists. Then he meets Buffy and begins to make
choices that define who he is a someone that cares, a someone
that believes others shouldn't suffer and a someone that is an
example to those that care and also those that don't care. Essentially
he is never human, but existentially he has become human, in my
view, through his interactions with humans. The vision of Cordelia
is not telling what his essence is but to open his eyes so that
he has choice. Before this vision he sees no choice.
While there is the PTB and W&H which try to define good and evil...S2
and Jasmine blow that apart. S6 that Joss intended was to have
shown that blowing up W&H solved nothing - Angel was to have dealt
with the post-apoloyptic world.
The question in existentialism of "from whence comes the
guidance for our choice" is a good one that can be debated.
Perhaps it's chance...it's chance that Angel decided to go and
see Buffy called, it's chance that he fell in love with her (it
wasn't intended by the PTB) and was influenced by her value of
caring, Buffy puts the option before Angel die as a monster or
choose to fight.
Examined closely there is no predetermined desting, but a series
of choices - some intended by the PTB and some not.
There is another example of an existential hero, which is Spike.
Here is an example of an individual that decides through his experiences
what he is to be and then makes his essence as such. Through his
interactions with Angel and Buffy, he decides to be "a vampire
with a soul". This is in my opinion the seminal statement
of Spike in Tabula Rasa. In this episode Joss applies the mind
wipe to his characters, but ultimately they must fall back on
some core experience that was unconcious but still accessible.
This is clear in Spike's statement in no way at this point could
he fall back on is essence and make that statement...it's a statement
that can only come through his experiential interactions. Having
at an unconscious level made this decision he by the end of S6
makes his essence so...a vampire with a soul. So, Spike denies
his essence and though his experience chooses a new one.
People have debated whether or not Spike has suffered enough for
his past sins...in a way he doesn't since Angel has already done
this. Spike benefits from Angel's experience though his interaction
with Angel...something so wonderfully explored in S5 of Angel.
The Angel-Spike interaction is a further example of Joss's existential
views and properly understood should undercut all of the who's
better Angel or Spike debate out there.
SNS
[> [> [> The Angel and the Devil -- Lunasea, 10:53:10
07/17/04 Sat
I'm not allowed to talk about Spike, so I'll just move onto the
PTBs v Senior Partners. It's a cliche, the angel on one shoulder
advising us and the devil on the other tempting us. These are
just projections of what some consider to be basic human nature.
That is all the PTBs and the Senior Partners are on the show,
just an externalization of basic human nature. Both sides resist
the label of good and evil. It is we that do that in an attempt
to pigeon hole them so we can understand them.
Jasmine is the ultimate existential villain. Her crime is to remove
free will. Harm is a hard one to use to measure good/evil on because
random horrible events in a random horrible world get in the way
of the best intentions. It isn't about bringing paradise to people,
but devouring them both literally and existentially by removing
free will.
Jasmine whispers in the ear "do for others." It's not
about what you give up, even if that is free will. It is about
saving a world from drowning in its own blood. Angel's mission
is to save the souls of others.
The Senior Partners give him something more personal. We like
to give the PTBs halos and the Senior Partners horns, but each
side can be twisted when taken to extremes.
Humanity is a big ball of conflicting instincts. We have ones
that lead us to help others and ones that lead us to help ourselves.
Both the PTBs and the Senior Partners are projections of this.
I will say that I didn't understand Tabula Rasa until fairly recently.
The characters minds are wiped, but not their feelings. This is
necessary for Willow and Tara to kiss, the important plot point
of that episode. Even though the characters lose their memories,
they still have their feelings. Buffy still cares about Dawn.
Xander is still a horn dog. Willow still wants to be loved and
is attracted to Tara. These feelings aren't somehow intrinsic,
but they aren't affected by the spell. That is why Spike doesn't
want to bite Buffy. Then he sets about making sense of this. Being
a vampire with a soul makes about as much sense as falling in
love with Buffy in OOMM, but that's Spike. He admits that he doesn't
think with the right head.
[> [> [> [> Re: The Angel and the Devil --
SNS, 12:44:24 07/17/04 Sat
Good and evil - is there such a thing as a Jungian existentialist?
Or is this a contradictory statement?
Is good and evil a learned construct (experiential), because much
of what we label good or evil seems to be social dependent. There
may still be some core concept of good and evil which is celluar
/ genetic. In any event by the time we are able to make choices
of "free will" we have already eaten of the tree of
knowledge of good and evil. As I understand it much of the Jungian
spiritual journey is to understand that most of the good and evil
construct we have is a lie...we have to redeem the evil (i.e.
learn that there is a good side to the evil) and sully the good
(i.e. learn the evil that comes from the good). Doing this is
indeed a struggle against our very nature - and since it is against
ourselves there can be no victory - only struggle.
This seems a lot like what you've described. So, is Joss a Jungian
Existentialistic Athiest?
[> [> [> [> [> Hard to say -- Lunasea, 09:43:02
07/18/04 Sun
a big portion of Jungian thought is the Collective Unconscious
and the archetypes. It is hard to say whether the psychic counterpart
to instinct has a place in Existential thought.
Dr. Jung very much did believe in evil and considered himself
a Christian. He is an interesting contradiction and this carries
over to many of his theories. I'm about as much a Jungian as I
am an Existentialist. I believe most of the main points, but have
serious problems with a few, enough that I cannot be considered
an actual Jungian. (Then again, I agree with Dr Jung when he said
"Thank God I'm not a Jungian) It would be like considering
myself Catholic without accepting the entire Profession of Faith
as it is meant.
When I'm feeling better, I'll get into what I consider human nature
and where I diverge from the Existentialists and maybe even Joss.
I will say that NO animal can go against his nature. It is impossible.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hard to say --
SNS, 10:21:21 07/18/04 Sun
I'm about as much a Jungian as I am an Existentialist.
I quite sympathise with that statement; and actually would never
want to settle for any philosophy or belief system no matter how
well articulated or established - maybe, particularly if established.
For that would say, "yup, found the truth, here it is...no
more mystery to the universe". Pretty darn dull way to live.
One very legitimate criticism of many pure approaches like Jungianism
(I can't believe I put a word like that in a sentence) is it far
too often ignores social activism, which in the past has achieved
many things - such as allowing many of us time in which we can
do things like about philosophy instead struggle to survive.
SNS
[> [> We can argue Buffy v Angel -- Lunasea, 09:59:48
07/17/04 Sat
Right now, I am talking about Angel, since it was his show that
just wrapped up. I can write a similar essay for Buffy. I actually
find Angel's story to be more blantantly existentialist, and not
just because Angel reads Sartre. For me, both shows boil down
to a few wonderful lines: "Look, we don't have a lot of time
here, so I'm gonna have to make this short. Everything you think
you know, everything you've heard, is a lie... Because I'm the
one who told it. Read any good books lately?" Buffyverse
in a nutshell. I wrote an essay about this when the show ended,
but I think people were too much in shock/grief to be able to
discuss the show much. It can be found in the May Archives here.
So basically, for 8 years we have a wonderful story told to us.
Buffy and Angel really aren't separate stories, just different
parts that eventually would have to be brought back together.
That story as I tell here
and especially here
is about the Prayer of St. Francis which ended "Grave."
It is about finding what in life is important and putting ourselves
aside for that.
(excuse me for linking past essays. I've written about this stuff
so much over the last year and a half, that at this point, I'm
mainly just repeating myself)
That is the story that Joss is telling. There is still the existentialist
in him that knows this is just a story. Not just the fiction that
is Buffy and Angel, but that there actually is something important
in life. It is we that make it important. That is why Angel's
"Epiphany" is incomplete.
The Good and Evil of the Buffyverse provide the characters something
important. They provide a choice. Free will is so important, that
removing it, either as Jasmine did or as Willow did with the mind
wipes, is considered to be a cardinal sin. Free will doesn't mean
anything without choices. Angel needs the temptation of Wolfram
and Hart and the visions of the PTBs in order to choose what he
will be. An evil person cannot be considered an existentialist
hero, because an evil person takes away the free will of others.
Angel made a point of letting the gang chose whether they were
in on this final battle. This contrasts with what he did in "Home."
If anything, it was how evil was handled on the show that leads
me to say that Angel is an existentialist universe. Joss' writing
illustrates Sartre so well. The essay that I originally was going
to write was called "The Problem of Evil: An Atheist's Exploration
of the Existence of Evil."
The fun part of exploring Joss exploration is that he is human.
As such he has standard human weakness. He still needs to give
things meaning, thus we get the wonderful Buffyverse. He still
needs to understand why things are they way they are. Thus we
get a reason for the existence of the Senior Partners, "'Cause
it's not about us, Lindsey. It's about them. The wolf. The ram.
The hart. The ones we've been fighting against forever. ... Maybe
they're not there to be beat. Maybe they're there to be fought.
Maybe fighting them is what makes human beings so remarkably strong."
Angel does all this. He is Roquetin trying to figure out existence
and essence. His very quest is about what he is, what is his essence.
His physical state makes this an very important question. Is he
his essence, his demonic urges? Is he his horrible past? Or is
it as Sartre said "This simply means that man first is, and
only subsequently is this or that. In a word, man must create
his own essence: it is in throwing himself into the world, suffering
there, struggling there, that he gradually defines himself. And
the definition always remains open ended: we cannot say what this
man is before he dies, or what mankind is before it has disappeared."
Angel is conscious of all this. I don't believe Buffy necessarily
is. Buffy's story is the importance of family and friends. For
that she rises to heroic levels. Her story demonstrates existentialism,
but without being aware (which is harder for an extrovert) of
what is going on, I'd say that she still has a bit more before
she become THE existentialist hero. This awareness is what makes
Angel one, IMO. Rather than just illustrate the way out of the
existentialist dilemma, he realizes it.
[> [> [> Re: We can argue Buffy v Angel -- Ender,
17:40:23 07/17/04 Sat
I m going to clarify a bit; I think that you are right in reading
Angel as the existential hero. This is the more obvious (I don
t mean that in a bad way at all) interpretation and certainly
the show puts that existential message more blatantly, most of
the time, then BTVS. Here s the thing, I have a habit of making
my interpretations harder on myself than I should have to. In
writing there seems to be three levels; what s written, what the
author meant, and what s written combined with what the author
meant put into perspective with everything else. I usually try
and play between 2 and 3, but unfortunately it makes me unclear
most of the time. So not to tangent to much, I think one can just
look at what ATS is saying up-front, or what Joss says up-front
about himself and his beliefs; but I think that a valid perspective
is to put both in a pot, stir, and add heat to see what you get.
Watch Angel, when presented with a choice or challenge he tends
to choose within the bounds given to him. Presented with the choice
between killing Cordy or letting her apocalyptic baby into the
world, he stays within the bounds of the choices presented to
him and chooses to kill Cordy. Now certainly there are instances
one can site where Angel makes his own way, like at the end of
Double or Nothing, but it seems to me that Angel s most heroic
quality is his ability to deal with the crap that the machines
of destiny throw at him. He takes his cursed unlife and becomes
a person, he takes Fred s untimely death and makes it into a catalyst
for the destruction of the Black Thorn, he takes lemons and makes
lemonade. But it strikes me that this isn t Angel trying to figure
out what he is composed of, what s prior to what essence or existence,
but instead the march of fate throwing curve balls and figuring
out how he is going to have to hit them- he s still playing the
game, trying to score points. He never gives that up. What Angel
is concerned with is his own motivations, the why for his actions,
but never does he think that the line of distinction between right
and wrong is an arbitrary one. Even Angelus saw the distinction
clearly; he just was motivated towards evil. Consider Jasmine
s last speech to Angel
JASMINE: No. No, Angel. There are no absolutes. No right and wrong.
Haven't you learned anything working for the Powers? There are
only choices. I offered paradise. You chose this!
Now this falls to what you were saying at first glance, but Angel
s reply I think is important here
ANGEL: Because I could. Because that's what you took away from
us. Choice.
I believe that this has a dual meaning, you might say that this
represents the ultimate existential threat- the loss of free will.
But I must ask, what is the true importance of free will? Why
is it so damned important? I don t remember Sartre that well on
this subject, but I seem to remember that free will is the most
fundamental thing that makes us human- it s the spark of nothingness
that is not subject to the whims of the universe and our exercising
of it is what makes us what we are. Ok, I m down with that. But
I have another take; free will is also something that falls in
the good category. To take it away doesn t just deny humans their
fundamental core, instead it is bad act to deny it. That s why
Jasmine is ultimately evil; it s not her motivations but what
she does that is fundamentally flawed. Jasmine does evil. Free
will= good, loss of free will=bad.
Angel sees the distinctions between good and bad, and is dealing
with it when confronting Jasmine but denying the peace she offered.
Now again I turn to Buffy, first I don t know if one must be cognitively
aware of existentialism in the way you want to suggest to be an
existentialist hero. It s an interesting thought, but I think
there is a slippery slope in suggesting that one must be aware
in particular ways in order to realize that there is no particular
way one must think. Beyond that, I would say that Buffy is the
character that is most existentially aware. Look at her interaction
with the first slayer s thoughts on what it is to be a slayer;
this is what a slayer is alone, a killer, and not an individual
but more an amalgam of the previous girls with demon essence wedged
into the body of some potential girl who could have been any of
them. But Buffy rejects it by saying no; a slayer is what I make
of it and not what you dictate to me. Look at her interactions
with the watchers council, outward defiance of what they expected
her to be. Her interactions with Caleb are probably the best,
in a more subtle way. Caleb was a perversion of the Christian
vision as woman as the corruptor with original sin and sex as
an act of sin. Caleb believed that in the same way that woman
is held responsible for bringing death and evil into the world
with the fruit of knowledge, Buffy s resurrection from the grave
would be responsible for bringing the onslaught of the Trurok-hans
that would result in death and evil being brought into the Buffyverse.
Buffy turns that on its ear and instead becomes mother to a whole
new generation of slayers. My point, Buffy defies what others
would cast her as. She is the creator. Unlike Angel whose skill
lies in dealing with the cards given to him, Buffy s will becomes
a tool the world seemingly bends around. Given the choice between
Armageddon and Dawn, Angel probably would have sucked it up and
killed Dawn, but Buffy breaks the rules and ends it her own way.
Talk about will-to-power. Same diff with the finale, Buffy s will
becomes a catalyst that results in the breaking of rules set down
generations ago. It seems to me that Buffy is a stronger existential
hero than Angel.
[> [> Analyzing Whedonverse, Existentialism, Objectivism
BTVS/ATS (Spoilers ATS 5) -- shadowkat, 14:42:28 07/17/04
Sat
I agree that Buffy herself is probably closer to an existentialist
hero. Someone who reacts to the randomness of events, not seeing
them as planned by a higher being nor seeing her own part in the
events as necessarily pre-ordained. She sees life as how you yourself
decide to live it and everyone, or at least everyone with a soul,
should be granted that choice. Buffy rebels actively against predestination,
while Angel seems to want it, at least to start with, he moves
away from that desire as the series progresses.
I tend to agree with Lunasea that ATS and BTVS were not all about
the hero's journey and that existentialism did lie at the root
of many of the stories. On BTVS - Spike felt at times like the
existentialist hero, the man who was interested in becoming himself.
(Although he seems to have found religion and fate along the way,
possibly coming to his own epiphany to believe in being the maker
of his own fate in a hopelessly random universe, where God may
or may not exist, but hell most definitely does? It s up to him
to fight going there or at least choose how he ends up there?)
I'm not so sure about Angel at the beginning - I think he may
have come to that epiphany towards the end. What we may see here
is more of a journey towards existentialism than a journey that
is about existentialism. Yes, Angel is reading Sartre, but there
is no indication he understands it or even adopts Sartre s philosophy,
if anything he may be struggling with it just as Whedon may in
fact be struggling with it.
Existentialism is a tough concept to wrap one's mind around. It's
a bit like quicksliver - slips through your fingers. In watching
Whedon's commentary for Objects in Space, I was struck by the
fact that Whedon himself wasn't quite sure what it meant. Sure
he d read a few things here and there, but nothing in depth. So
it makes it a bit hard to write a story around it. The 1960s TV
show THE PRISONER was also an experiment in existentialism and
has often been compared with Whedon's series, but unlike Whedon
s shows, Patrick McGooghan who created the Prisoner was interested
in spoofing a particular genre and discussing a particular philosophy.
The idea that there is no meaning for objects outside the meaning
we ourselves give on them. The struggle people may have with it
- I think - is the desire to impose structure and rules upon a
concept that may be the opposite? Impose meaning. Which isn t
really existentialism so much as objectivism. Perhaps my own understanding
is on the foggy side. Or better yet a morality. This is the struggle
many essayists and viewers have with BTVS and ATS - the desire
to impose a moral structure on fictional characters and fictional
universe. If it doesn t meet these rules, it does not work. Or
if the character doesn t adhere to certain moral codes, he cannot
be redeemed or we have to find a way to excuse him. Many viewers
struggled with Angel s actions in S4-S5 ATS, actions they found
morally repugnant. How do you keep an anti-hero a hero or resolve
the issue that he may in fact be both or neither? Particularly
when you've been taught to categorize things and impose structure.
The problem with ATS and BTVS is that Whedon wasn't interested
in telling a structured straightforward tale that could be pigeon-holed.
He wanted to tell what was in his head and folded many genres
and ideas he'd read or thought about in it as well as subsconcious
musings. He did not do what Patrick McGooghan did with The Prisoner
series and set out to spoof one genre and deal with one philosophy.
He had many ideas as did his writers, and he encouraged them to
explore them through the tv shows he created. So when we attempt
to impose a structure on ATS or BTVS, we lose it. And also lose
the point of the work - which was of course pure entertainment
and joy.
Another related issue, I see here, is perhaps the confusion between
Objectivism and Existentialism? The objectivist wants to impose
his own sense of control on the universe - mold it in his hands
like clay. Control his own reality like many alleged existentialists
I knew in college, and Willow in BTVS. If Buffy is the existentialist,
Willow may very well be the objectivist. She imposes her control
on her reality. I Am JOHN GAULT, I control my reality, my universe.
