July 2004 posts


Previous July 2004  

August 2004

Is this a stupid question? -- Kana....or am I? (I am), 09:23:37 07/27/04 Tue

I was wondering whether Angel's photographic memory has anything to do with his vampire abilities or is it something he could do when he was Liam? Is it at all supernatural or just his inherent skill.

Replies:

[> At the very least, I don't think all vampires have it -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:03:42 07/27/04 Tue

At one point during Season 2 of "Angel", Darla says that she can't even remember what her name used to be (which is a fairly large gap in memory). It's possible that Angel had a photographic memory before being vamped, but it's also possible that it's a skill he gained over a hundred years of practice.

[> [> Re: Darla's memory -- Rich, 11:28:24 07/27/04 Tue

From what we've seen of Darla's human life, she may not WANT to remember it.

[> [> [> Re: Darla's memory -- Kana, 12:45:48 07/27/04 Tue

But I'm not sure that Angel would want to remember his human life that much more than Darla, really.

[> Re: Is this a stupid question? -- LittleBit, 11:04:04 07/27/04 Tue

Just guessing here, but I'd say it's an innate ability unique to Liam/Angel for two reasons. First, if it was a vampiric ability I think we'd have seen more evidence of it in other vampires, and second it fits with Angel's ability to produce incredibly detailed sketches of people he hasn't seen in years or has only met in passing.

[> [> Re: Is this a stupid question? -- Kana, 12:43:45 07/27/04 Tue

Do you think that makes him feel his guilt anymore than your average vampire with a soul? (Average vampire with a soul? LOL!)

[> Re: Is this a stupid question? -- Max, 16:09:14 07/27/04 Tue

I have always assumed that it was a vampire thing, but when I think about it we have never seen another vampire with the same trait. It may be a natural trait of Liam's that was just enhanced when he became a vampire.
But here is another fun thought. Could it be part of the curse? They wanted Angel to suffer for everything he had done so they made it so he would remember it all perfectly. Angel himself even seemed surprised by it. In "Five by Five" there is a flash back to just after he was cursed and he says:

"Funny. You would think with all the - people I've maimed - and killed I wouldn't be able to remember every - single - one."

[> Re: Is this a stupid question? -- The Hat, 14:51:15 07/28/04 Wed

Kana's question reminded me of something I wondered about a number of times while watching BtVS and AtS, namely, Spike's extraordinary ability to track by scent. I can' t remember when he first showed that talent; the earliest example I can think of is in "Touched", when he walks out of Buffy's house, takes a deep breath, and locks in on her trail. There's another instance in "Damage", when Spike tracks Dana after sniffing a bit of blood that dripped off her weapon. Meanwhile, Angel finds Dana through more investigatory methods. We're often shown that Angel's sense of smell is acute ("You had sex last night with a bleached blonde." "That's unbelievable. I didn't think you ever had sex."), but I can't remember Angel ever tracking someone over a distance using only his nose.

Maybe William smelled really good when he was alive (sorry, couldn't resist the pun), and his sense of smell was enhanced like Liam's good memory. Or maybe vampires all just get random talents out of a grab-bag. Can anyone think of examples of any other vampires displaying uncanny talents?
Another stupid question probably? -- Kana, 09:29:53 07/27/04 Tue

Can Lorne hear better than Angel or is it that he can hear certain frequencies? This is obviously referring to when Lorne heard the transmit frequency of Gavin's survaillence system in season 3. The reason i say this is because he misheard something Angelus said in 'Soulless' and was corrected by Fred who as far as i know has standard human hearing.

Replies:

[> Re: Another stupid question probably? -- ghady, 13:04:40 07/27/04 Tue

how weird, i was just watching Dad on DVD and i thought about that. i think it's the frequencies thing. humans can only hear certain frequencies, and my theory is that vampire hearing is "merely" SUPERIOR human hearing. they cannot, however, hear ULTRA high or ULTRA low frequencies, as vampire abilites are, IMHO, "extensions" of human capabilities. for instance, humans can't FLY, and neither can vamps, but humans can JUMP, and vamps can jump higher and further than we can.

So, it's most likely that Lorne can hear certain freqs that humans and vamps can't. that makes the most sense to me.

[> [> Re: Another stupid question probably? -- Kana, 01:29:03 07/28/04 Wed

My science guru ghady. I knew you wouldn't let me down. I was going to put your name in brackets in the message.

[> [> [> hehe lol thx :) -- ghady, 02:12:55 07/28/04 Wed

Tales of the Slayers -- O'Cailleagh, 18:36:23 07/27/04 Tue

Ok..there seemed to be some interest in this project when I posted on it last week so as promised, here is the Slayer list. Its based on the Slayers featured and mentioned in the series, those in the TOTS comic and novels (Vols 1-3), and those mentioned in the movie. I realise that I haven't named the Scythe Slayers. That's because I can't remember who survived, and besides, there are lots of others we haven't even met!
If there are any from a 'legitimate source' (ie not other fan-fic) that I have left out please add to the list. If more info is required on those listed, please let me know and I'll see what I can do. Or you could try either looking it up online or getting the books!
There were suggestions of Native American and Japanese Slayers, these have been done a fair bit, by all means, if you have a story about one bursting out of you then write it, just thought I'd mention that its been done. Same goes for the Pirate Slayer.
I did like the idea of an Arabic Slayer, and maybe the one at the time of the Crucifixion.
Not too sure about crossovers though, I think it'd be best to keep it within the confines of the Buffyverse. But, yeah B-Movie monsters a-go-go, that'll be fine. As long as its not too campy!

Oh right! The List of Slayers! here it is:

Primitive Slayer Time Unknown Africa

Egyptian Slayer Time Unknown Egypt

Thessily Thessilonikki 490 BCE Athens, Greece

Kishi Minomoto/Lady Shobu 980 CE Sagami Province, Japan

Dark of the Moon 1250 New Mexico

Eliane de Shaunde (Ward) 1320 Beauport, Brittany, France

Virginia Dare/White Doe 1586 Croatoan, America

Ildiko Gellert 1609 Hungary

Robin Whitby 1661 The Caribbean

Carissa Avenhaus 1673 Holland

Marie-Christine 1789 France*

Claudine 17?? France*

Elizabeth (Edward) Weston 1813 Somerset, England

Samantha 1812 London, England

Marie Siegner 1842 South of France/London, England

Catherine Hogarth 1843 East London, England

Xiaoqin 1856 Shanghai, China

Frankie Massey
(Pauline Frances Barnard) 1864 Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Lucy Hanover 1866 Virginia, USA

Mollie Prater 1886 Kentucky, USA

Angelique Hawthorne 1897 London, England

Chinese Slayer 1899 China

Ardita O'Reilly 1922 New York, USA

Britta Kessler 1923 Munich, Germany

Name Unknown 1927 Chicago, Illinois, USA

Korean Slayer 193? ?

Anni (Sonnenblume) 1938 Germany

Eleanor Boudreau 1940 Los Angeles, USA

Elizabeth (Betty) Winters 1943 Chicago, Illinois, USA

Asha Sayre 1956 Martin County, Florida, USA

Nikki Wood 197? New York, USA

India Cohen 1993 Tokyo, Japan

Buffy Summers 1996 Sunnydale, USA

Kendra 1997 ?

Faith 1998 Sunnydale/LA, USA

Scythe-Activated Slayers 2003--> Worldwide

Melaka Fray The Crazy, Crazy Future

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

Also:

Magyar peasant girl Slayer and Indian Princess Slayer, both Time Unknown;

Slave-girl Slayer in Virginia, Time Unknown;

Serving Girl Slayer, probably in Medieval England;

Unnamed Slayer, California, during the Mexican War.

Naayeeneizghani (Monster Slayer), Native American Slayer from the Sunnydale area. Way Pre-Sunnydale.

Christian Slayer. Unknown time and place. Some Medieval walled town.

Inca Mummy Girl...was she a Slayer, misunderstood by the priests?

* Both of these Slayers apparently were active during the French Revolution. Was it long enough to encompass two Slayers?

The times given for each Slayer is the time the story they appear in is set. Apart for Buffy et al.

Replies:

[> queer slayer! -- nino, 20:04:19 07/27/04 Tue

i'd like to see a story about a queer slayer, maybe playing on some of the "secret life"/queer metaphors of from the early seasons of Buffy...maybe i shall write it! any suggestion for a time period?

[> I personally wouldn't take the novel versions as canon right off the bat -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:18:18 07/27/04 Tue

The "Tales of the Slayer" graphic novel included stories by Joss and other members of the "Mutant Enemy" writing crew, and has even been stated by Joss to be in canon. The Buffy novelizations, however, tend to take place within a much looser canonical structure (while they try to avoid directly contradicting show canon, fitting the stories within the proper timeline stretches credibility, not to mention future developments on the show nullifying past novels). I'm not saying we shouldn't strive to be original, but I tend to view the novels more as authorized fanfic, whereas the original "Tales of the Slayer" is far closer to canon.

[> [> Re: I personally wouldn't take the novel versions as canon right off the bat -- O'Cailleagh, 20:44:55 07/27/04 Tue

Yeah, I know the novels aren't as canonical as they could be, I just thought it would be best to use some sort of framework. They seem to fit the bill. The only problem I've found timeline-wise is the French Revolution thing. Oh, and what I assumed to be a Typo in the Ghosts of Slayers Past tale-regarding the current Watcher's father's Slayer!
Otherwise I totally agree on the authorised fan-fic thing. The TOTS ones don't seem as bad as some of the other novels I've seen though. In Book of Fours a vamp is killed by a bullet. Tsk.
Saying that though the Lost Slayer and Wicked Willow Series' look interesting.

O'Cailleagh

[> [> [> Which French Revolution? -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:43:26 07/27/04 Tue

I mean, weren't there supposed to be three of them, or something like that?