He is "god", or is that Nietzsche? Philosophy confuses
me at times. There's so much overlap or at least there seems to
be. Angelus in some ways is the ultimate Objectivist, and Angel
too - the desire to control his world. Yet both learn, as in fact
did Willow, that this is impossible in a universe of random events
and uncontrollable variables. To attempt to do so results in one
of two possible ends destruction of the universe darkWillow in
Grave, or destruction of oneself, Angelus possibly in Becoming.
Angelus learns through his spat with the Immortal, the Master,
and finally the gypsy curse (which ultimately proves to Angelus
that he is not master of his fate and cannot control his world),
and Angel through visions, Jasmine, WR&H, Buffy, and Illyria
that the amount of control we have is limited. Too many variables.
The best you can do in the end is well keep on trucking. Accept
what happens, yet not let it go without meaning. Sort of what
Wes does with Fred/Illyria - he allows Illyria to lie to him,
which makes them both feel better. He accepts Fred is gone, but
he also allows the lie. Just as Connor accepts what Angel did
with the mindwipe and who he once was, yet also allows the lie
to continue. It's not giving up - it's more a realistic almost
religious honoring of the randomness of their universe and their
own inability to control it, yet at the same time an ability to
affect in some small way. ie. We can't change the fact that we
are alcoholics, but we can change how we cope with it?
Regarding Angel s own journey I think he is on the existentialist
journey, but is not an existentialist himself. I think he lives
in an existentialist universe, but up until recently viewed it
as anything but. Remember we are in his point of view, so we see
what he sees, just as we were in Buffy s pov and saw what she
did. He s not an existentialist to start, but he becomes one over
time, struggling with it, yet also struggling with other philosophical
and religious disciplines at the same time, as is and are the
writers. If you look closely, you can see elements of Buddhism,
Christianity, Foucault, Plato, Nietzche, Existentialism and Objectivism
in the series partly because these are issues the writers themselves
may be struggling with. And when we analyze, we ourselves project
what we are struggling with on to the text, it s impossible, I
think not to. Which is why these shows are so much fun to post
on.
Regarding Angel s moral issues? I think Angel tried to be Superman,
but in reality he's Batman. One of the interesting metaphors of
Season 5 ATS was the corruption of innocence. We see it in Conviction
with Fries and his son, Just Rewards - with the corspes of humans
being infected by demons, Unleashed - Nina, Fred with Illyria,
Damage with Dana, Destiny - the corruption of William by Dru and
Angelus, Why We Fight - corruption of Lawson, the corruption of
Gunn with the implants, and of course Smile Time with the children.
The question is why was that such a heavy metaphor? Well, what
was Angelus' modus operandi from the beginning of BTVS? Corrupting
innocence. His work of art was Dru. Angelus got off on remaking
or corrupting someone. It's what Holtz does to Angel's son, Connor,
and it's what Angelus does to Holtz' daughter. It's the shadow
that Angel lives with - and it may be why WR&H is his biggest
nemesis - like Angelus, WR&H cares most about two things: corrupting
the innocent and control. Angel in attempting to take down WR&H or
even entering it - may in fact be dealing with his alter-ego Angelus.
Hope that made sense. Going back to lurking now.
SK
[> [> [> This is a really fascinating conversation!
-- Jane, 21:52:20 07/17/04 Sat
I'm not exactly sure where I stand on this issue, because I honestly
don't think I understand it well enough to make a decision. I
find bits of what feels truthful in all the above posts, and I
think I find S'Kat's post to be closest to what I think. Clear
as mud, I know, but that's how my brain is right now. Really interesting
discussion, everyone!
[> [> Regarding that last bit of your post... --
shadowkat, 22:04:34 07/17/04 Sat
Coming out of lurkdom again, with a little addendium separate
from my other post in this same thread, hope you don't mind.
BTVS is based around the maturation of a girl into a woman,
and common to this type of story is breaking away from the chains
that family friends and society place on the individual. Angel
is based around living in the world as an adult and coming to
see the real divisions and powers in the world, and trying to
come to terms with that through the personal perspective that
we all must view the world through.
I agree. One deals with the journey of youth to adulthood, the
other with coping with what lies in adulthood. In which case,
both are existentialist in their own ways. They just come at it
differently. Angel's journey in some respects starts at the end
of Buffy's.
Angel is an interesting character - he starts out as Liam a young
man who is struggling with his father's desire to control his
world when he believes he should control it, then becomes a soulless
Vampire, whose means of coping with his universe is by corrupting
and controlling things, imposing himself on them. He can't ever
have them as he tells William, but he can certainly affect them.
He can impose his reality upon them. A sort of dark version of
the character in Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. I control my reality,
I do what I want. Then along comes a couple of set-backs, The
Immortal, The Master, and of course the gypsey curse. Someone
else can impose their reality on Angelus and he has no choice,
no control, and no hand in it. To cope with this - he wanders
in what he considers a meaningless universe of pain and misery
and no hope. Then he meets Buffy and sees hope in her eyes. He
begins to think the universe has a pattern, a plan, meaning. It's
not what he imposes on it. The snow in Amends, gives him hope
that he is part of that pattern, that someone is in charge. So
when he moves over to his own series (LA) he sees the Powers and
the SP in control. It's who controls the universe. It's a coping
mechanism. But through the seasons that view begins to deterioate
and degrade, the visions are more random and their result never
clear. Whose controlling the visions is equally unclear - is it
the PTB, Jasmine, The SP's, or WR&H? Or all of the above?
Angel begins to realize that while there is a pattern to things,
there may be no one in control of it, and the variables are too
numerous for him to even try to grasp it all - all he can do is
try his best, make a dent, control his own reactions and give
meaning to the objects in front of him - not control them, just
interact with them. This is different from Angelus who wishes
to control what he interacts with. And it is different from Angel
early on who lets himself be caught up in the flow and relinquishes
all control and doesn't interact at all. In an existential universe
the best we can do is control our own reactions and our own view
of reality and accept the limitations of that.
Of course Whedon and Company are writing a story not a parable
or lesson on how to deal with an existentialist world. So it's
not that neat. Angel does the mindwipe - which is confusing -
since it is controlling ones reality by creating one, yet at the
same time imposing on others. Moving into objectivism there, possibly.
And clearly not a view ME is in complete agreement with, since
it has both negative and positive results. Also there's a price
- Angel is not in control of all the variables, just a few strands.
I can't help but wonder if this is ME's way of, maybe subconsciously,
commenting on those college existentialists view that we can control
our own reality. Whedon I know struggled with that - thinking,
oh existentialism, random universe where I give meaning to the
objects in space, or wait impose my meaning on them? Does this
mean I control my reality like controlling a dream? So he plays
with the idea - first with Willow and magic, then with Angel and
the mindwipe - proving that no we cannot impose our views onto
reality and control it that way without serious consequences.
He also explores it with Early and River in Objects in Space (see
commentary in the archives). The best we can do is choose how
we interact with it or look at it.
Switching to Buffy, things are a little neater. (The journey from
youth to adulthood is bound to be neater than the exploration
of living in an adult world, structually speaking.) Buffy starts
out in a world of prophecy and presdestination, she ends in a
world that nothing is known, the variables are uncertain, actions
random, and it is up to her to determine how to interact with
it and cope. To give her credit, she seems to start out from the
perspective that life is random and it is up to me to make it
work, no one is going to save me, there is no destiny, or clear
meaning, I need to determine what works from the materials I'm
given. That's a little more existentialist than Angel, who has
a buddy with Visions and Oracles to consult and all sorts of prophecies,
which he seems to buy into until later seasons. On the surface,
Buffy's world may seem more existential than Angel's - but that's
just point of view, in Angel's world - having or not having a
soul doesn't necessarily make one good or evil. You could be a
good and be a demon. In Buffy's up until possibly Season 4, if
you were a demon you were evil. They break down that structure
as the series progresses, possibly using the break down as a means
of showing the transistion from youth to adulthood. Just as the
religious symbolism changes somewhat as we move forward - so that
in later seasons our villians are not demons, but a man who wants
to be a demon, a God, and a former priest. Each view that the
heroine at one point or another holds to be self-evident is broken
down - the view you can only be good with a soul, the view that
if you have a soul you aren't evil, the view that you can trust
authority...so on. It becomes in effect about making your own
decisions based on your own experience, interpreting your reality
- not relying on someone else to do it for you, which is what
Buffy does in Chosen - she interprets her reality and chooses
how to view her world and how to live in it, she does not let
others choose for her. She chooses her own adventure. Instead
of being chosen by someone else, she does the choosing as do all
the other characters with her - they choose. Same thing at the
end of ATS, Angel doesn't choose for them, they choose how to
cope and how to live and how to see their existence. That I think
is the existentialism at play.
- shadowkat
[> If y'all want to talk about Buffy -- Lunasea, 09:34:16
07/18/04 Sun
My wrists hurt a lot right now, so I really can't write long responses
or start a new essay. I do want to say one thing.
What I wrote was a look at one particular series, Angel, and how
the mindwipe and Fred's death played into turning Wesley, Connor
and Angel into existential hero, with Angel being THE existential
hero because he was aware of what he was doing. I did not say
this to put down Buffy or her role as hero. I did not even mention
Buffy (or Spike) in the original essay. My sole purpose was to
discuss how Angel ended from the perspective of Existentialism,
the stated philosophy of its creator. I have seen much criticism
of season 5 and much of that stems from looking at it from perspectives
they weren't writing it from. I was trying to show how brilliant,
wonderful and beautiful the season was.
We can compare Buffy and Angel to try and determine which is the
"better" existential hero. I see little value in this.
IMO, Angel strips away the lies/illusions more, so he has more
to cope with/rise above, which IMO makes him not just an
existential hero, but THE existential hero. The purpose
of Buffy is to strengthen the illusion, so as such, she is limited
in what she can see. Buffy does not discuss her epiphanies, so
we are left to speculate exactly what they are. What did Buffy
figure out in "The Gift" that made her smile? What did
Buffy figure out in "Grave" that led to her speech to
Dawn? What is she thinking at the end of "Chosen"? She
doesn't have a Kate or Cordy or Lindsey to speechify to. Instead,
her epiphanies are often just a change in expression.
That is because that isn't part of Buffy's story. The epiphanies
aren't what are important. What is important are the lies. Buffy,
for me, is the what and Angel is the why. That's why as much as
I love Buffy, it is Angel that makes me write and write and write
until my wrists hurt. I was trying to convey this.
Another quick note. For those that are interested in finding out
what Objectivism is, I recommend The
Ayn Rand Institute. I see no way the shows support this philosophy
which states point blank in Rand's own words:
1. Reality exists as an objective absolute facts are facts,
independent of man s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material
provided by man s senses) is man s only means of perceiving reality,
his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his
basic means of survival.
3. Man every man is an end in himself, not the means to the ends
of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing
himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit
of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is
the highest moral purpose of his life.
Another term used to describe Rand's Objectivism is Ethical Egoism.
It still makes my skill crawl. Greed is good. Blech, blech, blech
and double blech.
[> [> Re: If y'all want to talk about Buffy -- SNS,
10:27:06 07/18/04 Sun
My wrists hurt a lot right now
Consider one darned stern look sent your way. Now, stay off that
keyboard.....and if you're reading this you've got a 2nd darned
stern look.
[> Angel - what kind of hero is he? -- Caroline, 18:26:03
07/18/04 Sun
Wes stopped being an existential hero when he accepted the lie.
He was an existential hero while he was assuring Illyria of his
moral and ethical stance concerning the authenticity of experience
and being (in the existential sense of dasein) and not
living with the lie. He ceased to become that hero when he accepted
the lie. Wes sure did create meaning but he didn't create an authentic
experience, he didn't engage morally in his own experience. In
fact, he rejected it.
Angel, too, ceased to be an existential hero. He may still be
considered heroic in that he continued to commit brave and courageous
deeds but the way those deeds were done was morally compromised
and Angel refused to engage with the meaning of his actions in
an ethical sense. He decided that this is what needs to be done
and the cost is worth it - the mind-wipe, the killing of friends
and former enemies. He inauthenticated everyone's experience,
everyone's being-in-the-world, everyone's existence with the mind-wipe.
It completely wipes out the meaning of dasein, of existential
being. By refusing to engage morally with himself and his experience,
by accepting lies and inauthentic experience, by nullifying the
existence of others, he ceases to be existential.
[> [> Re: Angel - what kind of hero is he? -- SNS,
05:17:53 07/19/04 Mon
That's certainly one view.
In the season finale we do not necessarily know what moral engagement
is occuring, firstly, due to the need to conclude the entire series.
It well may have been different with a S6. Secondly, there is
the attempted plot twist of "is Angel going to turn evil
and join the Circle", which doesn't allow exploration of
motive.
As far as Drogyn is concerned, here's the dilemma:
Your enemies have you and a friend in captivity. If you kill your
friend, which will be a relativley quick death, they will not
harm you and you live to fight. If you don't kill your friend
they will torture and kill the both of you; and they will be free
to harm others. What is your choice?
Angel explained it that way. You can accept or reject that explanation.
Personally, I like the choice being presented this way as it truly
reflects the "no clear morally clean" situations of
real life. Far too often in our movies they almost always arrange
it so that the hero is never seen to have to make morally "icky"
choices.
The genre of the story has a lot of excessive killing. To understand
it in our world we have to recast the situation. Imagine if your
are a former Greenpeace staff member working for Shell. An executive
befriends you and supports you. You offer loyalty to this executive.
Later you find out that she is promoting a plan to destroy a pristine,
irreplacable habitat, but you also have information that will
stop that project. However it will compromise your friend, who
will likely lose her job. This is a plausible real life situation
without the killing of the horror genre. What do you do?
Because I haven't seen most of S5, I won't discuss Lindsey at
this time.
SNS
[> [> Since I am still ouchie -- Lunasea, 05:48:52
07/19/04 Mon
and no more stern looks. I'm being good, just can't quite go cold
turkey. This is a VERY quick rebuttal.
Daesin (nice pretty German word that it is) is used by Heidegger
to deal with his inability to accept Kierkegaard's premise that
being defines itself. As a scientist, Heideggar could not accept
this paradox. Daesin is not integral to existentialism. It is
part of phenomenology. The two philosophies are often confused.
The Buffyverse questions just what is an "authentic experience."
Dawn is considered authentic. Why? Because Joyce and Buffy feel
she is. "The Gift" and "Grave" are based on
this. Are you saying that Buffy's actions are invalidated because
they are based on inauthentic experience? Dawn is no more real
than Illyria pretending to be Fred is.
None of this negates the particular existential question that
Joss explored, namely how to cope with an existential universe.
By the finale, the mind wipe is no longer an issue. Instead it
has allowed Connor to escape from his pain long enough to find
meaning. It has allowed Wesley not to see the chain of event long
enough to see that things are random. They all accept lies, since
this is a meaningless world, the act of even giving it meaning
is a lie. This act is necessary in order to avoid the existential
dilemma that Connor fell prey to season 4.
You can define hero your way, if you choose. That hero cannot
exist, since we are all bound by a random horrible world that
we have to cope with. We cope with lies and inauthentic experiences.
[> [> Re: Angel - what kind of hero is he? -- SNS,
06:40:35 07/19/04 Mon
This quote is from the "Courage to Be" by Paul Tillich:
"Existentialism as it appeared in the 20th century represents
the most vivid and threatening meaning of existential . In it
the whole development comes to a point beyond which it cannot
go. It has become a reality in all the countries in the Western
world. It is expressed in all the realms of man s spiritual creativity,
it penetrates all educated classes. It is not the invention of
a Bohemian philosopher or a neurotic novelist; it is not a sensational
exaggeration made for the sense of profit and fame; it is not
a morbid play with negativities. Elements of all these have entered
it, but it itself is something else. It is the expression of the
anxiety of meaninglessness and of the attempt to take this anxiety
into the courage to be as oneself.
Recent existentialism must be considered from these two points
of view. It is not simply individualism of the rationalistic or
romantic or naturalistic type. In distinction to these preparatory
movements it has experienced the universal breakdown of meaning.
Twentieth-century man has lost a meaningful world and self which
lives in meanings out of a spiritual center. The man-created world
of objects has drawn into itself him who created it and who now
loses his subjectivity in it. He has sacrificed himself to his
own productions. But man is still aware of what he has lost or
is continuously losing. He is still man enough to experience his
dehumanization as despair. He does not know a way out but he tries
to save his humanity by expressing the situation as without an
exit . He reacts with the courage of despair, the courage to take
his despair upon himself and to resist the radical threat of non-being
by the courage to be as oneself. Every analyst of present day
Existentialist philosophy, art, and literature can show their
ambiguous structure: the meaningless which drives to despair,
a passionate denunciation of this situation, and the successful
or unsuccessful attempt to take the anxiety of meaninglessness
into the courage to be as oneself."
From this it is clear that Angel has followed the path described:
1) meaninglessness which drives to despair
2) a passionate denunciation of this situation
3) the successful or unsuccessful attempt to take on the anxiety
of meaninglessness into the courage to be as oneself
[> [> [> The genesis of the existential hero.
-- Random, 23:27:06 07/19/04 Mon
The problem here is that this is basically a sanitized and inspirational
concept of existentialism. What we are looking at is a curious
synthesis of Nietszche's phenomenology of the spirit and Camus'
Sisyphean ethic of affirmation in futility. Basically, this is
an antifoundationalist perspective -- though a rather cheap one
which doesn't address the metanarratives with any particular depth.
It's an interesting perspective, but examining Angel in these
terms reveals certain discrepancies regarding the essential (as
in Satre's famous proclamation that "existence precedes essence")
Angel in existentialist terms.
The existentialist universe is a construct. Period. There is no
objective meaning, no point to it all. It is here that both AtS
the series and Angel himself continue to stumble. Existentialism
is not simply despair and renewal. Nor is it a rebellion
against an ethic or higher purpose. Angel never really abandons
his hope for salvation until the very end. He clings to shanshu,
he takes comfort from Cordelia's enigmatic reassurances in "You're
Welcome," he struggles to bring down W&H, in Connor's
survival...in short, he fights the good fight against malicious
enemies.
The existentialist hero doesn't.