Oh, and could you give some info about those Slayers from America during the 19th century? Cause I've got what sounds like a fairly good idea for a Slayer from the same country and century (though probably set earlier than the 1880's). The idea is to have a Slayer folk tale, perhaps told by an old, American Watcher, who spins the yarn for a younger, British Watcher. There would be plenty of exaggerations, hyperbole, and downright impossible feats. It could include several mini-adventures, such as this Slayer being responsible for vampires fearing the sunlight, or how she killed a pack of werewolves with one silver bullet, or a fight between her and some powerful demon that wreaked havoc across the countryside. It would all be told in the standard tall tale manner: not much description of character, but lots of absurd, exaggerated details. I'm personally hoping this hasn't been tried before, because I'd love to give it a shot.

[> [> [> [> Re: Which French Revolution? -- MsGiles, 03:50:41 07/28/04 Wed

It's fairly complex, as my trawlings of various history sites (and of my dim memories of the Scarlet Pimpernel and 'A tale of Two Cities') confirms.
There have indeed been various stages of revolution, arguably still going on, but the one which sticks in people's minds is the one with the guillotine and Marie Antoinette and the cake. I've read at least one slayerfic set in this one. To put it in context:

In 1789 the popular uprising in Paris kicked off, and the storming of the Bastille happened, releasing stacks of criminals as well as innocents awaiting trial, political prisoners etc., but the king wasn't overthrown at that point, he compromised to stay in power, and a new liberal constitution was set up. The Declaration of The Rights of Man was adopted.

Things escalated, and in 1792 the monarchy was abolished and Louis XVI arrested. He was executed in Jan 1793, with Marie Antoinette going to the guillotine in September of that year. War was declared on Britain, Holland and Spain, which opposed the revolution. Catholicism was formally abolished and the 'cult of Reason' established

Loads of people died on the guillotine in 1794, as power struggles in various factions continued. The army did well, however, and Napoleon began to come to power.

In 1795 the breakdown of society and European sanctions began to bite: there were bread riots in Paris. By 1798 Napoleon was taking the armies to Egypt, hoping to be the new Alexander the Great.

In 1799 treaties were signed which ended the European wars, and Napoleon withdrew from Egypt. He came home and consolidated his power, by overthrowing the shaky Directoire and establishing a consulate, with himself as Consul. That could be the real end of the revolution. He became hereditary consul in 1802 and established the Empire in 1804. Catholicism was re-established. The European wars went on, and eventually Napoleon lost power, and the monarchy was re-established, in 1815.

Eventually, in 1848, the monarchy was overturned again, and the Second Republic established. This didn't last long before the elected president, Louis Napoleon, had himself declared Napoleon III, Emperor. He did well for a while, but then started losing in Europe, and was replaced by the 3rd Republic in 1871.

The French now have the 7th Republic, where the Presidency holds power in various degrees of balance with the National Assembly, headed by the Prime Minister.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Which French Revolution? -- Marc, 08:15:47 07/28/04 Wed

[b]The French now have the 7th Republic, where the Presidency holds power in various degrees of balance with the National Assembly, headed by the Prime Minister[/b]

Sorry it is now the 5th republic !(set in 1958)
the 3rd Republic was remplaced by the "Etat Fran ais" with help of the German (1940-1944)
then 4th Republic 1946-1958

best regards

[> [> [> [> [> [> Apologies and merci bien! -- MsGiles, 08:58:24 07/29/04 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> Claudine -- KdS, 02:27:54 07/29/04 Thu

(For clarity, she's the Slayer from Amber Benson's Tales of the Slayers comic strip story).

From fashions, it's definitely the 1789 Revolution. It's implied that it takes place at the height of the Terror in 1793-4. Claudine isn't newly-summoned, and she survives the story, so you can put her a few years either way.

[> [> [> [> Re: Which French Revolution? -- O'Cailleagh, 16:25:27 08/02/04 Mon

Will get on to it as soon as I get home. Again, I won't be online for a week, so I won't be able to post it til then.

O'Cailleagh

[> [> [> (O'Cailleagh - I answered your question re. Hellmouth, below) -- Marie, 02:32:15 07/29/04 Thu

Just putting this in this thread in case it got archived before you read it!

Marie

[> [> [> [> Marie! Are you going to come hang with us at the Season 6 project? -- Masq, 07:11:40 07/29/04 Thu

We're deciding episode story lines now, and starting to volunteer for writing and etc.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I certainly am... -- Marie, 07:21:34 07/29/04 Thu

In fact, after much frustration (I can never get into the damn thing via your e-mailed grr_argh link - all it gets me is the posts of the 24th May!) and rootling through the mire of Live Journal, I have started to read all the plot suggestions so far, but there's so much to read!!! When is the best time to join any chats about it? I reckon I'm about 8 hours ahead of you guys, so if you're chatting around 10-11 p.m. it's about 6-7:00 a.m. here!

M

[> [> [> [> [> [> You only need to read... -- Masq, 09:08:07 07/29/04 Thu

The stuff posted on and after the 25th of July. That's the official seasonal arc, with changes and additions in the comments. And people come and go all day and night, whenever is most convenient to them. It's like the ATPo posting board that way. Just jump in wherever you feel inspired to. Someone might not respond for 8-12 hours, but that's just the reality of time differences and varying personal schedules.

And the trick is to log into Live Journal to read the latest posts!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> What she said -- OnM, 06:07:05 07/30/04 Fri

I ran into the exact same problem initially, and it was simply because I wasn't logged in to LJ. I just never thought about it, being so used to the ATPo board where you don't have to do that.

We'd sure be glad to have you join in!

:-)

[> OC, you got mail -- VR, 18:07:13 08/01/04 Sun

For some reason, I wanna see an eskimo slayer.

[> [> Re: OC, you got mail -- O'Cailleagh, 16:27:31 08/02/04 Mon

I'll go check it in a moment my sweet.
I also vote for an eskimo Slayer, who wants to write it?

O'Cailleagh

[> [> [> I would, but I'm too busy with my own writing. -- VR, 18:28:21 08/02/04 Mon

I STILL don't get some parts of AS3 -- ghady, 03:12:45 07/28/04 Wed

I still don't get it.
1) Why did Sahjan have to wait until Darla is PREGNANT to awaken Holtz??? It would have made more sense for him to send Holtz BEFORE they had sex.
2) WHY ON EARTH is Angel Holtz's sworn enemy????? Because of CONNOR?? That makes NO sense!!! Why does Sahjan want ANGEL killed even AFTER Connor is born??!!! IS it bcs if Angel is killed, then there's no one to protect the kid?? But Holtz wouldn't ever kill a HUMAN child!! flawed paln...
3) what are the prophecies that Sahjan messes around w/??
ok then thx

Replies:

[> Re: I STILL don't get some parts of AS3 -- Kana, 04:41:23 07/28/04 Wed

I'm not too sure myself, but maybe on the first point, Sahjan wasn't lying when he said there are time tables and rules far greater than either of us. Perhaps there was no other way that would allow Holtz and Angel to cross paths again. I'm not sure if the powers or maybe other higher forces would allow it. (I'm not sure whether or not you have seen the rest of AtS 4 yet, but if you have say so so we can discuss a certain demi-goddess.) Clearly something wanted Conner to be born so maybe there were forces guiding events so that Sahjhan only had one oppotunity to kill Angel or Conner.

I'm not sure about the first part of your second question. I'm not sure if you mean why is Holtz, Angel's sworn enemy or why is Angel Sahjan's sworn enemy? Because if you are asking why is Angel, Holtz's sworn enemy then I think that is pretty obvious!!! To answer the second part of the question, I think it is because Angel would provide the best protection for Conner. Remember Sahjan was aware that other groups were after Conner, especially W+H. It may be a flawed plan but he did try to retify it by involving Lilah.

To answer the third question, i think it may have been the Nyazian scrolls and subsequently all the commentry that came after changed, (I'm sure you've seen Back To The Future.)

I'm not sure if that helps at all, but please reply so we can discuss further.

[> [> Re: ooh little mistake on my part -- ghady, 06:53:43 07/28/04 Wed

Lol sorry i meant why is angel SAHJAN'S sworn enemy.

Yea that cleared things up (the only thing that i still don't get is the thing above).
And i've been thinking: didn't the prophecies say that "the one sired by the vampire with a SOUL will grow to manhood and kill Sahjan?" So maybe Sahjan had to wait until there actually WAS a vampire w/ soul, and until he found out who that vamp was. Also, in order to get Holtz to kill both angel AND darla, they would have to be together for quite some time, but angel would HAVE to have a soul. The year of AS2 would've been a perfect time to attack, but i'm gonna go w/ "something wanted Connor to be born" (i dunno what yet, havent seen all of AS4), so Sahjan had to wait for ANOTHER window for holtz to attack, when both darla AND soulful angel are present together. make any sense??

(but DO explain the sworn enemy thing)

[> [> [> Re: ooh little mistake on my part -- Kana, 07:40:13 07/28/04 Wed

I think Sahjan was basically using that lie to sic Holtz onto Angel. He had to keep this lie afloat so he told Lilah and Angel the same story, perhaps in case they conferred with Holtz, although I can't imagine Holtz believing Angel.
It's kind of a lame explanation I know, but if you direct this qeustion to Masq or Doug (I think) they would give you a far better explantion.

[> Re: I STILL don't get some parts of AS3 -- Kana, 04:48:02 07/28/04 Wed

Also to add to the point about Sahjan wanting Angel dead after Conner was born, he still had to give Holtz the impression that he meant Angel harm. He didn't count on Holtz wanting the raise the kid as his own. Perhaps he thought he wouldn't care about Conner or his welfare leaving him vulnerable.

[> [> and another thing -- ghady, 08:01:34 07/28/04 Wed

i don't get why angel said "at least i would've had something to snack on" after the eathquake thing. i mean wtf! this just seems VERY out of character, unless it's bcs of the effect of the spiked blood.

[> [> [> Re: and another thing -- Kana, 09:06:11 07/28/04 Wed

Yeah, that i don't get. But it is interesting, although it may be the spiked blood, (i hope it is) Angel has shown a very dry almost disturbing sense of humour in the past, but i can't imagine he would joke about feeding on his son. considering the circumstances.

[> [> [> [> Re: and another thing -- David, 10:12:32 07/30/04 Fri

I didn't know why he said that either but i think it has to do with the spiked blood. What i didn't get is why Sahjon got Holtz to kill Darla/Connor, couldn't he have hired some demon to just come up behind her in the 1st few months of pregnancy and just kill her although i am glad he didn't since i thought Connor was really cool.