The crux of the matter lies in the fact that W&H gives meaning
to Angel's universe. When he signs away his shanshu (note, not
his redemption, simply his reward) he simply shifts his focus
from becoming human to destroying his enemy. The fact that he
knows he can't win is no more a fundamentally existentialist concept
than the Trojans holding the bridge to the last man. All glory
and honor to him for his sacrifice and willingness to die for
nothing more than the right to assert his individuality, but the
existential dilemma is more complex.
Consider the Myth of Sisyphus. For Camus, the Gods are no longer
tangible. They are reduced to relics and images of a discredited
universal scheme. When Camus notes that Sisyphus is rebelling
against the gods, is greater than his rock, he isn't saying
that Sisyphus is fighting the good fight against forces that would
hold him down. The gods are a construct that have become meaningless...they
are nothing more or less than the pervasive conditions that have
placed Sisyphus in his position. It is the struggle that matters,
a struggle against a rock. A perfect metaphor, a perfect image
for the existentialist point -- an object of no particular sentience
or malice. And the struggle to the heights (don't read too much
into that) is enough to fill Sisyphus' soul because he knows
his task subverts the universe.
So what is this elusive "good fight?" Is it simply Angel
trying to be the best man he can be? Is it Angel trying to achieve
redemption? Is it Angel trying to battle the universe and the
evils therein? For the existentialist hero, there can be no redemption
except that which is self-created. To the extent that Angel weighs,
measures and judges himself, there is a certain minimal correlation.
But his quest is one of hope, and I could easily argue that he
becomes less existential in the years from BtVS S1 to AtS
S5. Early on, he had little hope of real redemption, and gradually,
Buffy and Cordelia and shanshu and the like gave him purpose,
something to aim for. Indeed, his "epiphany", superficially
existentialist (if nothing we do matters, then the only thing
that matters is what we do) was a major stepping stone to a decidedly
non-existentialist path of truly believing in redemption. His
interaction with Darla at the moment of his realization provides
a vital clue: he realizes he can be saved. The irony is,
his superficial existentialism was a path to this. The essential
point here is that Angel's took this precept as a means to
an end.
In S5, Angel must deal with the aftermath of his tragic relationship
with Connor. What is fascinating about this is that Angel did
perhaps the least-existential thing possible -- he took took away
Connor's despair by fiat, and gave him a life with meaning already
embedded. In doing so, he made the proverbial "deal with
the devil." The very fact that there is a "devil"
to deal with is a radical reversion to a semi-binary (there will
still be shades of grey, as the whole "gradual corruption"
plot makes clear) universe. This is the classic Faustus paradigm,
and the writers have no qualms about pounding the binary aspect
into us through Andrew, Lindsay, and references to Giles and Buffy.
Existentialism is a slippery concept sometimes. Lyotards metanarrative
make this abundantly clear. The very underpinnings of existence
are yanked away, and we are left to validate ourselves. But the
existentialist hero is not simply a warrior finding justification.
Meaning is self-created, yes, and to the extent that Angel decides
what is important, he is an existentialist hero. But that could
be said for every single soul who ever lived. More is required,
a realization that the universe is neither good nor evil, malicious
or beneficient...it is simple terribly, implacable dispassionate.
Angel doesn't need to create his own meaning within the show's
context -- the external meaning is abundantly clear in every story
arc, every battle.
[> [> [> [> Re: The genesis of the existential
hero. -- SNS, 06:18:55 07/20/04 Tue
The problem here is that this is basically a sanitized and
inspirational concept of existentialism
Are you referring to Tillich? I think the more common, nonjudgemental,
term is "theistic existentialist" (life is without meaning
we can understand) as compared to an "athiestic existentialist"
(life is without inherent meaning).
Regardless, that the Ats world has elements of absurdity is clearly
intended by their creators through , the comment by Angel that
"they should wear lapel pins" after accidentally killing
a "good" demon all the way through to the "evil"
of Jasmine, one of the "good" PTB.
Part of the problem of this discussion is that existentialism
cannot be reduced to a set of tenets that serves as a checklist
against which we can measure Ats.
My view is that existentialism exists as a historical movement
in thinking that rejects belief systems of society, relgion, traditional
philosophy and science as imposed upon the individual. Whether
there is no inherent meaning or any meaning is unknowable reduces
to the same problem....no belief system can be judged against
a knowable meaning for its authenticity. Therefore this external
belief system is a lie. The individual must create meaning from
within themeselves. This doesn't necessarily mean that the individual
doesn't engage with an external world or that the individual can't
have personal hopes....but that the individual rejects external
"belief systems".
By 5.22 it's not clear to me what external belief system to which
you think Angel subscribes. His personal belief that he should
allievate suffering because he cares comes from within himself.
The only assurance that came from Cordelia's vision is the knowledge
of the Circle of the Black Thorne. [Note that this Circle, the
SP, W&H and the PTB are all real components of Angel's world as
opposed to objects of belief or faith. Any acceptance of their
views would constitute a social belief system and not a relgious
belief system.]
As for Conner, this interesting quote from an "existential"
website:
"It will require courage the courage to invent oneself without
being plugged into a god, a scientific assumption or the beliefs
of society at large for confirmation that you are doing the right
thing. It may lead to anguish and despair, for to decide for oneself
is to decide for the whole of human reality, for this is your
reality also."
The trouble with this incident is that many seem to fixate on
the incident and not with its dynamics through time. All memories
are flawed and contain elements of distortions. It has been verified
that there is not set of "truthful" memories for an
individual for we start to modify them almost immediately. Joss
may have used it for the purpose Lunasea described. Regardless
he has shown how it was used by his characters to reach some sort
of constructive engagement with alterative memory sets. Neither
is to be seen as the "truth", both are to be seen as
plausible alternatives or choices in life. True Joss took away
the choice of someone like Conner in the moment to give Conner
choice in the future. So be it. Like it or not...it was the choice
of Joss and I see no point in being stuck there. Joss if defines
himself as an existentialist, he has every right to be as imcompatible
with other existentialist as they are within themselves as a so-called
"existentialist" group of thinkers.
There is in real life a comparative experience though trauma.
A friend of mine was raped while a child of five or six (I think).
She erased this incident from her concsious memory and has only
recently (since 55 years of age) begun to recall these memories.
I do not think that this should preclude her from existential
engagment with the world either before or after her re-called
memories.
My reaction to much of this debate is that it often seems to be
in danger of doing the very thing the "existentialists"
rebelled against...a codified school of thought.
"The refusal to belong to any school of thought, the repudiation
of the adequacy of any body of beliefs whatever, and especially
of systems, and a marked dissatisfaction with traditional philosophy
as superficial, academic; and remote from life - that is the heart
of existentialism."
Walter Kaufmann, "Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre"
If existentialims means that we as individuals should ignore the
plight of the billions on our planet that suffer, of our degraded
environment, of the destruction of war, then it has become the
thing it has rejected - superficial, academic and remote from
life; and it should be discarded. I've always thougth that the
strength of existentialsim is that it forced us to engage as individuals
in the here-and-now and not to put our faith that a metaphysical
force would give this suffering meaning and put it right at some
future great day.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The genesis of the existential
hero. -- Random, 11:03:58 07/20/04 Tue
Are you referring to Tillich? I think the more common, nonjudgemental,
term is "theistic existentialist" (life is without meaning
we can understand) as compared to an "athiestic existentialist"
(life is without inherent meaning).
I was referring to the snippet you quoted, yes. It appears to
be specifically a strain of anti-antifoundationalism. (That is
to say, it appears to be derived from this, even to the point
of a vague anti-antifoundationalism, rather than being
labelled so post factum) The problem is, as I'll mention
below, is that existentialism may not be monolithic, but it's
not a blanket catchall either.
Regardless, that the Ats world has elements of absurdity is
clearly intended by their creators through , the comment by Angel
that "they should wear lapel pins" after accidentally
killing a "good" demon all the way through to the "evil"
of Jasmine, one of the "good" PTB.
That's an all-too-common mistake. Philosophical bsurdism isn't
simply incongruous and/or humorous juxtapositions of rational
versus irrational. To make it so reduces it to a philosophical
form of a joke...which some have done, of course. Absurdism is
irrationality in a more profound ontological sense. The "lapel
pins", for instance, are superficially, and can be appreciated
by an absurdist for that element, but they are only philosophically
absurd in the sense that they demonstrate a deeper uncertainty
about pre-fixed moral codes. Ditto with the juxtaposition of the
killing of good and evil demons. These still presuppose an identifiable
order and moral code to the universe, a rational pattern that
has been violated by obscured or imperfect perception. For the
absurdist, there is no essential rationality to it all, no "good"
demons being accidentally killed, no moral dilemma over whether
the end justifies the means resulting in killing a PTB because
what good she has to offer comes at an intolerable price. If you
consider Beckett's "Waiting for Godot" (or Stoppard's
slightly-inferior but funnier "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
are Dead"), you notice the predominant theme of both (highly
absurdist) works is the fact that cause and effect tend to break
down into a philosophical muddle of life-as-essentially-meaningless.
That is to say, Vladimir and Estragon are caught in an almost-farcical
cycle of irrationality (R&G Are Dead isn't as circular, Stoppard
preferring to make his point through impotence in the face of
inevitability) So absurdism can be comic, but simply making a
joke or a mistake doesn't constitute absurdism in and of itself.
My view is that existentialism exists as a historical movement
in thinking that rejects belief systems of society, relgion, traditional
philosophy and science as imposed upon the individual. Whether
there is no inherent meaning or any meaning is unknowable reduces
to the same problem....no belief system can be judged against
a knowable meaning for its authenticity. Therefore this external
belief system is a lie. The individual must create meaning from
within themeselves. This doesn't necessarily mean that the individual
doesn't engage with an external world or that the individual can't
have personal hopes....but that the individual rejects external
"belief systems".
The essential problem with this is the same banal one that afflicts
the relativists -- the failure of convention. "External"
belief systems are not in any way the issue, because "external"
doesn't prevent the assembled continuum of socially-constructed
thought from existing external to the individual. For existentialists
(as with Taoists before them) grappling with the dilemma of why
or how to promulgate a belief system was resolved by default by
the implicit understanding that in order for any conversation/debate/analysis
of existentialism to take place, there must be a certain level
of agreement of terms. Without this, the transmission of cultural
and philosophical concepts would be contraindicated. If Kierkegaard
could not be transmitted to, say, Satre, there is no basis for
evolving existentialist frameworks.
By 5.22 it's not clear to me what external belief system to which
you think Angel subscribes. His personal belief that he should
allievate suffering because he cares comes from within himself.
The only assurance that came from Cordelia's vision is the knowledge
of the Circle of the Black Thorne. [Note that this Circle, the
SP, W&H and the PTB are all real components of Angel's world as
opposed to objects of belief or faith. Any acceptance of their
views would constitute a social belief system and not a relgious
belief system.]
Exactly what indications are there that Angel has sloughed off
the trappings of a traditionally binary world? The loss of faith
is not the loss of belief, and his self-constructed moral
code is overtly existentialist only in terms of the philosophy-as-a-lens.
Cordelia offers assurance that he is doing the right thing. The
very nature of her presence there (as her body was dying on a
hospital bed) evokes an external power scheme that is inconsistent
with existentialism by its very nature -- it can be fairly said
that meaning is a question of imposition, and external powers
capable of manipulating Angel by sending Cordy to reassure him
are clearly reminiscent of a universe where meaning and morality
and purpose derive from a source other than the individual.
The PTB's and the SP's are not simply forces to be dealt with.
AtS makes it clear that they are higher beings, and that the conflict
(or collusion) between them is of the essence. For Angel, the
SP represent the true evil and suffering of the world, and he
must oppose them for that reason. There is no question of meaninglessness,
nor does the show ever seriously examine the possibility that
this universe is not a conflict between good and evil. The oft-cited
monologue of Holland in the elevator to hell isn't, as many assert,
a screed for existentialist despair. Impotence in the face of
evil isn't the same thing as ineffectuality in the face of a universe
without meaning. Holland was clearly arguing that evil -- recognizable
evil -- does and always will exist so long as humans have that
innate tendency toward it. What Angel realizes in his epiphany
is that the fact that he can't win frees him to care, to concentrate
on himself and what he does. There is a certain facileness about
his entire epiphany. He babbles on about how nothing we do matters,
how there's no greater scheme...when what he really means is that
he believes he cannot win, that evil will always survive. That's
no more existentialist than that old gnostic doctrine of evil
will consume the world, or the Hindu belief in the eternal cycles
which make existence circular and, in many ways, helpless (there,
though, we do get a tiny taste of Beckett.)
Joss if defines himself as an existentialist, he has every
right to be as imcompatible with other existentialist as they
are within themselves as a so-called "existentialist"
group of thinkers.
As should be evident from what I said above, I consider that a
deeply-flawed line of thought. If Joss produced "Touched
By an Angel" and called that existentialist, few would humor
him. Hell, he could put out "The Confucious and Aquinas Happy
FunTime Variety Hour," filled with snippets from the Analects
and the Summa Theologica amd call it existentialist, but make
it so. Communication requires a certain agreed-upon standard,
and existentialism is not simply the anarchy of philosophy. Joss
certainly has a right to call it whatever the hell he wants.
That doesn't imply he has executed what understanding he has in
a manner that actually is existentialist. I don't buy the
"Author dictates meaning" line of lit crit any more
than I buy the post-structuralist doctrines of the dissolution
of the traditional elements of communication.
Existentialism isn't monolithic, but as a philosophical line
of thought it adheres to certain precepts, many of which I
covered supeficially in my previous comment. If thise were not
so, existentialism as a term would lose all efficacy. The point
is the very point existentialism revolves around: if no objective
meaning is possible, then self and socially constructed meaning
must supplant the myth of objective meaning. And the definitions
of existentialism are certainly part of the social construct.
Existentialism is rarely so self-referential as to repudiate itself.
Even absurdists rarely take it to that absurd...for then they'd
have to repudiate being absurdists, which leads to them losing
rationale for repudiating absurdism, which leads to...
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The genesis of the
existential hero. -- Lunasea, 12:10:55 07/20/04 Tue
Briefly entering the fray. Take pity on my poor wrists, please.
The very nature of her presence there (as her body was dying
on a hospital bed) evokes an external power scheme that is inconsistent
with existentialism by its very nature -- it can be fairly said
that meaning is a question of imposition, and external powers
capable of manipulating Angel by sending Cordy to reassure him
are clearly reminiscent of a universe where meaning and morality
and purpose derive from a source other than the individual.
That's if you look at Cordelia and the Powers that Be as external
powers. That's if you look at the show on that level. You know
me. I don't. I'm not seeing the Powers, Cordelia or the visions
as something external, some other characters, some plot device.
I'm looking at what they symbolize to figure out what Joss is
trying to say. I may be reading too much into things and trying
to force things into a nice neat story for me to deconstruct and
reconstruct. I'll grant that now.
Neither the Powers or the Senior Partners can manifest on this
plane without some tricky maneuverings. They are completely impotent
because what they represent (which I talk about somewhere on this
thread) requires an actor to impact this world. They are thought,
instinct, desire. They are ANGEL's thought, instinct, desire.
Nothing that comes from them is symbolically external.
This is even further strengthened when it is a vision that ANGEL
has that leads him to the Thorn. We can look at it superficially
and say that an external power gave them to him. That's not what
I am doing here. I am saying that what the Powers represent that
is inside humanity is what led him to seek out the Thorn. There
is no external power when the story is looked at from a particular
level.
What leads me to this level is the simply fact that Joss is an
ardent atheist that doesn't believe in the Powers that Be or the
Senior Partners. He is not writing a story which contradicts this
strongly held belief of his. He is not trying to educate people
to believe in the gods and their power. If he's talking about
gods, it has to mean something, something incredibly important.
Perhaps I should have better explained myself earlier. I took
it for granted that since I was talking about the symbolism of
certain acts, it was understood that was the level I was examining.
I will try to be clearer in the future.
AtS makes it clear that they are higher beings, and that the
conflict (or collusion) between them is of the essence. For Angel,
the SP represent the true evil and suffering of the world, and
he must oppose them for that reason. There is no question of meaninglessness,
nor does the show ever seriously examine the possibility that
this universe is not a conflict between good and evil.
I know we disagree on "Reprise." I must strongly disagree
that the essence of AtS is the conflict between good and evil.
It isn't. It never has been. This is just the setting for what
Angel is trying to figure out, namely why we fight. It was even
an episode title this season. The very question of why fight,
which is what he asks Holland and leads to their little conversation,
is a question of meaning. Angel's existence ever since returning
from Hell (and being set up for his own show) has been why am
I back/here. What is the meaning in everything.
Angel's struggle is given heroic proportions by making it the
epic struggle between good and evil. The show actually makes a
very strong statement that it isn't when it calls Fred's death
"another random horrible event in a random horrible world."
It makes a strong statement when it removes the cause of why the
gang is at Wolfram and Hart, thus making the event not make sense
to the gang. It makes a strong statement with a stuffed animal.
The Master of Chaos is not interested in Good or Evil. It makes
a lot of strong statements this season. Both Jasmine and those
interested in Power know it isn't about good/evil.
Impotence in the face of evil isn't the same thing as ineffectuality
in the face of a universe without meaning.
It wasn't just impotence in the face of evil. It was losing a
reason to fight. It was the fight being rendered meaningless.
Angel's fight is a metaphor for life. Does it really matter what
plot device was used to convey this? I will grant you superficially
things appear as you have said. Perhaps I should say that Angel
is an existential hero (because of symbolism), but not an actual
existentialist on the literal level since he is still wrestling
with those issues?
Holland was clearly arguing that evil -- recognizable evil
-- does and always will exist so long as humans have that innate
tendency toward it.
If that is how you see the SP, then yes. I see them as a bit more,
so I disagree. Calling them evil is like writing of the First
by doing the same and to me misses much of the story.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The genesis of
the existential hero. -- Random, 14:28:27 07/20/04 Tue
Neither the Powers or the Senior Partners can manifest on this
plane without some tricky maneuverings. They are completely impotent
because what they represent (which I talk about somewhere on this
thread) requires an actor to impact this world. They are thought,
instinct, desire. They are ANGEL's thought, instinct, desire.