But can someone help me with something. When Angel sees the red girl in the white room, she tells him, the senior partners/Wolfram and Hart cursed Sahjon's species to be incorpeal. Why?, i know she said something about hating chaos but why does she/the SP's?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: and another thing -- ghady, 10:54:13 07/30/04 Fri

i dont remember her saying that the SPs made Sahjan ethereal, but i remember she said that she hates chaos.. she LOVES trouble and evil and such, but she hates chaos.. ie, she obviusly does not like the in-your-face type of evil, ala the beast, but the more organized, orderly, and insiduous type of evil, ala wolfram and hart.. she likes to cause trouble, but in VERY subtle ways.. u get? THAT's why Sahjan was made ethereal (his methods were too chaotic)
Once bitten, twice shy? (Angel finale spoilers) -- Darby, 06:58:44 07/29/04 Thu

Okay, first off, you're going to have to trust me, becauce I have absolutely forgotten where I ran across this - in an interview or Q&A I read sometime over the last week or so, someone definitely "in the know" from Angel mentioned in passing that the original finale plan was to kill Gunn, but it was switched fairly late in the process to Wes instead.

Was this a good idea?

There are several thematic and plot reasons to think that offing Wesley was better - in some ways, his arc had played out, and there was an added poignancy in his relationship with Illyria. However, it is unusual for ME to kill off someone that has kind of arrived logically to that point - from ME's MO, Gunn was the better choice, having emerged from a dark time, risen back to a role in the group, gotten sort of happy again. Or maybe they were finally resisting their own internal cliches.

However, long-term, if there are follow-up movies set in the Buffyverse, Wes has more potential plot resonances: his role with Illyria/Fred, his connections to the Sunnydale crowd, all were possible fodder for future developments. Gunn is much more of an LA-limited guy - he certainly can work in an integrated 'verse, but more like Xander would, more peripherally.

So the question is: was this a case of racial profiling? After the reaction to Tara's have-lesbian-sex-and-die departure, could ME have not wanted to eliminate their only major non-white actor (while "losing" their white-but-green character too?), and be accused of the old horror cliche of the black character never lasting to the end? Did they want later Buffyverse stories to be a bit less homogeneous? If this was the primary motivation for the decision, was it enough?

Replies:

[> Don't know if you heard -- KdS, 07:33:43 07/29/04 Thu

But the initial details that leaked out through spoiler sites had Wes and Gunn both dieing on screen.

[> Re: Once bitten, twice shy? (Angel finale spoilers) -- Cactus Watcher, 07:53:53 07/29/04 Thu

Actually I had more of a feeling that the end of Buffy was designed to appease fans than the end of Angel. If they were going to kill someone off because his/her arc was over, I think it would be Lorne not Wesley or Gunn. Wesley's relationship with Illyria was just starting to pick up, and Gunn's who-the-heck-am-I-now story had plenty of mileage ahead. Was Lorne always going to leave? Probably, but on terms he could make an occasional reappearance. It made more sense in several ways for Wesley to die on screen than Gunn considering when the series ended. If you make the right choice in the end for artisitic reasons should you be critised politically for thinking about other options? Darby's not criticizing, but the implication is someone might.

Frankly these 'someone in the know' things we've been getting all along about future casting and story line have been very suspect, even those directly from writers in the inner circle. Any ideas floated during businesses hours seemed to have taken on the aura of canon in some peoples' minds who worked there.

[> [> That and Joss has a habit of posting False Spoilers because he hates Spoilers a LOT. -- Majin Gojira, 10:15:11 07/29/04 Thu


[> [> Re: Once bitten, twice shy? (Angel finale spoilers) -- Rufus, 21:07:47 07/29/04 Thu

I'll wait til the s4 Angel DVD's come out and hope there are a few things about season 5 in the commentaries.

Considering the Whedonverse is full of characters coming back from the dead, I figure there could still be a movie based on Illyria that includes Wes.

[> Cliches -- dmw, 10:49:03 07/30/04 Fri

So the question is: was this a case of racial profiling? After the reaction to Tara's have-lesbian-sex-and-die departure, could ME have not wanted to eliminate their only major non-white actor (while "losing" their white-but-green character too?), and be accused of the old horror cliche of the black character never lasting to the end?

There's no need for accusation. Both are well-known cliches and they obviously wrote the cliched story in one case and avoided it in the other. If you begin a story with the phrase "It was a dark and stormy night," you've written a cliche. That's all there is to it. There might be questions about lesser known cliches, or cliches that are local to the serial in question instead of the genre as a whole, such as ME's favorite story of good guy goes bad, which they've done often enough that I would call it a cliche for ME, but the ones mentioned above are common enough to the genre for people who have read/seen even a few hundred books/movies to be familiar with.

However, writing a cliche doesn't necessarily detract from the quality of your story. The question is what you did with the cliche. After all, the premise of BtVS is based on a cliche, that of the beautiful blonde teenager in a horror movie; however, the interesting aspect of BtVS is that it subverts that cliche by inverting its conclusion, making the blonde the hero instead of the victim.

[> [> Re: Cliches -- RJA, 12:45:38 07/30/04 Fri

There's no need for accusation. Both are well-known cliches and they obviously wrote the cliched story in one case and avoided it in the other

While I'm sure many are tired of the dead-lesbian cliche discussion, I wouldn't say this is a clear matter of an obvious cliche being written. It's certainly not analogous to writing 'a dark and stormy night' - rather something that reads like a dark and stormy night, but isn't really the same thing.

One thing that I always felt the dead lesbian cliche fell down on the fact that the whole point of the cliche, the moral, the meaning, is completely absent from the Willow-Tara storyline. If the death and ensuing craziness had nothing to do with the fact they were lesbians, and the fact that there was no moralizing and the fact that Willow resumed a lesbian relationship after this would indicate that the cliche wasn't there.

[> [> [> Intention is irrelevant to the question of existence -- dmw, 13:17:15 07/30/04 Fri

Intention is irrelevant to the question of whether a cliche is present. Whether or not you intended to write a cliche, if you wrote "it's a dark and stormy night," you wrote a cliche. Your post actually is more relevant to the part of my message which you didn't quote:

"However, writing a cliche doesn't necessarily detract from the quality of your story. The question is what you did with the cliche. After all, the premise of BtVS is based on a cliche, that of the beautiful blonde teenager in a horror movie; however, the interesting aspect of BtVS is that it subverts that cliche by inverting its conclusion, making the blonde the hero instead of the victim."

Where intentions come into play is in how we interpret the meaning of a cliche, especially as the original conscious and unconscious intentions behind the origin of a cliche are often lost over time as cliches are repeated in future works. Returning to the original question, I don't think a modern horror movie or TV show where a black person dies and a white person in the same group does is necessarily or even likely to be racist in intent. Writers are more likely to be ignorant of the original perceptions behind the cliche or to not think it worth paying attention to than malicious.

[> [> [> [> I see what you mean -- RJA, 13:30:50 07/30/04 Fri

But after a while, doesn't it become the case that all stories are essentially cliches? If we don't look towards intention or message, but focus on what happens, then there are limited number of stories, all of which have been told.

After all, straight girlfriend dying and man goes for revenge probably happens far more often than that of lesbians in popular culture, but I haven't heard the Wes/Fred story being described as a cliche.

In fact, the reason the cliche was picked up upon so strongly was because the inherent message that some people thought Tara dying was sending. Intention and message is everything to that particular cliche, otherwise it simply wouldn't be an issue, but a story.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I see what you mean -- dmw, 14:04:35 07/30/04 Fri

But after a while, doesn't it become the case that all stories are essentially cliches? If we don't look towards intention or message, but focus on what happens, then there are limited number of stories, all of which have been told.

I don't think this is the case, especially when dealing with fantasy and even more so with science fiction where we can examine new situations.

In fact, the reason the cliche was picked up upon so strongly was because the inherent message that some people thought Tara dying was sending. Intention and message is everything to that particular cliche, otherwise it simply wouldn't be an issue, but a story.

I agree that intent and message are what make the cliche an issue. The situation is analogous to a judge having incontrovertible evidence of a homocide, but he still has to examine intent to determine whether the homocide was premeditated murder, manslaughter, or a justified homocide to prevent a very serious crime. However, intent's a fuzzy idea, which we can never know for certain without being the person in question, and different judges will come to different conclusions about intent.

Message is even trickier to come to conclusions about than intent, as it adds another level of indirection and participation, where even if the judge came to a correct conclusion that the homicide was justifiable, people will perceive different messages (all communication requires participation of both sender and receiver), and someone who saw the event can get the message that violence is fine in other circumstances, which is something we see in arguments about violence in certain movies and shows.

The message received by viewers of the cliche is the core of the controvery, rather than its intent; however, it's not a question any of us here can answer for the millions of BtVS viewers, as we only have our own personal perception of the event. We'd have to take measurements of characteristics like changes in viewer perception of homosexuals and homosexual relationships and examine any changes in the portrayal of lesbian relationships in TV shows and movies for some years after the episode. Perhaps someone's done that and I'm simply unaware of their research, but with my current knowledge, I don't think any of us knows what meanings were taken by each of the millions of viewers from the cliche.
Enter at your own caution (really long, even by my standards) -- Lunasea, 15:53:50 07/30/04 Fri

One more thing I can check off of my to-do list. Not quite happy with it, but the idea is there. The beginning is the good part any way. I'm sure after the Hegelian dialectic is illustrated, anyone reading this board can fill in the blanks. It's one of the easier things in philosophy to understand.

I love to read philosophy. At least some philosophers, especially in their native language (which since I only speak English and French, leaves out a great deal of thought). Sol said Being and Nothingness was a cure for insomnia. To each her own. In French, his passion came through and I don't find passion to be sleep inducing. That is what I love most about philosophers, the passion they wrote with. The passion they lived with. For the ones that truly deserve the title philosopher and not just thinker or writer of stuff, the ones that truly loved wisdom, it shows in their work every bit as much as love shows in works of the great poets and playwrights.