Nothing that comes from them is symbolically external.
This is even further strengthened when it is a vision that ANGEL
has that leads him to the Thorn. We can look at it superficially
and say that an external power gave them to him. That's not what
I am doing here. I am saying that what the Powers represent that
is inside humanity is what led him to seek out the Thorn. There
is no external power when the story is looked at from a particular
level.
Granted, one can examine on a completely symbolic level, but then
one needs to re-justify the existentialist mode. If I'm understanding
you correctly, the cosmology you're claiming is pure psychodrama.
Everything is internalized and seen only in the reflections on
the mirror of nature and the universe.
In such a scheme, everything has to be existential simply
because the analysis implicitly denies external confluences, reducing
all meaning to the self. Granted, as an examination of Angel,
that's a valid tack to take. But that doesn't necessarily make
Angel an existentialist hero except by default -- which, in turn,
requires that we then examine the validity of the existential
scheme applied to Angel. After all, if one considers the relationship
between the microcosm and the macrocosm, one could easily conclude
that Angel's symbolic life is nothing more than a literal one
internalized...just as a miniature is not essentially different
from a full-sized painting, the symbolism is not essentially different
from a non-symbolic universe. In that light, I think it's still
valid to ask whether this is truly existential or not.
Angel's struggle is given heroic proportions by making it the
epic struggle between good and evil. The show actually makes a
very strong statement that it isn't when it calls Fred's death
"another random horrible event in a random horrible world."
It makes a strong statement when it removes the cause of why the
gang is at Wolfram and Hart, thus making the event not make sense
to the gang. It makes a strong statement with a stuffed animal.
The Master of Chaos is not interested in Good or Evil. It makes
a lot of strong statements this season. Both Jasmine and those
interested in Power know it isn't about good/evil.
My contention is a few randomly-placed existential quotes do not
a philosophy make, anymore than Angel's "epiphany" does.
The heart of the matter is that the show didn't present
it as a random horrible event. It was carefully orchestrated,
and possibly -- given Illyria's role in later episodes -- one
that saved the collected asses of AtS.
As far as good and evil go, the question does indeed stink of
collusion on the show...but Angel never views it as being truly
meaningless. His despair runs into "nothing matters except
the kill" territory, but his epiphany brings him back to
the "good fight" against evil, for the helpless.
It wasn't just impotence in the face of evil. It was losing
a reason to fight. It was the fight being rendered meaningless.
Angel's fight is a metaphor for life. Does it really matter what
plot device was used to convey this? I will grant you superficially
things appear as you have said. Perhaps I should say that Angel
is an existential hero (because of symbolism), but not an actual
existentialist on the literal level since he is still wrestling
with those issues?
I'm not sure I see your point, but I agree that the next step
from impotence was despair and loss of reason. In this, I can
see the symbolic existial hero. If Angel finds meaning again in
external circumstances -- the need of others, the fact that there
is evil out there --- it filters even into the symbolic,
I'd say.
If that is how you see the SP, then yes. I see them as a bit
more, so I disagree. Calling them evil is like writing of the
First by doing the same and to me misses much of the story.
I'm assuming by "a bit more" you mean you see them as
symbols. Which is all well and good, but doesn't explain why those
particular symbols, married with the plotlines established, fall
into tbe binary system. Angel as an existentialist hero would
technically be above such things, symbolically. If the SP's are
merely aspects of himself, they are aspects of a binary, meaningful
struggle. In a sense, it's a Confucian ideal -- the superior man
wrestles down this, this and this because they are bad. And, yes,
it's internal, but it presupposes an external standard by which
one is measured.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sigh...
-- Random, 14:32:10 07/20/04 Tue
The 2nd paragraph in my post above should be italicized too, since
it's part of the quote from lunasea.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The genesis
of the existential hero. -- Lunasea, 16:10:36 07/20/04
Tue
In such a scheme, everything has to be existential simply because
the analysis implicitly denies external confluences, reducing
all meaning to the self.
Isn't analytical psychology fun? I will make the contention that
AtS is pure psychodrama, but I won't necessarily say that about
everything. I'm sure there is something out there that isn't.
Maybe.
We can discuss which way the show is written, outward in or inward
out. Given the way that Jane Espenson describes the way ME writes
an episode, Okay, first there is the idea. This is usually
something that Joss brings in, and it always begins with the main
character in my case, almost always with Buffy. We spend a lot
of time discussing her emotional state, and how we want her to
change over the course of the season. Frequently this in itself
will suggest a story area we will find a story in which we explore
her mental state metaphorically...Notice that the episode ideas
*begin* with what is she going through and never with what would
be a cool Slaying challenge? .
I do not think it is a leap in logic to say that shows are written
from the inside, the characters emotional/mental state, to the
outside, a way to show this. If you wish to make a case that "Angel's
symbolic life is nothing more than a literal one internalized,"
please do so. I have made my case on this thread as well as too
many others in the archives. I would like to see your case.
The heart of the matter is that the show didn't present it
as a random horrible event. It was carefully orchestrated, and
possibly -- given Illyria's role in later episodes -- one that
saved the collected asses of AtS.
That was undercut with references to Fred's stuffed bunny, Feigenbaum,
Master of Chaos. There was an incredible random event that caused
Fred's death. Knox chose her. Bringing Illyria forward was carefully
orchestrated, perhaps even "predestined." That this
happened to Fred involved a series of events that would impress
Feigenbaum himself. The Butterfly flapped its wings and Fred died.
It was a total random occurance, because it happened to Fred.
We knew the speed of the electron, but where it would be was unknown.
All those carefully orchestrated events were almost undone by
something, the sarcophagus being stopped in customs. The more
Rube Goldberg everything went, things didn't appear more orchestrated.
Each step showed how truly random things are. All it would have
taken was one to be different and things would have been different.
His despair runs into "nothing matters except the kill"
territory, but his epiphany brings him back to the "good
fight" against evil, for the helpless
We aren't going to agree on this. I see Angel's fight as a metaphor
for life itself. It isn't about fighting evil, but why fight at
all. In order to ask the question, there needs to be a fight to
fight. It could be why make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich,
but the struggle to open the jar probably wouldn't have held our
attention for so long.
Joss choses to give meaning to his life with the good fight, the
importance of love and familiy and others. That carries over to
his characters, especially his heroes Buffy and Angel. His reason
is theirs. That's the story.
We can debate whether this story is existential at all, and that's
what we're doing. This isn't the creation of the philosophy. This
isn't the Ubermensche or even Roquetin. This is 2004 and
as you like to tell me things change. We don't really need to
establish an existential universe. Existentialism doesn't need
to be illustrated. We need to cope with things. Buffy showed us
how to cope and Angel why it works.
In doing this, does Joss step outside existentialism? Is that
the only way to cope with it? Were Joss' questions existentialist
and his answers something else? Or were his answers what existentialism
is becoming? Caro was fixated on "inauthentic" behavior.
Joss questions just what is authentic. If he redefines authentic,
does the rest of the philosphy still stand? Are his answers incompatible
with existentialism?
I do not believe that Joss believes in this binary system. He
has taken great pains for 8 years to give the Bads motivation
that makes them think they are doing the best possible things.
In the last two seasons, characters have even said it isn't about
good/evil. Perhaps at this point, he is working with a universe
that he created 8 years ago and that universe involves these polarities.
Sort of hard to just give it up when it is crucial to the difference
between Angelus and Angel.
I'm not even sure what I'm saying any more and if I don't stop
typing, I'm going to be dragged away from the computer.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The
genesis of the existential hero. -- Random, 17:38:30 07/20/04
Tue
I do not think it is a leap in logic to say that shows are
written from the inside, the characters emotional/mental state,
to the outside, a way to show this. If you wish to make a case
that "Angel's symbolic life is nothing more than a literal
one internalized," please do so. I have made my case on this
thread as well as too many others in the archives. I would like
to see your case
As leaps of logic go, emotions aren't existentialism, though,
and anguish and pain do not an existentialist hero make. I daresay
the Wife of Bath, written 700 years ago, was written from the
inside out, but that in no way implies that she therefore even
exists in an existentialist-contrived universe, much less is an
existentialist hero.
My point about the symbolic isn't exactly unique to this discussion
of AtS, nor is it particularly unusual. Symbolic has to symbolize
something. Symbols don't displace or supplant, they are
merely conceptualized representative projections, at least in
this context. A cross, for instance, is a symbol of Christianity,
but, semiologically-speaking, it (and the symbols of your analysis)
is only a unit of communication. Which, even if you're a Jungian,
is a fair analysis of the function of symbols. Levi-Strauss, who,
like Foucalt, was a somewhat crude theorist, noted that symbols
don't encapsulate or contain the objects they symbolize, they
simply arrange them, give them order. Admittedly, this is structuralism,
but it's an idea self-evident enough to be embraced by later post-structuralists
and semiologists.
What should be considered here is the motivational aspect of symbolism.
The motivational aspect is the interaction between the signified
and the signifier. For instance, some people consider black leather
sexy. If asked to parse it, they might point to the darkness as
being associated with mystery and danger. So the interaction between
Angel and his black jacket can be subjected to this analysis.
More importantly, though, is the relationship between the internalized
cognitive structure and the external that inspires it. First question
is whether the symbols you are writing of are X representen within
Angel, or X as external manifestations from Angel. It's an important
question, not necessarily because it makes a difference in analyzing
the existential aspect of the symbols (it doesn't, really) but
because it makes an enormous difference in how one views the semiotics
of the text. Leaving that aside for now, if the SP's within Angel
represent X, there must be a relationship there. Psychodrama is
one thing -- pure psychodrama, which is what I actually
said, unadulterated b any other consideration is quite another,
and there's absolutely no evidence for that on AtS. As such, you
really, really cannot eschew the considerations that went into
these symbols, not can you selectively analyze them in narrow
terms without encountering very strong counterpoints which lead
to epistemological collapse. Hence, you've made your case, but
I'm pointing out issues that severely undermine it.
I'm not sure how you arrived at "totally random" in
the same paragraphs as you observe how carefully orchestrated
it was. You seem to be resorting to "Well, everything's random
if we don't look close enough" there at the end. There was
nothing random about it even in the most casually deterministic
scheme. Fred was chosen, manipulated. The box got through customs
because people with a vested interest in getting it through made
a point of ensuring that it did. Just as they made a point of
ensuring every other aspect of the plot. I don't think invoking
chaos theory with the butterfly image actually helps your case
-- it reaffirms that evil set in motion can fell even the most
innocent of people. You'd have a far better case with Fred's initial
trip to Pylea, actually, and even that isn't proof positive of
randomness in an unforgiving, meaningless universe. Undercutting
is just what it sounds like. It doesn't actually topple the original
concept. If it did, it would either have destroyed everything
or have taken its place...those undercuttings did neither.
Now I addressed the question of existentialism in my previous
post, and those points have not yet been debated, so I'll let
that stand. I will point out that we don't know what Joss
is or isn't thinking, what he is or isn't going for. One can even
posit -- radically -- that Joss does some things for the art and
the audience rather than out of pure self-expression. So whether
he believes in a binary system or not is immaterial (he likely
does to some greater or lesser extent -- simply being an atheist
doesn't magically remove tendency toward binary systems.) What
matters is what's on-screen, and analyzing it through the lens
of symbolism or existialism or both is perfectly valid, but simply
be valid doesn't somehow imply infallibility or even viability.
The characters may have claimed an exemption from the issues of
good and evil, but they're trapped in a fairly dogmatic state
of affairs wherein good and evil are in constant conflict. Moral
ambiguity does not actuall deny the existence of good and evil
-- indeed, it reaffirms it rather strongly. Ambiguity doesn't
exist except as a function of tension between discrete and (to
some greater or lesser degree) incompatible concepts.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> This
is long, should we start a new thread? -- Lunasea, 10:02:51
07/21/04 Wed
Please excuse me for not addressing all your points previously
1) you know me, birds circling overhead make it hard to actually
focus on a point, let alone several and 2) my wrists still hurt
and after all the typing I did yesterday, I'm paying for it.
At this point, I suggest if we are to continue this, since we
seem to have quite an audience and it will be easier on my wrists
to keep this short, we should do several things. Rather than try
to sort through the points that we both have made so far to support
mine and refute or accept yours (or vice versa in your case),
I propose the following:
1) we both give a brief summary of what we believe to be the important
points of existentialism
2) we give how we think how the show is compatible or incompatible
with this and
3) what we think the other is saying and our position on that.
This will help me stick to a structure, which will make it easier
for others to follow and keep me from dropping points so they
can't stand by default.
I appreciate your assistance in this.
Be it resolved: Angel is the existential hero.
I'm the Affirmative, so I'll go first. I believe we can agree
that I am discussing things on a symbolic and not necessarily
literal level.
I) Important points of existentialism
First step in any debate is to define terms, since it is these
terms that form the foundation for us to debate on. We can agree
on what Angel is. I have defined hero as someone who finds a way
to deal with the existential dilemma. I do not believe we are
in disagreement with that. The disagreement is whether Angel,
the character or show, even fits an existential model.
I will agree that just because Joss says he's an existentialist
does not necessarily make him one. I propose that whatever he
does believe or the show does support does not have to fit what
any one philosopher who is considered existentialist believed/wrote
about. They don't even all agree, so what we have to determine
is what are the points that allow something to fall under the
umbrella of existentialism. I believe we can accept Jaspers point
about Existenzphilosophie being an active, forever changing philosophy,
which is why he opposed the term existentialism because it seemed
like a particular doctrine or position.
(quick note: I realize that you know all this stuff. I am saying
it so that our audience can become more familiar with them, and
I can attempt to clarify my position, so that if there are any
errors in my understanding, you can correct them.)
1. First and foremost, to me, is the very word itself. Sartre's
famous "existence precedes essence." The concept of
existence is easy. It is his en soi, Being-in-itself. I
don t think there is any debate here. The fun part comes when
we get to essence. Just as Buddhism has anatman and a Buddha-nature,
it is rather simplistic just to say that man has no essence. Man
s Buddha-nature can be compared to the state of nothingness/freedom
that was very important to Sartre. This can be said to be man
s essence and is part and parcel of being human.
This is not the essence Sartre is speaking of when he said existence
precedes essence. That essence is how he is defining himself.
It is pour soi, Being-for-itself. What makes self-deception
possible is that man thinks pour soi is like en soi and
is concrete. This is similar to the Buddhist concept of avidya.
2. Another important part of existentialism is that there is no
inherent meaning in anything. The logic for this can be traced
to Husserl s phenomenology. I really don t want to go into it
here and don t think it is necessary for our purposes. I believe
we can agree on that there is no inherent meaning, both as part
of existentialism and as our own philosophies.
3. That said, these two points collide in the concept of freedom.
Existentialism is often confused with phenomenology and there
is a fine blurry line between them. Existentialism goes beyond
Ego, cogito, cogitata. It goes beyond radical individualism.
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are often viewed to be the real existentialists.
Some see them as its fathers and others as its forerunners.
Freedom is the ability to define and assign meaning to things
and events. Existentialism says that things are meaningless, but
that doesn t mean that they have to remain so. We have several
options. One is to not give meaning to anything. That doesn t
work well with man. Striving to find a meaning in one s own life
is the primary motivational force in man. Existentialism does
not negate this. It recognizes this. Victor Frankl s Logotherapy
is based on this.
The other option is to let society give meaning to things. This
would seem to solve the problem, except that it doesn t. With
freedom comes responsibility. If society is the one to give things
meaning, man falls into what Frankl called the existential vacuum.
His own personal life is meaningless, and he feels an inner void.
This to me is the important part of existentialism. Life is meaningless
and man has no essence other than freedom is just the foundation
that allows man to create himself and his own meaning. It is not
a bleak philosophy at all, but a liberating one. Freed from the
search for meaning, man then makes his own.
That is what is important, man makes his own meaning. Not just
morality as Nietzsche was concerned about, but our very meaning
and essence. Man does not remain a vacuum. He does not have to
feel the inner void that results from having no meaning. He doesn
t have to remain undefined. If he does, chances are society will
define him by default.
That said, I ll move onto the second area,
2) how I think the show fits this.
1. Man has no essence other than freedom. I have said that I see
the PTBs and SP to be projections of Angel. As such, they can
be said to be his essence. On the surface, this does not seem
to be compatible with existentialism. It is giving man a nature.
Holland in Reprise says as much. However, that essence in the
Buffyverse is not incompatible with freedom. Angel and devil cancel
each other out, allowing man (and man alone) this sort of freedom.
Angelus and unsouled creatures do not have this. Even Spike realizes
as much, which is why he goes to get his soul. The human soul
is what allows a creature to be free. I see this as compatible
with existentialism. Man still has no real discernible essence
or nature that will command his decisions.
In existentialism, freedom is tied to sentience. Demons, especially
vampires are seen to be sentient. The Buffyverse diverges from
existentialism here, but I do not see that to be so great that
it cannot be called existentialist, as I will clarify in the next
point.
2. There is no inherent meaning in anything. This is where things
get a little tricky. Good is seen as good. It is seen as desirable
as directed by the human soul. The importance of love and family
is stressed throughout both series, and I could easily argue was
the point of the series (I have before). This is the meaning the
Joss has chosen to give his own life and it permeates his work.
This would not taint a true existentialist story.
I have to disagree with this. The point of the show was not to
illustrate existentialism. The philosophy is well established.
There are plenty of things that can illustrate it. The purpose
was to explore things. That can be done within the framework that
its creator uses to give his own life meaning. When Angel is shown
reading La Nausee, they are setting up that Angel is starting
to explore these things, such as why he s here/back from hell.
This ties to the next point.
3. Freedom. In Amends, Angel does not come up with a reason. Instead
first the First gives him one and then Buffy does. Throughout
the series, Angel is repeatedly given reasons why to fight. He
is told he is not a lower being and is stamped with the label
Champion. His reaction to that season 5 is a perfect illustration
of Frankl s existential vacuum.
Angel lives in the world of binary opposition between good and
evil. This is what makes a fight even necessary. That is how Angel
sees things. Season 2, Angel sees evil as the cause of human suffering.
He does not believe that people should suffer, so he is going
to continue the fight. This realization has hints of existentialism
because it is something *he* realizes and not something society
is telling him, but it is limited because of the binary opposition
he is still seeing. He also gives his life meaning based on external
things, namely that others shouldn t suffer. I believe we can
agree on that.
This binary opposition is broken down more and more as the series
progresses. It cannot be fully removed because the audience will
not relate or understand the series as much. I do not believe
the PTBs or the SPs are just good and evil. I believe that we
often say that what they symbolize (concern for others, concern
for self) is good and evil. I do not believe the show supports
this. First, Jasmine undermines the idea of the Powers as good.
So do uncooperative characters like the Oracles or the Conduit
in Birthday. Events like Judgment throw their morality (or lack
of it) further into question. On the flip side, the SP s manage
to save Connor. They give Angel the amulet that allows the First
to be stopped. The First is the source of all evil. If they are
truly evil, they are chopping at their very roots.
When we are looking at the PTBs/SP, Champion/Angelus or the Apocalypse
itself, we are looking at the battle that allows man freedom.
Take out any part of the equation and man does have a nature.
Throw in something as prosaic as actually winning and there is
no freedom. Jasmine showed us this season 4. This battle can either
be used to say the show is not existential and instead is more
Taoist, or it can be viewed as an adaptation of existentialism
that is still compatible with existential thought.
It does bring into question whether things have intrinsic meaning
by labeling them good/evil. I do not think this is what the show
does, as it has made repeated references that things aren t quite
that simple. Instead it has motivations coming from a place of
binary opposition. Are we doing something for others or are we
doing it for our self? Even this line breaks down when we consider
such things as erasing Connor s memory (doing for others) because
of a father s love (doing for self), giving Fred s death meaning
(doing for others) because you want it to have meaning (doing
for self), and killing the Thorn to remove their harm (doing for
others) to become someone (doing for self).
I do believe that Angel used his freedom to give meaning not only
to Fred s death, but to his own life. The societal convention
of Champion and the good fight wasn t enough to fill the void
in him that is created because there is not intrinsic meaning.
Instead he found a much more personal reason to fight. Wesley
remarked in TCTONC that it was important for the fight (metaphor
for life) to be personal. For Wesley, this meant the reward of
Shanshu. That was not personal, since it was something that would
be conveyed externally. Instead Angel found a personal reason
to fight.
It isn t about making amends for Angelus, which is something he
can never do because nothing he does will be personal enough to
those harmed and again, that is focusing on others. It isn t about
beating the Senior Partners or alleviating suffering, which isn
t personal enough. It isn t about some reward, because that is
something imposed on him externally. It becomes Maybe fighting
them is what makes human beings so remarkably strong. Things have
finally become personal for him. He finally found some meaning
to the fight, to become strong, to become someone. His issues
of wanting to be someone, which has been with him since being
Liam, intersects with a reason for the fight.
We can argue whether this fight is in any way existential, but
I ve already said, I see this fight as a metaphor for life. It
isn t just giving a meaning for the fight, it is giving a meaning
to his life that is entertaining enough for us to watch for this
long. Angel s meaning should not be confused as meaning anything
more than his meaning to fight. It is not the meaning
for the fight. Each character has their own meaning.
It is easy to extrapolate that since Buffy and Angel are the heroes
of the piece that their reasons are the reasons, but that
is not supported by the show. Since it is Joss reason, it does
permeate it. That does not mean that the other characters, such
as Spike, Gunn and Illyria, have the same reason. They don t.
I ve think that is a good starting place for my position.
3) Now for a brief mentioning of what I believe your objections
are.
1. The Buffyverse isn t random, specifically how orchestrated
Fred s death was. First, everything on the show is orchestrated
seeing as it is written. The show does not ignore causality. A
leads to B leads to C and so on. What makes that random is that
A doesn t necessarily lead to B. There were various points along
the way where the rising of Illyria (whether it was predestined
or not. Even Drogyn questions this in Power Play ) did not necessarily
have to result in Fred s death.
How many things had to happen that weren t orchestrated by Illyria
s followers?
1. the chain of events that led to Fred being at Wolfram and Hart
in the first place have nothing to do with Illyria s followers.
2. The memory upgrade that Gunn had had nothing to do with Illyria
s followers. It was a deal between the SP and Gunn. The Doctor
just performed it.
3. The memory upgrade failing was because the Senior Partners
wanted it. The Doctor could not have foreseen that the sarcophagus
would be stopped in customs and he would need Gunn s help.
4. Knox fell in love with Fred, thus he chose her. Love is seen
as something random in the Buffyverse.
All these things combine to make what happens/Fred s death a random
event, despite the careful orchestrations of Illyria s followers.
The butterfly that flaps its wings and creates a tidal wave, could
also have flapped its wings and caused only wicked surf if one
atmospheric particle was somewhere else. The butterfly does not
control the winds. It does not make the tidal wave. All these
events have to converge for that to happen. That is what makes
things random.
In my initial essay, I show how Jasmine s careful plans were undone
by two random events. Joss patented plot twist is itself a statement
about how random the universe is. When it takes all these complicated
events to converge to get a certain result, that result is random,
because a change in any one of those events and things would be
different.
2. Good/Evil on the show is dealt with above, but I will elaborate
if you wish.
I m not sure if you ultimately disagree with the resolution or
are just trying to get me to clarify it so that it is better supported,
since you are pointing out issues that severely undermine it.
I am not sure whether your purpose is to show that I am wrong
or have me address these issues. Either way, I hope what I ve
presented tidies things up a bit and fosters further discussion.
I will ask for some consideration if I don t respond quickly.
This was way too much typing for me and I will have to take a
break for a while.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Something to add, before I take a break for the day --
Lunasea, 10:56:42 07/21/04 Wed
The Powers that Be/Jasmine and the Senior Partners themselves
are the polarities that can be seen within the existential debate.
I have stated that they symbolize concern for others and concern
for self. If I have to, I will support this contention, but I
really would prefer to do that after my wrists heal and I can
quote my standard 30+ episodes to support things.
Man makes himself can very easily deteriorate to Rand's Objectivism.
Completely eschewing societal conventions can lead to a total
concern for one's self as depicted by the Senior Partners. It
was only by being concerned for the children that Lindsey almost
broke away from them in "Blind Date." It was by being
only concerned with himself, that he was led back to try to become
a Black Thorn. This cannot be seen as an existential hero because
the Thorn is so self-centered that they supplant the free will
of others. The Senator goes as far as to be installed in a human
body.
Existentialism isn't Objectivism. It is the antithesis of it.
What keeps man makes himself from deteriorating into Objectivism
is how one uses freedom. Freedom is to be maximized. It cannot
be taken from another. Angel had to ask people to help him. This
need to make oneself and be concerned with the self has to be
balanced with the needs of others to make themselves and concern
for others.
Thus we get the battle between the PTBs and the SP. Angel needs
the desire to make himself to become strong, thus he drains Hamilton
encorporating the primordial power of the Senior Partners. It
isn't just by fighting them that we become strong. What they have
makes us strong. Our instinct for self-preservation allows us
to do amazing things.
Balancing this instinct with a concern for others, allows us to
do amazing things as well. The strength that Lindsey says Angel
is speaking of is about not "coveting your neighbor's ass,
your buddy's job, the last Mallomar in the box." That is
human strength.
It is the interplay of these two side of humanity that allow us
freedom and allow us to be strong. Man makes himself must be personal,
but at the same time can't usurp the freedom of others. I see
the symbolism of the PTB and the SP not only to be compatible
with an existential world, but to be important to that world and
how we create ourselves.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: This is long, should we start a new thread? -- Random,
14:10:14 07/21/04 Wed
I apologize. I'm not really inclined to shift this to formal debate
style -- too much work for me. But I'll try to address major points.
To start with, I tend to concede the general definitions of existentialism.
(Nietszche wasn't an existentialist but a politically-inclined
nihilst, and Kierkegaard was sort of an ur-Existentialist.
Mostly he was just depressed as hell.)
But one of my major points all along is was the distinction between
innate lack of meaning and an invariant lack of meaning. The former
implies nothing about meaning being acquired, and thus describes
the central precepts of existentialism.
Existentialism really shouldn't be (and I don't think is
very oftern) confused with "phenemology" primarily because
existentialism is merely decrpitive of a philosophical coda, while
phenomenology is a method and approach to examination. One pretty
much supports the other, true, but they cannot really be confused
in terms of their respective roles, since, in their natural forms,
the former is basically theoretical, the latter applied (in the
sense that it is descriptive of methodology.) I personally don't
find much point in phenomenology...the precepts that underly both
existentialism and phenomenology work far better as a philosophical
abstract than as a methodology. It's all well and good to say
that nothing has a priori logical or epistemological structure,
that incidental observations stands out as a holy grail, but it
has very little practical usage compared to competing methodologies.
What's the point of saying a tree falling in the woods with no-one
around to hear it doesn't make a sound if one is studying the
nature of sound? That's the reason phenomenology made its biggest
splash in psychology and other soft "sciences" and liberal
arts...and it's not really a given that it was a good thing even
in those places, seeing as it tended to degrade empiricism in
areas where empiricism might have been quite useful, i.e. psychology.
And then comes the psychology. One of the primary problems I have
with your analysis is the fact that you tend to conflate psychological
precepts with existentialism in, an internicene structure of self-validation.
Existentialism posits a universe without innate meaning. It implies
nothing about man's drives or desires. You're not asking your
audience to accept existentialism, you're asking them to accept
certain precepts of psychology and other philosophies, and thereby
pointing to existentialism as their foundation...voila
Angel is an existentialist hero! It's a roundabout path, to say
the least.
(Oh, and to clarify something because s'kat says she's reading
this: an existentialist hero is not really an anti-hero. It depends
on your definition, of course, and I daresay a few existentialists
would consider it so, but generally, it would be like saying a
spoon is an ant-fork. Both are utensils sui generis, but
perform different functions, operate in different milieus.)
However, I have no explicit problem with the idea that existentialism
is a philosophy of hope and freedom. (Indeed, I've explained my
personal absurdist beliefs in those terms to you on occasion.)
The primary problem I have is that existentialism is not simply
freedom of choice or ambiguity of morals or even anxiety about
the universe. Simply because Angel struggles with his own nature
doesn't make him existentialist -- that particular struggle has
been characteristic of the Christian faith for 2000 years. In
a nutshell, in order for Angel to be considered an existentialist
hero, certain elements need to be addressed, and simply because
he encounters struggles common to all humans (at least in general
-- most of us don't have to deal with interdimensional evil law
firms specifically) doesn't make him existentialist by default,
nor does it make the arbitrary (i.e. ME-created) universe an existentialist
one.
Here, I'm going to address a great fallacy, or misunderstanding,
that afflicts far too many people: Just because you can analyze
a particular object, concept or paradigm through a certain lens
doesn't transform the object et cetara. Obviously, this is self-evident,
but people still tend to think, subconsciously, that examining
(to use the current example) Angel an Existentialist mode somehow
validates a perspective that he's an existentialist hero. Analysis
is a tool of examination, and thus it allows that the object scrutinized
doesn't necessarily conform to the philosophy. Hence, I can be
an existentialist, and truly live and act and think in those terms,
or I can examine the world and say, "Okay, if the universe
is meaniningless a priori, what does that imply about X,
Y and Z?" Hence my argument that Angel can be examined in
existentialist thought, but isn't actually an existentialist hero.
In any event, I disagree that Angel grows more and more into the
role of the existentialist hero, or that the Buffyverse as a whole
is basically existentialist. You haven't yet demonstrated an adequate
reason to consider Angel anything other than a vacillating, self-loathing
figure with rather obvious limitations that he usually fails to
overcome...but still a hero and a champion to admire. Let's make
sure we understand the existentialist hero concept, because the
whole is greater than the sum of its parts. An existentialist
hero is not simply a hero who happens to be existentialist (check
my clarification for s'kat above.) Or an existentialist who acts
heroic, for that matter. In terms of this phrase, the idea of
a "hero" is markedly different from the generic non-existentialist
hero. Camus' Myth of Sisyphus essay is still the benchmark for
existentialist hero definitions, but an average individual who,
faced with the meaninglessness and absurdity of the universe,
wrests control of it for his own, if only in a small way. It's
a natural evolution from the Nietzschean ubermensch, but without
the sociopolitical implications that Nietszche insisted on putting
in everything he wrote.
So you could argue that Angel's despair and leap of faith brought
him to the role of the existentialist hero. I'd consider that
superficial because the causes and the setting remained
decidedly non-existentialist. As such, his despair and leap of
faith is little more than a re-enactment of some variant of Campbellian
heroism. "Good" and "evil" are not so easily
dismissed within the context of the show as you would wish. The
division between self and other is only natural, given that, well,
that's a universal division. It helps us remember which one is
Angel, you know?
As I said before, and will say again if necessary, moral ambiguity
and indecisiveness and general confuzzlement do not imply meaninglessness
or self-created meaning. If Spike is morally-ambiguous sometimes,
that's because we are examining him in terms of good vs evil...and
finding that he sometimes veers toward one, sometimes toward the
other, sometimes straddles a middle ground that leads to flame-wars
on discussion boards.
It isn t about making amends for Angelus, which is something
he can never do because nothing he does will be personal enough
to those harmed and again, that is focusing on others. It isn
t about beating the Senior Partners or alleviating suffering,
which isn t personal enough. It isn t about some reward, because
that is something imposed on him externally. It becomes Maybe
fighting them is what makes human beings so remarkably strong.
Things have finally become personal for him. He finally found
some meaning to the fight, to become strong, to become someone.
His issues of wanting to be someone, which has been with him since
being Liam, intersects with a reason for the figh
Oh? It's none of these things? Because ME certainly went to a
lot of effort to impress these issues on us. It doesn't have to
be either/or, after all, and he can certainly fight for his own
self-empowerment while fighting for the sake of good and right
and happy little puppies.
So Angel finds meaning in Fred's death. As he did in Doyles. As
he does in everyone -- for isn't regret and making amends giving
meaning, however ineffectual, to the deaths of those Angelus murdered?
You still aren't giving a reason that makes him an existentialist
hero rather than a person faced with tragedy trying to deal with
the apparent senselessness. Existentialism implies creating one's
own meaning, but there is still those trappings of evil destroying
Fred, Angel lashing out, Wesley blaming Gunn, et cetara et al
ad nauseum.
Pointing out complexity does not imply randomness. I can analyse
anything like that, from how the cereal I had for breakfast
ended up in my bowl (well, 100 years ago, a man had a bright idea
for creating something for people to eat for breakfast...yadda
yadda yadda....and I ran out of jelly because a friend and her
kids stopped by and I made the kids PBJs and wanted more and decided
to get a couple other things and...) There are causes there, and
we can clearly outline them...indeed, to a greater extent than
we can outline most things.
So the basic point remains...is he truly an existentialist hero
in an existentialist universe, or is he partaking of some generic
confluence of several philosophies that all deal with the same
issues and problems. Existentialism is just one answer to problems
that many, many philosophies have addressed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: This is long, should we start a new thread? --
Lunasea, 18:47:07 07/21/04 Wed
I'll try to keep my mind focused enough to respond coherently.
I just thought something more structured would not only be easier
for me, but for our audience to follow.
Existentialism posits a universe without innate meaning.
Existentialism posits much more than this. A universe without
meaning is very important and what separates it from prior schools
of thought, especially theism, but it doesn't stop there. To stop
there gives it no real practical applications. I love the theoretical
and it is often difficult to get me out of this, but without practical
implications something is little more than intellectual masturbation.
I will not reduce Existentialism to this.
A very important part of existentialism is that we are radically
free to act independently of determination by outside influences
and that we create our own human nature/essence through these
free choices. Without this freedom and the exercise of it, we
are just playing with ourselves in the dark. Sartre's R flections
sur la question juive explore the practical applications of
existentialism. I contend so does Joss Whedon's Angel.
Is this conflating psychology with existentialism? I don't believe
so. Are you proposing that No Exit is less existentialist
than Camus' Myth of Sisyphus. Are you saying that Being
and Nothingness isn't a philosophical work, but a work of
psychology because it does look at man's drives and desires?
The primary problem I have is that existentialism is not simply
freedom of choice or ambiguity of morals or even anxiety about
the universe.
Nor have I posited this. The central question to AtS is why fight,
the fight being a metaphor for life. I have seen no argument to
this, so I will assume it stands. I have contended that Angel
is repeatedly finding the answer to this question to be there
is no meaning and his story lies in dealing with this. This to
me is existentialism, because any other school of thought would
come up with an intrinsic reason. They ask the question, but they
can also answer it.
Sartre said, "And the definition always remains open ended:
we cannot say what this man is before he dies, or what mankind
is before it has disappeared." Since the show is now dead,
we can say what it was. My original essay was based on a line
from "Power Play" about Fred's death. Angel declares
it to be a random horrible event in a random horrible world. It
is essentially meaningless. He does not deny this. He does not
say it has some purpose in the grand scheme of things. Instead,
he sets about to give it meaning. How is that not existential?
Camus' Myth of Sisyphus essay is still the benchmark for existentialist
hero definitions, but an average individual who, faced with the
meaninglessness and absurdity of the universe, wrests control
of it for his own, if only in a small way.
The small way that Angel wrested control was to first give Fred's
death meaning and then to give himself a reason for the fight.
I do not see how this does not fit the definition you have given.
Her death is declared to be meaningless. The battle against evil
is seen to be pointless. He's never going to push his rock up
that hill. He is never going to beat it. Angel gives meaning to
Fred's death by allowing it to contribute to that pointless battle
(which he acknowledges is pointless "We're in a machine.
That machine's gonna be here long after our bodies are dust.")
You of all people have to see how deliciously absurd this is.
Fred's death is given meaning by applying it to something without
meaning. Yummy, yummy, yummy.
The way Angel takes control is the opposite of Sisyphus. Sisyphus
accepts that he will never accomplish his task and abandons hope.
Angel not only maintains some hope that he may beat the Senior
Partners, though he does accept that what they will face is hell-on-earth
after they kill the Thorns, but more importantly he changes his
task.