Georg Wilhelm Friederich Hegel was one such man. What I love most about his philosophy wasn't his actual philosophy. It was how writing about it was living it. He was his philosophy. If I can do that, then I am doing what I want. I don't want to live according to a philosophy. I want to be philosophy. Smash the boundaries between existence and thought. I think therefore I am. It is thought that makes us human. To love man is to love thought. All human experience only exists in how we perceive it, human thought.

The reason an essay about how the show illustrates the Hegelian dialectic is the appropriate follow-up to an essay about how the show illustrates the existential hero is because Kierkegaard was writing in direct response to the German Idealists, especially Hegel. Franz Bretano condemns German Idealism. Husserl is Bretano's student. The development of existentialism, which descends from Kierkegaard and Bretano/Husserl, descends from attacks on Hegel. What better lens to next use to look at the show? Cha-cha-cha

I'll admit that if I get into the organic theory of truth/reality right now, my brain will explode. That's not a metaphor. It will actually go boom. This is something I (and I'm sure my family and friends) wish to avoid. Perhaps someone else will do this for the board. It's not that subjective spirit, objective spirit and absolute spirit aren't interesting. Perhaps they are too interesting. Perhaps I don't want to get distracted by the dancers, which I am prone to do, and lose the dance. For the purposes of this dance, his dialectic will be adequate to make some pretty twirls on the floor.

Hands down, my favorite thing in philosophy is the Socratic Method. The back-and-forth movement, the give-and-take, is the stuff of life. This movement is called dialectic and is an important part of the dance, if not the dance itself. Simply meaning discussion in Greek, it can take many forms. It can be the rambling form of the Socratic method in all its glory or the formal structure of pros and cons of Aristotle. Be it resolved that Angel is the existentialist hero. Someone takes pro, someone takes con and the audience gains a better understanding of the topic and is better able to decide where they stand on the issue, pro or con.

Something else can result from this process. Pro and con can be brought together. That's what Kant did. Idealism takes rationalism and empiricism and combines them to use the strengths of each to compensate for the weaknesses of the other. Rationalist thought became an empirical fact of the mind. Empirical things were reasoned to be only known through our minds. What a wonderful dance this is.

Then comes Hegel, last of the German Idealists. The dialectic isn't just something the mind does in order to think about reality. It becomes something reality does to the mind. Brains start exploding and philosophy students start to cuss more. Rather than either clean up cerebrospinal fluid from my drapes or have my children hear words they should learn from cable TV like any normal child, I'm going to jump right to the Hegelian System Triad: thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

Even though Hegel never used the words, they explain his triad rather well, so I'll use them. First you have a concept, a thesis. That makes sense. Have to have a thought in the first place to figure out things. One of his famous triads stars with being, but I'll keep things more general here. In order to examine that concept, you have to look at it's opposite, the antithesis. This process also happens when the thesis comes into contact with the antithesis for whatever reason. The antithesis of being is nothingness. From this conflict derives a synthesis. In this triad of being-nothingness, the synthesis is becoming.

The synthesis must do three things:
1. Cancel the conflict between thesis and antithesis
2. Preserve the elements of truth present in thesis and antithesis
3. Transcend opposition and sublimate the conflict into a higher truth.

That doesn't end the process. The new synthesis become the thesis and the process continues until an Absolute Truth (which can't be reached) is reached. It was the pursuit of this Absolute Truth that Hegel considered essential to the evolution of mankind.

Angel's quest for who he is illustrates this dialectic. When I originally started this essay, the hardest part to figure out was how to organize it. Linear thought isn't my strong point. I believe my essays will support this contention. At first, I had Angel's definitions for self divided by his metaphysical state, with season four's Angelus being antithesis to an earlier Angelus, but it wasn't. It was the antithesis to Angel beginning of season four, not because he was evil, but because big frat boy is antithesis to hard working champion of the helpless. That said, I hope you enjoy this illustration of Hegel's dialectic using Angel's quest to figure the absolute truth of who he is.

Angel's human form, Liam, is shown in four episodes. First we see his vamping in "Becoming Part I" on Buffy. We have a very brief look at Liam in "Amends." Next we see Liam's relationship with his father on "The Prodigal" season one of Angel. The last and most revealing look we get of Liam is on "Spin the Bottle" season four. StB does not show us a rebellious young adult that we see in "The Prodigal." Instead we see a younger Liam that is still trying to live up to his father's expectations. The path from there to the man that leaves home is not shown directly, but it is not hard to make out what happened.

Young Liam, growing up in Catholic Ireland in the 18th Century, is told exactly what he is supposed to do and supposed to be by his father and the Church. Angel, being the lazy horny toad that he thinks he is, has trouble living up to this image, as would any human being. He is further disillusioned when he realizes his father doesn't live up to that image. From here, he develops the antithesis of what he is supposed to be. Instead of allowing his father and the Church define him, he reacts by embracing their opposite. He becomes the lazy horny toad they kept telling him he is. This is not defining himself, because he is just reacting to their definition. He isn't any more the lazy horny toad than he was the dutiful son.