Angel's task is no longer to fight evil to alleviate the suffering
of others, which he can never do. Instead Angel says that the
purpose of the fight is to become strong. If Sisyphus had decided
to gain control by saying that pushing the rock up the hill wasn't
his goal. Instead it was to get bigger muscles, does this no longer
make him an existential hero? Sisyphus is the existential hero
because he denies the gods their punishment. Does it matter what
rationale he uses for this?
I'd consider that superficial because the causes and the setting
remained decidedly non-existentialist.
And you are entitled to feel that way. As I said in the post after
this, I even find the division of the PTBs and SP not on good/evil,
but others/self to be important to the existential question.
I do not see how the impossible task of pushing a rock up a hill
differs symbolically from the impossible task of destroying evil.
If anything this is not the task that the PTBs even assign Angel
to. This is Angel's interpretation of what he does. Doyle tells
Angel to save the souls of others so that he can save his own.
His task could be interpreted to be to save his soul, to become
strong. That is how he interprets it in "Not Fade Away,"
but he doesn't believe it is the PTBs that assign it to him. That
is his own realization.
The causes and setting just make the whole thing more entertaining
to watch. As interesting as No Exit and The Myth of
Sisyphus are, not really material for a series.
As I said before, and will say again if necessary, moral ambiguity
and indecisiveness and general confuzzlement do not imply meaninglessness
or self-created meaning
And I will state again, the last few episodes do not imply
meaningless or self-created meaning. They state as much. I am
not making this contention based on 8 years of evidence. I am
basing it on the last few episodes. It is those last few actions
which define someone and the show. You can bring up anything you
want from Buffy or AtS prior to the final final push, including
Angel's "Epiphany" to counter that the show and/or Angel
is not existentialist. I do not contend that Angel becomes the
Existential hero until "Power Play." Our discussion
should focus on the last two episodes.
Oh? It's none of these things? Because ME certainly went to
a lot of effort to impress these issues on us. It doesn't have
to be either/or, after all, and he can certainly fight for his
own self-empowerment while fighting for the sake of good and right
and happy little puppies.
"I fought for so long. For redemption, for a reward - finally
just to beat the other guy, but... I never got it." Amends
was a pretty impressive episode. It sets Angel up for his own
show. In a single line, the idea of making amends is dismissed.
This is further strengthened in a conversation with Darla when
she says, " We can't make up for any of it. You know that,
don't you."
It was strongly impressed upon us, but that doesn't mean as the
show went on, it stayed. That is why something can't be judged
as to what it is until it is over.
What was equally impressed upon us was this last fight of Angel's.
Many here believe that the futility of the task means that Cordy
didn't put him back on track, but he has jumped the track. He
has abandonned those smallest acts of kindness and the good fight.
He wasn't "fighting for the sake of good and right and happy
little puppies." He was fighting to be strong, to be what
he considers someone, unless we want to dismiss what he
said to Lindsey. I am very reluctant to dismiss anything in a
Joss script.
If we want to stack up the evidence over 8 years, you will have
more. What matters to me is what is more recent.
So Angel finds meaning in Fred's death
Incorrect. Angel doesn't FIND meaning, he creates meaning. His
actions MAKE her death matter. This is a big difference from "Parting
Gifts" when Angel throws a hissy fit at the Oracles and they
are the ones that give Doyle's death meaning. Angel is even willing
to undo the death and render the act meaningless as long as he
gets his friend back. This contrast shows how Angel has grown
and why he is now the existential hero.
Existentialism implies creating one's own meaning, but there
is still those trappings of evil destroying Fred, Angel lashing
out, Wesley blaming Gunn, et cetara et al ad nauseum.
And you are caught up in those trappings, which are just that,
trappings. How is this any different than the god's punishing
Sisyphus? That isn't unfair or one could say "evil"?
Even in No Exit "hell is other people." Does
the setting of No Exit negate it as existential literature?
Pointing out complexity does not imply randomness
I didn't just point out complexity. I said two things. 1. That
the carefully orchestrated events of Illyria's followers had to
be combined with events they didn't orchestrate in order to bring
about Fred's death. 2. The complexity of these events meant that
A didn't have to lead to B. There were other alternatives, hence
things were random. I do not see how tracing the chain of causality
(which we can do for anything) negates how random things are.
It only becomes not random when A HAS TO lead to B.
I think that is it. If I left anything unaddressed that you believe
to be pertinent, please point it out and I will address it after
another break.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Well... -- Random, 19:47:15 07/21/04 Wed
Existentialism posits much more than this. A universe without
meaning is very important and what separates it from prior schools
of thought, especially theism, but it doesn't stop there
Yes, I've describe the greater gist of existentialism several
times. I didn't say that it stopped there.
re you proposing that No Exit is less existentialist than Camus'
Myth of Sisyphus. Are you saying that Being and Nothingness isn't
a philosophical work, but a work of psychology because it does
look at man's drives and desires?
Er, no I wasn't. Though "No Exit" isn't really comparable
to "Myth of Sisyphus" for two basic reasons: 1) they're
not really discussing the same thing, and 2) one is a play attempting
to demonstrate a certain horror of existence, and the other is
an essay about the tenets of absurdism in relation to a Greek
myth.
My original essay was based on a line from "Power Play"
about Fred's death. Angel declares it to be a random horrible
event in a random horrible world. It is essentially meaningless.
He does not deny this. He does not say it has some purpose in
the grand scheme of things. Instead, he sets about to give it
meaning. How is that not existential?
It's simply a matter of considering that just because a character
says something, that doesn' mean the statment reflects
the true ethic of the show. Even more to the point, just because
he doesn't say something, that doesn't mean it is absent
from the show. Angel can spout pseudo-philosophical babble all
he wants, and one can easily point to a failing in the writers
for trying to set up something they don't substantiate or follow
through with, but the main point remains that Fred's death was
the result of malicious forces converging, and Wes did what Angel
almost certainly was tempted to do, which was shoot the s.o.b.
most immediately responsible.
The way Angel takes control is the opposite of Sisyphus. Sisyphus
accepts that he will never accomplish his task and abandons hope.
Angel not only maintains some hope that he may beat the Senior
Partners, though he does accept that what they will face is hell-on-earth
after they kill the Thorns, but more importantly he changes his
task.
Sisyphus does not abandon hope. When he accepts his burden,
that is hope enough to make him greater than anything the gods
could do to him. One must imagine Sisyphus happy because the trek
to the summit fills his soul, because the rock is his validation
that no matter what the universe throws at him, he will always
be able to perservere, to remain his own Master. How is that not
hope?
Angel's task is no longer to fight evil to alleviate the suffering
of others, which he can never do. Instead Angel says that the
purpose of the fight is to become strong. If Sisyphus had decided
to gain control by saying that pushing the rock up the hill wasn't
his goal. Instead it was to get bigger muscles, does this no longer
make him an existential hero? Sisyphus is the existential hero
because he denies the gods their punishment. Does it matter what
rationale he uses for this?
Oh? So he decides to go out in a burst of glory and that's somehow
existentialist? And Sisyphus' pushing the rock up the hill wasn't
his goal. That was not the point of him being an existentialist
hero. His goal was defiant self-determination. So, yes, it does
matter what rationale he uses because if denying the gods their
punishment was what made him an existential hero, then existentialism
becomes reduced to wriggling out of the fell clutch of circumstance.
There's far more to it than that. He cannot escape his position,
ever. He knows this. As the Everyman, he is representative of
all who look forward to futlility and meaninglessness...and decides
meaning lies in himself. In his choices. Angel never really reached
that point. His last-minute quickfix of doing some damage before
dying wasn't about him, or about Fred (for whom the SPs weren't
even directly responsible -- he was more responsible than they),
or about asserting some vague right to self-determination. He
can call events meaningless, he can wax philosophic about why
he fights, but ultimately, he was faced with a choice: continue
to allow W&H to corrupt him and his friends, or strike out again.
ME made clear that others fighting against evil (the new Watcher's
Council, Buffy, et cetera) considered Angel on the wrong side
of the equation -- probably in terms of "the road to hell
is paved with good intentions." So, in a way, I would call
Angel (ME, actually) too confused to be an existential hero. He
vacillates -- one minute he's fighting because "nothing matters
except what he does." at another, he's fighting because there
is evil in the world, another because he thinks he can go out
in a blaze of glory, another because it's just "the right
thing to do"....in simplest terms , he's actually (and ironically)
too philosophically flawed to be an existentialist hero. Remember,
having arguably existentialist moments does not a full hero make,
anymore than Sir Gawain would suddenly become existentialist because
s/he had a bad day with a few existentialist moments.
So how is it that it's clear that he's not out to help people.
And how is suicide strong? The question of suicide, after all,
is a very widely-discussed one amongst the existentialist, and
Angel knew what he was doing wasn't likely to end up with any
of the AI gang surviving. This is the last 2 episodes. When they
"state" meaninglessness, do they somehow invalidate
the framework that has been established? Does the blaze of glory
somehow become existential because Wes gets all depressed and
Angel gets pessimistic?
And you are caught up in those trappings, which are just that,
trappings. How is this any different than the god's punishing
Sisyphus? That isn't unfair or one could say "evil"?
Even in No Exit "hell is other people." Does the setting
of No Exit negate it as existential literature?
No, I'm not "caught up in those trappings." Those "trappings"
are part of the raison d'etre of the entire show. Those
"trappings" are the setting, the moral framework, the
continuity, the conflict between Angel and the SPs, et cetera
and so on. Not "just that, trappings." "No Exit"
was actually an existentialist version of the morality fable --
it's not comparable. No Exit doesn't set a milieu that
embraces a universal binary scheme of good versus evil.
1. That the carefully orchestrated events of Illyria's followers
had to be combined with events they didn't orchestrate in order
to bring about Fred's death. 2. The complexity of these events
meant that A didn't have to lead to B. There were other alternatives,
hence things were random. I do not see how tracing the chain of
causality (which we can do for anything) negates how random things
are. It only becomes not random when A HAS TO lead to B.
This really doesn't make much sense as an argument. There is an
enormous continuum between actual randomness and inexorable predestination.
Causality in any and all aspects of life depend on confluences...that
doesn't imply that just because it's not a single pretty line
of cause-effect rather than interecting external influences that
it's any less causal.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> The truly beautiful thing in all this is
that... -- Lunasea, 06:49:11 07/22/04 Thu
neither of us are actually talking about existentialism. We are
each talking about how we see it. We focus on different parts,
the parts that are most relevant to our own lives. It's no different
than how people talk about the show. What a beautiful world we
live in.
You, as an absurdist, are focusing on the absurdist elements of
existentialism. To you, this needs to be the focus of the work
for it to be existentialist. It isn't just the setting, but the
point. These elements cannot be obscured and must form the very
fabric of the universe. I have made my case as to why I think
these elements are indeed present. This is not sufficient for
you.
I, on the other hand, am focusing on things that were important
to Sartre, namely the importance and responsibility associated
with freedom to define oneself. The absurdist elements provide
the rationale for this. I'm sorry that neither the show nor I
could provide these elements to your satisfaction. The story,
to me, was in something else, so I can see why they were set up
quickly with a few well written Joss lines. When the hero says
something, until he says something else (which he can no longer
do, since the show is over), that is the ethic of the piece. That's
why he's the hero.
Then there is Caroline. I'm sorry she is no longer part of the
discussion, because her focus was perhaps Joss' focus, namely
inauthentic behavior. His shows have been exploring just what
is real and what is illusion for years now. The mind wipe provided
two sets of memories and this issues was again explored. There
is a lot of philosophical yummies in this, especially the question,
if nothing has intrinsic meaning, is creating it ourselves a lie?
The existentialists were concerned with society v self created
meaning. If Wesley does not spend his last day with Fred because
of what the Watcher's Council taught him, that is inauthentic
behavior, even though it is the "truth." Is accepting
a lie that comes from self more authentic than going along with
the truth that comes from society? It's an interesting exploration.
So at this point in the chess game, I like to play with the pieces.
I've learned if you use chewing gum, you can get the bishop to
stand upside down. Then I like to put the rook on top of it and
the knight on top of this. This Uber piece looks way cooler than
anything else on the board. It's only problem is it can't move.
This feat can also be accomplished using mashed potatoes, but
if you have those handy, it is fun to make snow angels with the
pawns. You can use other pieces, but the bishop is way obvious.
I hope everyone has enjoyed this. I have stated my position about
as well as I'm going to. One thing I have learned is that it is
a rare phenomenon when either of us actually convince the other
of something. At this point, it is up to each individual reading
this to decide what they believe. Luckily, in the grand scheme
of things, especially since there isn't a grand scheme, this doesn't
really matter.
Please excuse me while I put my shoes on my head and see if I
can find the dead cat.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you for setting me
straight..... -- DeeplyFlawed (aka SNS), 12:54:46 07/20/04
Tue
....and saving me from banality.
Naw! I changed my mind. I embrace banality with multi-coloured,
multi-ethnic, multi-whatever splendor....and I enjoy my deep flaws...they
give me character in a banal sort of way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Indeed. -- Random,
13:57:23 07/20/04 Tue
Well, if that's the best you can do, take a word applied to a
"problem" and try to wear it yourself, I guess that's
the end of that. I noticed below you weren't wild about actually
discussing the philosophy, which is an odd stance to take on this
board, but c'est la vie.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, I apologise...
-- StillDeeplyFlawed, 14:26:55 07/20/04 Tue
...but I mistakenly took your previous message as pretentious
and that's a big, bad hook for me. Sorry about that and the ensuing
hissy fit.
[> [> Responses to Lunasea and SNS -- Caroline, 07:56:22
07/19/04 Mon
Existentialism posits that one has no intrinsic nature and that
self-knowledge leads to self-creation. (Now the latter is a really
illogical stance as I have argued before but let's just accept
this for now. Dasein has similar logical problems which I'll also
leave for now). Angel negated the self-knowledge of a whole bunch
of people with the mind-wipe. A criminal act in the existential
world! Just because that mind-wipe no longer exists does not mean
it doesn't have repercussions. (Doesn't everything have consequences
in the whedonverse?) It got Angel's gang into W&H and led to a
whole chain of events that they may not have self-created otherwise.
That's not the way an existentialist hero behaves, that's the
way an existentialist anti-hero behaves. The existential person
recognises that we live in a world where things are not chosen.
But Angel did choose the external world for everyone and himself.
He negated the freedom of those around him. Kierkegard would turn
over in his grave.
If one looks at Kierkegard when he talks about 'half-obscurity'
- the way a person avoids anxiety is to become enslaved by the
lies he tells to himself about himself. Kierkegard also talks
about being unable to let someone grow or develop in their own
way. This is what Angel did. He took the decision for himself,
for Connor and for the gang. The mind-wipe being gone doesn't
eliminate its consequences. Wes is destroyed by it, and its consequences
(particularly Fred's death) and by lying to himself at the end,
he shied away from any sort of existential affirmation in the
face of experience. Connor appears to me to be in a happy denial,
also not the stance of an existential hero. Angel also believes
the lies he tells himself - that he's damned, that this is the
only way, thus negating any other potential or possibility (see
my exchanges below with manwitch and Rahael). He is confined by
the culture created for him within W&H and he responds to that
only. Kierkegard would once again turn in his grave. Heidegger
would too, since he, in common with Kierkegard, both talk about
authenticity. Neither Angel nor Wes transcended the lies, which
is what an existential person is supposed to do, according to
Kierkegard. They became victims of them. Kierkegard says true
heroism is the daring to be oneself, passionately engaged with
one's own truth, one's own reality of personality. Wes had his
moment and lost it when he accepted the lie. Angel hasn't had
it for a while now.
To Lunasea: you write:
None of this negates the particular existential question that
Joss explored, namely how to cope with an existential universe.
By the finale, the mind wipe is no longer an issue. Instead it
has allowed Connor to escape from his pain long enough to find
meaning. It has allowed Wesley not to see the chain of event long
enough to see that things are random. They all accept lies, since
this is a meaningless world, the act of even giving it meaning
is a lie. This act is necessary in order to avoid the existential
dilemma that Connor fell prey to season 4.
You can define hero your way, if you choose. That hero cannot
exist, since we are all bound by a random horrible world that
we have to cope with. We cope with lies and inauthentic experiences.
I have some rather large problems with what you have written here.
Connor escaping from his pain is repressing or denying it, things
that an existentialist philosopher would say is lying to oneself
and therefore one cannot know nor create oneself. The act of giving
meaning, in existentialism, is not a lie when it comes from self-knowledge.
When you say that they all accept lies to prevent themselves from
falling into anguish - that is the antithesis of what Kierkegard,
Heidegger or any other existential philosopher would call existential.
Telling oneself lies like that denies one's reality, one's character,
something according to Kierkegard that we should all be striving
for. They way that you are describing these characters, they sound
far more like Kierkegard's Philistines than actual existentialists.
[> [> [> Re: Responses to Lunasea and SNS -- Lunasea,
10:31:13 07/19/04 Mon
self-knowledge implies there is a self to know. That's not existentialism.
Kierkegaard and Nietszche are the forerunners of existentialism.
They are radical individualism. What a fun family tree philosophy
is. Someone should draw one up.
There is no essense. There is no self to know. That is why it
is often compared to Buddhism. Instead it is a self we create.
"Man makes himself." "Existence precedes essence"
is often quoted as the summation of existentialism. "In a
word, man must create his own essence: it is in throwing himself
into the world, suffering there, struggling there, that he gradually
defines himself."
For the sake of argument, since I am so sick of arguing this highly
emotional topic and my wrists are ouchie (no stern looks allowed),
I'll accept for this discussion that the mind wipe was the most
heinous act ever created in the Buffyverse. Bad Angel. Bad Angel.
No cookies for you. THAT isn't what I said makes Angel the existential
hero. He takes the random event of Fred's death and makes it matter.
THAT is what makes him the existential hero. I'll accept for this
discussion that the chain of events caused by the heinous act
of the mindwipe led directly to Fred's death. Angel most definitely
accepts responsibility for this by turning that act into something
all allows her death to matter.
Mind wipe, mind wipe, mind wipe. I am sick to death of the mind
wipe. I think it was a brilliant move on the part of the writers
that allowed characters to move in directions they couldn't otherwise.
It ranks up there with using Spike's love for Buffy to motivate
him to get a soul. In season 5, the mindwipe was just another
part of the plot, not the focus of the season. The focus was getting
Angel to a point where he would actively start to make himself.
Perhaps the heavy symbolism gets lost in the rush to condemn how
Joss chose to symbolize that.
But Angel did choose the external world for everyone and himself.
He negated the freedom of those around him.
I remember the gang in a nice circle having to make the choice
whether they helped Angel take on the Thorn or not. I remember
him approaching Lindsey to ASK for his help. You are negating
his later actions in "Power Play" and "Not Fade
Away" because of earlier actions you disapprove of. That
is so NOT existentialist. No matter what Angel did. No matter
what led up to what. Angel creates himself with every choice,
every thought, every action.
The act of giving meaning, in existentialism, is not a lie
when it comes from self-knowledge.
You cannot know yourself until you are done creating your self/essence,
i.e. you are DEAD. "And the definition always remains open
ended: we cannot say what this man is before he dies, or what
mankind is before it has disappeared." Anything we tell ourselves
before that point, is wrong and a lie. No self-knowledge, no meaning,
nothing. That is the truth we have to endure. It is what we manufacture
that allows us to endure this.
Telling oneself lies like that denies one's reality, one's
character,
There is no reality. Everything is relative. There is no "character."
There is no essense. Man can be anything. Being and Nothingness.
En-soi applies to things without self-awareness. A rock
is a rock, but in man alone, existence precedes essence. Man has
no essence, no nature. Without this, man is nothingness (again
similar to Buddhism). Basically the essence of man is a complete
lack of everything. All that we are is freedom and free will.
We can be anything. No character to shape us. Our very definitions
of ourselves, waiter, Jew, coward, Champion, these are the self-deception,
the lies we tell ourselves.
It was a beautiful, amazing exploration. Best season of either
series on every level.
(side note: since my wrists are hurting, please excuse if I do
not respond to anything until tomorrow)
[> [> [> [> Re: Responses to Lunasea and SNS
-- Caroline, 18:56:29 07/19/04 Mon
I did a quick search on the internet and found a definition of
existentialism that I like:
A (mostly) twentieth-century approach that emphasizes the primacy
of individual existence over any presumed natural essence for
human beings. Although they differ on many details, existentialists
generally suppose that the fact of my existence as a human being
entails both my unqualified freedom to make of myself whatever
I will and the awesome responsibility of employing that freedom
appropriately, without being driven by anxiety toward escaping
into the inauthenticity or self-deception of any conventional
set of rules for behavior, even though the entire project may
turn out to be absurd. Prominent existentialists include Kierkegaard,
Heidegger, Jaspers, Beauvoir, Sartre, and Camus.
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e9.htm#exism
The reason I bring this up is because I'm rather confused by your
definition of existentialism. You state that there is no essential
self to know but existentialism says there is a self that is created
by what one chooses and does that is knowable though exploration
of oneself. If not, those poor existential psychologists like
Binswanger would have a rather difficult time! Sartre himself
talks about what consciousness is, the subjective awareness of
reality. What is required, according to Sartre, is correct analysis
of it. I would therefore dispute your view that according to existentialism
you can't know yourself until you are dead. Sarte says what we
have to endure is the absurd, the view that even as we strive
and search for meaning, there is none. And I would agree with
you that what we manufacture (the existentialists would prefer
create since manufacture has a ring of the fake to it) helps us
to deal with the human condition and the absurd.
You don't like it when I use Kierkegard or Heidegger. Perhaps,
since you quote Sartre, that would be acceptable to you and I
can make the same argument in my previous post using Sartre's
terms as Heidegger or Kierkegard's. Sartre warns against self-deception,
which is the avoidance or denial or certain unpleasant aspects
of reality to avoid anguish. Wes does this as he lays dying, he
avoids the anguish by letting himself believe that Fred is there
comforting him. This is what Sartre calls mauvaise foi or
bad faith, it's an inauthentic reponse to anguish brought on by
contemplation of the human condition. Angel has been deceiving
himself for while now as I have argued previously and is also
in a state of bad faith, of inauthenticity.
You say that there is no reality, that everything is relative.
There is a logical paradox in the latter - you absolutely say
that everything is relative. As for the former, existentialists
may say that what is presented to us a reality is not so but constructed.
However, in existentialism the term is used - indeed ontology
is the study of being, of what constitutes a person - which is
necessary for correct analysis.
I agree with you that it has been an enjoyable season but trying
to make Wes and Angel existential heros is a stretch, in my view.
You can't be an existential hero when you are in a state of bad
faith.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Responses to Lunasea and
SNS -- SNS, 19:19:16 07/19/04 Mon
Your premise boils down to Joss Whedon creating a series about
redemption only to conclude the search for redemption in a "state
of bad faith, of inauthencity"; for that is what it must
mean. Angel is a fictional character, creation of Whedon - all
that he says and does comes from Whedon; and in the context of
this series must undoubtedly reflect Whedon's view of redemption.
This has got to be seen as cheery news for those in real life
that struggle with addictions.
Alternatively, it may be that Joss has presented issues with which
a number of fans obviously cannot come to terms. If you will,
he has created a fictional experience that is causes anxiety which
cannot be deal without sacrificing some sense of one's cherished
virtures.
Interesting to say the least.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I may be in a state of
existential denial but.... -- Caroline, 06:29:17 07/20/04
Tue
the season may have concluded but I don't think the series has.
And not every main character has to be the perfect hero. Isn't
Joss allowed to tell the story he wants to tell, whether comic
or tragic or in-between? Joss hasn't caused me anxiety - just
the reverse. He has caused me to marvel at his creation yet again
and challenged me to think. It's great to be able to watch tv
and think. And then have the opportunity to discuss and debate
it. It was a brave thing to show a complex, morally ambiguous
character, particularly when you're making a tv show and it's
your lead.
Besides, it's not the end. Lalalalalalalaaaaa (just taking that
cruise up that river).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I may be in a
state of existential denial but.... -- Jane, 18:46:27 07/20/04
Tue
And not every main character has to be the perfect hero...It
was a brave thing to show a complex,morally ambiguous character,
particularly when you're making a tv show and it's your lead
Totally agree with this. I am finding the debate about existentialism
interesting,and educational, but I really have no idea where Angel
is in the existential scheme of things. I have never studied philosophy,
have no clear understanding of the various schools, but I do enjoy
the portrayal of the characters as flawed and ambiguous people
trying to do the right thing.
I don't think it's the end, either. Lalalalalaaa(joining the cruise.)
[> [> [> [> [> Pardon me if this is short
-- Lunasea, 05:31:52 07/20/04 Tue
Wrists still aren't completely cooperating.
I see where the problem lies (pardon the pun). Or at least where
our disagreement is. You are defining any sort of lie as inauthentic.
Dawn is inauthentic according to you. What Buffy does because
of Dawn is invalidated because of this. That isn't what the definition
you gives says.
without being driven by anxiety toward escaping into the inauthenticity
or self-deception of any conventional set of rules for behavior
What existentialism (as descended from radical individualism)
states is that any conventional set of rules for behavior is inauthenticity
or self-deception. In order to examine whether the lies that the
characters allow themselves to believe is inauthentic behavior,
we have to see if they spring from any conventional set of rules
for behavior.
First up is Wesley. A conventional set of rules for behavior were
taught to him by The Watcher's Council. In his conversation with
Illyria, Wesley states that he cannot pretend that Fred is alive
because of these conventional set of rules. He was taught to separate
truth from illusion. To not do what he wants, namely spend his
last day with Fred, is inauthentic. He is doing it because of
a conventional set of rules of behavior. To overthrow this and
allow himself to die in the arms of his beloved is his "Checkpoint."
He is using his free will to create what he wishes without taking
away anything from anyone. I see nothing inauthentic or immoral
about this and everything authentic.
I'll do Angel in another post, since that involves something more.
It is his show. Things get more complicated with him.
You state that there is no essential self to know but existentialism
says there is a self that is created by what one chooses and does
that is knowable though exploration of oneself.
Don't you love a good paradox? Where to start? Start at the beginning.
The root of Sartre's existentialism is atheism. (I really need
to do a post on how season 7, especially CwDP is Joss' exploration
of his own atheism. Not whether there is a God or not, but how
this belief has affected him). Without a Creator, there is no
predefined nature (a leap in logic, but since he took it, I'll
take it with him for the purpose of this discussion). Without
a nature, man is nothingness. In essence, man is a complete lack
of everything. This nothingness is freedom and free will. The
essence of man is freedom.
The self-deception that Sartre was interested was in confusing
en soi Being-In-Itself (I'm 5'8" tall with brown hair)
with pour soi Being-for-Itself (I'm a writer, basically
nice, brave, etc). The thing with pour soi is it isn't
fixed. It depends on new decisions and we constantly make and
remake ourselves. That is one reason I will not let Angel be defined
by the memory wipe.
This was incredibly important to Sartre. This freedom that is
our essence, this nothingness is the focus of the majority of
his work. We always have the ability to choose a new role, new
states of being. There is no essence for us to know, beyond this
freedom. We are constantly changing. When talking about exploring
oneself, this isn't an exploration of pour soi, but of
freedom.
There are a lot of reasons that existentialism and Buddhism are
confused. Buddhism has both the tenet of anatman and the belief
in a Buddha-nature. It's all so yummy and basically boils down
to what is our essence isn't something we think of as essence
so when talking about essence things get fun.
But, man likes to define himself, so pour soi is what we
think of as our essence. This essence is in a constant state of
change, since we are constantly remaking ourselves. I make myself
with every word I'm typing. What am I? By the time I answer the
question, I'm something else. Asking the question even changes
what I am. Now I'm someone who asked that question. Now I'm someone
that gave that particular answer. This process doesn't end until
I do, so to definitively answer it, I have to be dead. "And
the definition always remains open ended: we cannot say what this
man is before he dies, or what mankind is before it has disappeared."
Sartre's own words. We struggle to define ourselves, but we cannot
fully until we stop being. It's all so much fun and worth a little
pain to play with.
(the existentialists would prefer create since manufacture
has a ring of the fake to it)
But that is the fun part. That's Dawn. It's all fake. Everything
I make, I can undo and make however I want. No pour soi
is more valid than another. I still haven't decided whether I
want to be a writer or a photographer. I don't have to decide.
We have all these ideas about what is "authentic" and
what isn't, but since there is nothing real beyond en soi
it's all one big lie. And en soi doesn't really tell us
much of anything. Who really cares if I'm 5'8"? Even my pretty
brown hair changes.
Sartre warns against self-deception, which is the avoidance
or denial or certain unpleasant aspects of reality to avoid anguish.
Wes does this as he lays dying, he avoids the anguish by letting
himself believe that Fred is there comforting him. This is what
Sartre calls mauvaise foi or bad faith, it's an inauthentic reponse
to anguish brought on by contemplation of the human condition.
Wesley's response came from him and not what the Watcher's Council
taught him. That is the definition of authentic. See comments
made above.
Next post, symbolism or why concentrating on the plot is missing
the point.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Pardon me if this is
short -- Caroline, 05:51:50 07/20/04 Tue
I see where the problem lies (pardon the pun). Or at least
where our disagreement is. You are defining any sort of lie as
inauthentic. Dawn is inauthentic according to you. What Buffy
does because of Dawn is invalidated because of this. That isn't
what the definition you gives says.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about self-deception.
I never brought up Dawn, just Wesley, who was deceiving himself
as he lay dying. Since I seem to be unable to communicate to you
why this is so, I refer you to Random's post in response to SNS
above, which perhaps you might find enlightening. The rest to
your post doesn't seem to be a response to me but rather a lecture
on Sartre. I have nothing to add there.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dawn -- Rahael,
06:34:53 07/20/04 Tue
Yes, it seems clear to me that Dawn doesn't deceive herself. She
is deceived by her memories, and for a little time by Giles and
Buffy. Once she learns, she doesn't stop believing "the truth".
She doesn't frex, ask Buffy to pretend that she was always her
sister, and to pretend that she never found out about her true
origins.
That doesn't make her a lie. Dawn is a meta-narrative character
within a narrative. She is the walking, talking, sneezing, breathing,
bleeding self-aware fictional character, who, when she learns
she is nothing but words and memories, tears up her diary.
In this sense Dawn is the most "aware" and least "self-deceptive"
of any of the characters. In a sense this is why her blood is
able to bring down the "walls of the universe" - her
truth is a disruptive presence.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Quality edutainment
-- Lunasea, 06:39:33 07/20/04 Tue
Shadowkat said the entire purpose of the show was "pure entertainment
and joy." Not the show I was watching. That's just one level
of it. As Joss said (and used to be at the top of the board) there
is "philosophy and symbolism" behind what he does. I
really don't think he put it there so we could be entertained
and find joy by dissecting it here.
Best words to describe the shows were in "Smile Time."
Groofus refers to Smile Time as "quality edu-tainment."
I love Groofus. Polo was a jerk, but Groofus was, well...Joss.
The demons behind Framkin/Fury/other writers. What a wonderful
avilly symbol. Polo, the network that just wants the innocence
of the kids because of its street value.
There are no throw away lines. That's one of the beautiful things
about what ME writes. "Cool. 'Cause I've been workin' on
this great new song about the difference between analogy and metaphor?"
Groofus says this because "Well, we want it to be good, don't
we?" because he wants to "uphold a certain standard
of quality edu-tainment." It is the analogy and metaphor
that allows the show to more than just entertain. It allows it
to educate. Yummy, yummy, yummy.
On the plot level, the show entertains and brings joy and allows
the networks to "eat babies lives" because of their
street value. I don't think there are many here that will disagree
that on a plot level, the season was highly entertaining. The
thing is, and this is a completely valid way of looking at things,
people are taking that plot level and evaluating it philosophically/morally.
We can evaluate the morality of Angel or any other character's
actions. That's fine. But there is a problem with it. THAT isn't
the level the show was writen on when it comes to philosophy and
morality.
That's where all that wonderful symbolism comes in. Philosophically,
the show is written on a level beyond plot. The plot itself becomes
a symbol. To evaluate the plot philosophicaly is a valid activity,
however, because that isn't the concern of the demons, I mean
Joss, who is in control of Framkin, I mean the writers, there
are going to be massive problems detected.
It was a problem with Buffy, especially season 7. The First didn't
have a discernable plot associated with it. This drove some people
nuts and they criticized the show for poor writing. Thing is the
First isn't some plot device. It is a symbol. Season 6 was "Au
revoir metaphor." Season 7 was "back to the beginning"
and they rolled around it in, sometimes at the expense of plot.
The best seasons are able to do plot and symbolism so the show
is multi-layered.
Now we go to the Buffyverse created by self-proclaimed atheist
existentialist Joss Whedon. It is a universe where destiny is
important. It is a universe where people are Called/Chosen. It
is a universe with the Powers that Be give visions to select people.
On the surface, none of this seems very atheist or existentialist.
That is because on the surface, on a plot level, it isn't. The
edutainment exists because the show exists on other levels. On
those levels, when we start to line up things with what they symbolized
and deciphering the metaphors, that the philosophy is shown. Not
only is there philosophy AND symbolism, but it is through symbolism
that there is philosophy.
That is how a world with the Senior Partners and the Powers that
Be can still be atheist and existential. They aren't real. They
are symbols. If you just label the Senior Partners evil, you miss
what they are every bit as much as the same label misses the point
of the First. I don't want to go into every bit of info that we
know about the Senior Partners or the Powers that Be (too long
an essay and I won't be able to type at all for days after that
if I do). I'll just sum it up. They aren't good and evil. We often
confuse what they symbolize as such, but taken to extremes either
of them cause harm. If they are done in moderation, they can be
beneficial.
The Powers that Be are the ones that try to get Angel to reach
out to others. The Oracles say that Angel "isn't a lower
being" because he is willing to sacrifice what he wants for
another. That's the powers that be, what ever it is inside of
us that is concerned about others. Jasmine wanted to give man
paradise. It is all about what you can do for others.
The Senior Partners are the opposite. It is about what you can
do for yourself. What do *I* want and how do I get it. They even
used Angel's desire to help his son to get him into Wolfram and
Hart. Man first clubed his neighbor because he wanted something
for himself. It isn't the harm that the Senior Parters provide.
It is the desire for whatever the man had.
Taking that, we can go back an decode season 5. Place the PTBs
and Senior Partners back inside Angel. They are projections of
human perspective. They are not societal expectations. They are
human desires. They are Angel's desires. The reason there is no
nature to man is we are this wonderful ball of conflicting instincts.
The angel and devil basically cancel each other out, leaving us
with freedom.
The simple act of giving Fred's death meaning because he didn't
want it to be another random horrible act in a random horrible
world is a very strong symbol and what I was writing about. Admitting
that everything has been a lie was another wonderful symbol. How
the mind wipe was handled, again more beautiful symbolism. The
question of memory and how it plays into pour soi, I thought
was interesting.
The visions of the PTBs combined with the primordial power of
the Senior Partners to allow Angel to make himself is a very strong
symbol that is comperable to Willow using the masculine Slayer
Power and the feminine Scythe to empower the Potentials. In fighting
Jasmine and the Senior Partners, Angel struggled and made himself
into something.
Has he figured out everything? He still has that dragon to slay
(see below for my interpretation of this symbol). He still needs
to knock down the barriers between how he sees the PTBs and the
Senior Partners. Not just good/evil, but doing for others/self.
There are no PTBs or SP. There is just us. By calling him a hero,
I am not saying his journey has ended. Instead the particular
issue he was faced with, namely how to cope in an existential
world, has been dealt with. That is what that smile means at the
end to me.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Quality edutainment
-- SNS, 09:01:08 07/20/04 Tue
Thanks, Lunasea. Your explanation helps to explain why I asked
about a Jungian Existentialist...and that is not because I believe
that the Jungian thought is existentialist thought or vice versa.
Rather it has to do with the issues raised here, such as "knocking
down barriers". Rather I was referring to a potential intersection....which
would not include the "collective unconscious" of Jungian
thought, but more the "I and Not" of oneself.
At least one common element of existentialist thought involves
free will which implies choices which implies ability to subjectively
judge those choices to be oneself. However, we only have choice
if we perceive choice...from where in our imaginations do these
choices emerge? If we then choose from where does the judgmental
function arise?
Within us, the Jungians refer to an authentic "I" and
external values or "should". The Jungian spiritual journey
for the individual involves, at least in part, the break out of
the restrictions imposed by an external belief system that has
been internalised. In my opinion this is where the two schools
of thought intersect. When it comes to the source of the authentic
"I" then they diverge.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It makes sense
for them to be similar -- Lunasea, 11:15:15 07/20/04 Tue
Despite what Dr. Jung would like to think, his theories were shaped
by the times he lived. Born July 26, 1875 (10 days after me, so
it is one of those days I can remember) in Switzerland, he's not
that far removed from the existentialists and was shaped by the
same forces that shaped them.
Soren Kierkegaard was born 1813 in Denmark
Fredrich Neiztsche was born 1844 in Prussia
Edmund Husserl was born 1859 in Austria-Hungary
Karl Jaspers was born in 1883 in Germany
Franz Kafka was born in 1883 in Czech
Martin Heidegger was born in 1889 in Germany
Jean-Paul Sartre was born 1905 in France
Maurice Merleau-Ponty was born 1908 in France
Simone deBeauvoir was born in 1908 in France
Albert Camus was born in 1913 in France
The events of Europe at that time greatly influence the development
of this philosophy and analytical psychology. To divorce thought
from history makes about as much sense and Ayn Rand claiming that
her childhood in Russia and the events she witnessed had no bearing
on the development of her philosophy which supports laissez-faire
capitalism.
It is actually pretty interesting to see how existentialism changes
once the French enter the picture, which is why I've separated
them above. The evolution of any philosophy is interesting. Each
succeeding philosopher delves into the questions a bit deeper,
going at things from a slightly different angle. The earlier philosophers
are just setting things down. Kierkegaard is writing in opposition
to Hegel and classic Cartesian philosophy. That's what gets the
ball rolling and a whole new philosophy, rather than a fine tuning,
results.
Sartre is dealing with a different Europe than the so-called real
existentialists. He is dealing with a France torn assunder by
war. He is dealing with a Europe that is committing attrocities.
One of his essays is R flections sur la question juive
in 1946. He is trying to show that we don't have to be anything,
even anti-semetic. Man chooses to be antisemetic because he is
afraid of freedom, openness, and change and longs to be as solid
as a thing. He needs an identity. Sartre was interested in the
very real practical applications of existentialism as was his
partner deBeauvoir.
Dr. Jung is dealing with patients torn assunder by the events
of Europe or the events of Europe mirror the inner turmoil of
man. Either way, it makes sense for there to be interesections
between the philosophy and the psychology of the time. Since they
are two different disciplines, their approaches are different.
[> [> [> Question - could there be confusion between
Existentialism with Objectivism? -- shadowkat, 11:37:21
07/19/04 Mon
I'm not sure, but in reading Caroline's post and Lunasea's response
- it sounds as if one version is Existentialism (Caroline), the
idea that we find ways to cope in a universe that is random, by
accepting it at face value and not imposing our version of reality
or control upon it (correct me, please if my understanding of
Existentialism is off here...somewhat confused.) And the other
version (Lunasea's) reminds me more of the Objectivism pushed
forth by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged and other novels, and to a
degree the philosophy Nietzche espoused, which is we control our
own reality and that which around us. We give ourselves identity.
It can be lies or truth. But we control it. The world is what
we make it stance - which has it's roots in Objectivism, I think,
right?
And isn't Buddhism view not imposing one's own views onto the
world, but moving beyond the need to do that, to be separate from
forms, the acceptance of a randomness of events and no need to
place structure upon it, to accept things as they are without
trying to control them?
Not sure that's right - Age seemed to explain it in great detail
a while back, as did Ryiue (a Buddhist monk) - both in the archives.
I know people can confuse these things. I might be doing so now.
[> [> [> [> Re: Question - could there be confusion
between Existentialism with Objectivism? -- Caroline, 19:25:02
07/19/04 Mon
I'm not sure about your intepretation of Lunasea's points (partly
because I don't fully understand the arguments made), but I'm
hoping that I'm describing existentialism correctly. Existentialism
would say that accepting lies, telling oneself lies is self-deception,
that it's bad-faith (Sartre), inauthentic (Heidegger) to alleviate
anguish of the human condition. What Lunasea is essentially arguing
is that Angel (and Wes) is the fallen existential hero or the
anti-hero, who believes the lies, who deceives himself. At least
imho.
[> Existentialism -- Tchaikovsky, 05:37:10 07/20/04
Tue
At my home in Bradford-on-Avon, we have a pool table. In the table's
pockets lie the ten red balls for a curtailed game of snooker,
seven yellow balls for pool, and the remaining snokoer colours,
brown, green, blue, pink and black.
Sometimes my nine year old brother and I play a game of pool.
I usually win, but he sometimes wins, playing with the kind of
studied but benign malice that all good sportsmen do.
At the end of one particular game where he had lost by more than
a couple of balls, I said to Paul: 'What we really need to do
is practice potting balls from a long way across the table, but
with the object ball over the pocket'. So we put two balls in
front of each pocket and our aim was to pot six balls into six
different pockets, and then repeat the feat.
In doing this, we would alternate shots, so that it became a collaborative
exercise- much more edifying, in many ways than the game of Pool
itself.
One day, we had played the game for half an hour or so, and had
not potted more than eight of the twelve balls in any required
go. Paul said to me: 'I don't want to play any more. What's the
point?'. And I said, 'You can't stop playing until we've succeeded'.
The rule was arbitrary, and the subsequence was pointless. The
laws of the game are utterly random, and the reason for doing
it not always apparent. However, when the two of us pot twelve
balls in twelve shots, the feeling of triumph is palpable and
amazing. Not because the game means anything. The existence of
the game, in a sense, occured before its essence. long gone are
the days where we can't hit a long ball in from right over the
pocket.
This for me is an positive use of existentialism. Manufacture
meaning, and create triumph from life. Not a lie, for the abitrary
rules work as long as you claim them.
The most interesting aspect of the game, however, has nothing
to do with existentialism whatsoever. The first time we played
the game, in a kind of febrile perserverance, we had lasted an
hour without having potted all twelve balls. It had become almost
Sisyphean. But what we noticed was that if we hit the green ball,
it would almost always go in, sometimes even after a bad shot.
There was no science to this, just faith. Finally, we got our
chance, having potted ten of the twelve balls. An easy blue and
a seemingly impossible green was left. I went for the blue, and
missed.
The pattern continued. Three or four times we were left with just
green and one other colour. Always the green was trickier. Always,
my brother told me we should leave Lucky Green until last. Every
time I over-ruled him. Every time we lost.
Finally, in a fit of frustration, I went for a very difficult
pink as the penultimate ball of the challenge. It went in, leaving
the cue ball on the cushion and at a wonky angle.
'Shall I go for a double on Lucky Green?', asked Paul, pleadingly.
There was no other choice. I nodded nervously.
It hit the jaws of the bottom left pocket, skidded gently across
the table, and went in the middle right pocket. We had succeeded.
Exactly the same thing happened yesterday. Three attempts at using
the green as the penultimate. Three failures. Then a tricky last-but-one
and Lucky Green for victory. All of which asks the question: do
we invent our own Senior Partners? And do we envisage our own
dragon?
TCH
[> [> Oh thank you...for this! -- shadowkat, 09:12:32
07/20/04 Tue
Exactly the same thing happened yesterday. Three attempts at
using the green as the penultimate. Three failures. Then a tricky
last-but-one and Lucky Green for victory. All of which asks the
question: do we invent our own Senior Partners? And do we envisage
our own dragon?
Oh what a lovely anaology to explain something that I've been
wrestling with. Reading this, made my light-bulb go off in more
ways than one. Must ponder.
What is the point in continuing, when all you get is the balls
sunk into the pockets? The triumphe of accomplishing that simple
goal no matter how long it takes you. Even if it may seem small
- it is a goal. And the meaning of the accomplishment is what
you give it. Such as getting up in the morning, even though you
don't want to, and doing laundry. Or getting up and going to a
job that may seem pointless - but you get paid for and someone
is appreciative.
The ability to accomplish your goal may involve you having to
let go of something important to you, some variable of pride or
vanity or stubborness - such as the desire to be the one to sink
the "green" ball. It's when you stop going after the
green ball, and do the pink instead, that you triumphe - your
goal after all wasn't to sink the green ball, it was to sink all
twelve, it was that pesky green that prevented you from your goal,
because you placed far too much importance on how or who sunk
it - when you let your brother change the order finally, and do
it, in it went, like magic. Or it may be the importance you place
on the green ball in the order of things, when you stop focusing
on this and focus on that instead.
I'm sure that did not make a whit of sense. But I liked this post
TCH and thank you for clearing up my confusion.
[> Existentialism is hard to pin down... -- StarryNightShade,
06:26:34 07/20/04 Tue
...even amongst those we've labelled as "existentialists".
There are a number of valid interpretations. Lunasea has her interpretation,
which is a valid right, through which she has examined Ats and
key characters. So, rather than let the discussion spiral down
into whose view of existentialism is correct...perhaps a BIG collective
deep breath is in order.
Just a suggestion.
[> [> I'm going to disagree here... -- LittleBit,
13:57:56 07/20/04 Tue
Not about existentialism being a complex philosophy that can certainly
be subject to different interpretations. Because it is. But precisely
because of that what has interested me the most in this thread
is not really the interpretation of Angel through this lens, but
the actual discussion that it has sparked. One that has brought
the major existential philosophers in, why objectivism is both
confused with and different from existentialism and how interpretations
can differ.
Yes, I know we aren't going to somehow settle the question here.
And that if I really want to know more then there's this
concept called 'reading up on the subject' which is also known
as 'research' but it is still worthwhile to read the arguments
(in the debate sense) of others who have already done that and
how they have interpreted this concept.
[> [> [> Much agreeage!! -- s'kat, 15:36:13
07/20/04 Tue
Not about existentialism being a complex philosophy that can
certainly be subject to different interpretations. Because it
is. But precisely because of that what has interested me the most
in this thread is not really the interpretation of Angel through
this lens, but the actual discussion that it has sparked. One
that has brought the major existential philosophers in, why objectivism
is both confused with and different from existentialism and how
interpretations can differ.
Yes, this debate over existentialism has been the most stimulating
and interesting philosophical discussion I've seen in a while.
Of course, I'm coming from a more detached stance, I'm not invested
emotionally in ATS or BTVS or the characters any more. I'm far
more interested in understanding the philosophy and the different
views of it.
If it matters to you whether or not Angel is a hero, than I can
see this being very frustrating. But if it doesn't.
Then it's actually very interesting. I also find the debate on
whether or not Angel and gang were heroes or anti-heros interesting.
Personally? I see them as anti-heroes, but I do see aspects of
heroism in each.
[> [> [> [> Yeppers -- LittleBit, 16:23:13
07/20/04 Tue
Any day I have to read a thread on the board with Google Advanced
Search open in another window is a good day for thinking. And,
funny enough, that's why I came here, and that's why I've stayed.
[> [> [> [> [> In that case I retract my suggestion
-- SNS, 17:09:27 07/20/04 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> I agree. This has been most educational.
-- Jane, 19:02:38 07/20/04 Tue
As someone who has no background in philosophy at all, this whole
discussion has been really interesting. I like all the different
approaches and point of view, and cheer heartily for all the wonderful
philosophical goodness in this thread. Like Bit says, this is
one of the reasons the board continues to draw me to it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Agree -- SNS, 05:27:34
07/21/04 Wed
My suggestion was not to stop the discussion...although that does
seem to be the way it was interpreted. I said, a "deep breath"
and that's what I literally meant.
Electronic communities are precious things. I've had a very good
experience with a board on The Motley Fool website called the
"Foolish Collective" that has been my first experience
with a genuine electronic community. Notably is that people frequently
check with each other to see if they are misinterpreting or if
they are stepping on someone else's feelings.
So all I meant was, "are feelings getting wound up"?
Perhaps only mine were...I can accept that. I certainly didn't
mean, "don't discuss philosophy". Although I can accept
that some may have interpreted this way.
WB says "Angel"
movie deal is on the table -- Vegeta, 08:38:51 07/16/04
Fri
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2004-07/15/12.10.tv
Sounds like it's up to Joss and David to make up their minds about
it. The WB also explains "why" they cancelled Angel.
Vegeta
Replies:
[> Re: WB says "Angel" movie deal is on the table
-- luvthistle1, 12:03:07 07/16/04 Fri
I not surprise that the WB wants to get Angel back, considering
they were hasty in cancelling it, while it was still an rating
draw...more so, than most of the shows they have on the Wb. so
now they come "crawling" back, well, well , well look
what we have here..
[> [> Um, you do realize the telemovie option was mentioned
at the same time as the cancellation -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:17:21
07/16/04 Fri
When the cancellation announcement first came out, the WB very
clearly stated that they were still interested in creating Angel
based TV movies after the show ended. However, when the cancellation
news came, the general feeling among fandom seemed to be that
this was just the WB offering some false hopes to try and keep
the fans a little less enraged. But here we are, several months
later, and the WB seems to be living up to their original statement:
they want an Angel TV movie, just like they said. I don't see
where they're crawling back.
[> [> [> Oops, should be a "?" at the end
of the title to the above post -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:18:31
07/16/04 Fri
[> Re: WB says "Angel" movie deal is on the table
-- LittleBit, 13:16:16 07/16/04 Fri
"The WB also explains "why" they cancelled Angel."
Yuh huh.
[The WB reaches around behind self with both hands and hopes there's
good coverage] "It wasn't us! Fox made us do it!"
[> Re: WB says "Angel" movie deal is on the table
-- cjl, 13:34:25 07/16/04 Fri
Garth Ancier: "Sorry, folks--if we'd known in February how
much our fall schedule sucked, we never would have cancelled ANGEL."
[> [> Re: WB says "Angel" movie deal is on
the table -- Unitas, 13:46:33 07/16/04 Fri
Yeah, that's about right.
[> Read it here.... -- Briar Rose, 14:38:31 07/16/04
Fri
WB Wants Angel Movie
Garth Ancier, chairman of The WB network, confirmed to SCI FI
Wire that the network has approached Angel creator Joss Whedon
about doing a telefilm version of the canceled television series,
about a vampire with a soul. "[We] have an offer on the table
to Joss to do movies," Ancier said during the network's fall
press preview in Los Angeles. "When Joss and David Boreanaz
are both interested in doing it at the same time, I'm sure we
will be doing Angel movies. Certainly Joss would like to. David
will take a bit more coaxing, but I think he will do it."
[I thought that DB was pretty much against doing Angel anymore.
At least until he's figured out if he can make it in movies? It
might be a long, long wait]
Ancier later attributed the cancellation of the series, which
ended a five-year run on The WB last May, to pressure from producer
20th Century Fox Television for a quick answer as to the show's
renewal. "They had pushed for an early decision on whether
the show should come back or not," Ancier said. "Had
they not pushed for the early renewal, or, conversely, if we had
said, 'You know what? Let's wait till we get to the scheduling
room in May and decide then,' ... the show may or may not have
been back. But I think we would have had that opportunity to discuss
it. I think the mistake that was made is that between us and 20th,
we didn't wait until May. We just made the decision early based
upon their request."
[This is double speak.... in other words, they screwed up and
he's trying for denial, while saying that cancellation could have
happened anyway, regardless of the timing. I think he's being
really careful to not admit that there were other reasons they
decided to cancel Angel...]
I think I'll just wait to see what JW turns out, and not hold
my breath for an Angel movie. I'd love some closure, but maybe
the final scene is good enough and would lose it's impact with
any more story.
[> [> A little cynical, mayhaps? -- Finn Mac Cool,
16:29:46 07/16/04 Fri
The statement offered above seems perfectly plausible. A company
having to make an early decision about whether or not to cancel
a show, based on predictions regarding end of season performance
and how the company's situation will be in the new season, seems
quite likely. It could very easily be that the predictions didn't
come through as expected, thus changing how they might have responded
to the decision of whether to cancel or not (but they can't be
certain it would have changed the end result, as predicting how
changes in the past might have changed the present is a very uncertain
science (witness the ever popular "butterfly effect")).
Why must the WB have any alterior motives for their decision to
cancel Angel?
[> [> [> Re: A little cynical, mayhaps? -- Unitas,
21:20:13 07/16/04 Fri
I totally agree.
The WB bashing you see around is getting rather shrill. It was
a business decesion and not a personal attack on Angel fandom.
The shocking number of people I read who think the WB is trying
to placate the fans so they won't boycott the network is a little
scary. If we were all so important to the WB, they probably won't
have cancelled the show. I mean Angel was the lowest rated one-hour
on the the netweek with the excepetion of One Tree Hill (the only
WB show whose audience grew throughout the year). Think it's a
wrong move on the WBs part but it's not unreasonable and Ancier
quote is totally logical (that is how the decesion was made about
Angel every season after all)
[> [> [> [> More wondering why the change in plans.....
-- Briar Rose, 00:56:54 07/17/04 Sat
If they think there's a big enough audience for movies, and the
show was already starting to generate larger numbers....
Then why make a knee-jerk move without simply saying that they
would consider it IF the ratings kept improving, so can a few
eps "in case?"
They did it with NewsRadio and Just Shoot Me. They've done it
with NYPD Blue and Tru Calling... and NBC, ABC and Fox are all
really quick to pull the plug. I'd think the WB would be a little
less quick to drop a series with a standing audience.
I have zero against WB. If anything, I detest Fox and can't believe
they actually stood by BtVS and Angel so long. I just know a heck
of a lot about the industry and this sounds rather obfuscated
compared to normal statements like, "Well, we didn't have
the budget." or "We didn't see the ratings increasing
enough to substantially change our views on cancelation at that
time."
Current board
| More July 2004