The inadequacy of this image as lazy horny toad is illustrated in an alley near a tavern. He comes over to a beautiful woman, playing the lazy horny toad, to seduce her. In the course of their exchange, he reveals who he is. There is more to him than getting his jollies on. With all earnestness, he confesses "I never been anywhere myself. Always wanted to see the world." (Becoming) A line to seduce a beautiful woman and start his career as a gigolo? Perhaps. The way it was delivered shows it was more than that. This was Liam's heart speaking. This was something he wanted. The synthesis of the thesis/image his father wanted and the antithesis he developed would have involved this.

He never gets a chance to do that. Instead, what innocence he has left is destroyed as Darla brings his head to her bloody chest and forever changes his life. As Angelus stands "victorious" over his father's dead body, Darla takes the image that Liam has of himself rejecting his father and the Church and combines it with his father's desire for him to be someone. Angelus is not just an evil Liam. Angelus is not lazy. He puts great effort into tormenting others. Darla nurtures her Dear Boy so that he is truly a creature of evil that revels in hurting others.

This image that Darla cultivates in Angelus of being someone by rejecting what he was told to be is incompatible with her earlier image of being a member of the Circle of Aurelius. Darla is willing to give up her image as follower of Master, as created dutiful daughter, for something more self-created, namely mother and wife to Angelus. This works well for her, until Angelus becomes more of his own man when he vamps Drusilla. His greatest triumph is not only in the masterpiece of Drusilla, but in showing Darla what he can truly do. It even spooks her a bit. When the Master summons her later, she goes back.

How Angelus reacts shows that even vamping Drusilla isn't quite enough to fill the void that exists in Angelus. Even though he is devoted to Darla, she'll leave him if the circumstances call for it, as she has shown earlier when they were being chased by Holtz. Also Angel wants to have a male companion. As unsouled vampire, Angelus is conflicted between the need for connection with his own kind and the need to appear strong. He needs to reject others, yet at the same time wants to be with them. His issues around this collide in "Destiny" when we see Angelus sleep with Drusilla.

Angelus is no less conflicted than anyone else, even as unsouled vampire. Liam's vamping didn't completely change the game. Definitions of self still need to come from and be about self. Angelus' definition as greatest mass murderer is neither. He has not yet found his Absolute Truth. He puts on a great act of bravado to cover this up.

This conflict has trouble finding a synthesis, because Angelus is locked into the thesis and actively rejects the antithesis. It takes an extreme circumstance, being resouled, to shake up his world enough for the dialectic to continue. This triad remains unsolved, but a new one develops revolving around his metaphysical state. First he tries to remain Angelus, an evil unsouled vampire. When faced with a tiny baby in China, told to prove who he is by Darla, he realizes he can't. For the next 100 years, he becomes the antithesis, he is nothing.

Both these triads intersect and synthesis is formed when a messenger from the Powers that Be by the name of Whistler show him a beautiful young girl Called to be Slayer. Angel's need to be with people and his need to be someone can find synthesis by helping this young girl. His conflict between being Uber-Evil Angelus and no one can find synthesis by working to help someone else fight evil.

The new creature that is formed is dedicated to the destruction of evil. He wants to "kill them all." ("Angel") This synthesis, now thesis, is tested because that isn't what the young Buffy Summers wants. As he spends more time Angel finds there is something more to life than killing them all. He hasn't abandoned his commitment to fight evil, but he has found the antithesis to the fight, make love not war.

Being in love with a Slayer has its advantages. It allows for both of these things. On Buffy's seventeenth birthday, after professing his love for her, Angel does make love. In a moment of perfect happiness he finds synthesis. In that moment, he also loses his soul. Angelus is back in all his evil glory. Synthesis of loving Buffy now meets its antithesis. Vampires don't love humans.

Poor Angelus (I say as I'm laughing). Vampire kills slayer, not tenderly brushes her hair from her face as she sleeps. Vampire CANNOT love Slayer. There is no possible synthesis for him, since he's nobody's bitch. His solution is to remove the problem by sucking the world into hell. That might have worked (though I doubt it), but the addition of a soul and being sucked into hell all by his lonesome puts a monkey wrench in that plan.

When he comes back, he has to deal with being back. The idea of vampire cannot love Slayer is replaced with cursed souled vampire cannot do certain things. Vampire loves Buffy (the thesis) and Vampire can't love Buffy (the antithesis) this time because of the curse becomes the synthesis of Angel can't see Buffy. Angel tries to find a way to live his life without Buffy. When he starts to have nightmares, it is Giles he turns to.

As long as the synthesis of Angel can't see Buffy is based on Angel loves Buffy, he hasn't found the Absolute Truth and the process continues. Angel loves Buffy and can't see her meets the antithesis of Angel wants to seek comfort in her even if it means losing his soul. He believes strength would be demonstrated by staying away from her. He is weak because he wants to be with her so badly. Buffy gives him the synthesis of this, "Strong is fighting! It's hard, and it's painful, and it's every day. It's what we have to do. And we can do it together." ("Amends")

That's just what they do, as they walk hand-and-hand in the miracle of Sunnydale snow. Angel goes back to dating Buffy, and they fight evil together. Neither have found their absolute truth (they are cookie dough), so the process continues. The new thesis of fighting together meets the antithesis that questions what more is there. The Mayor and Joyce both hit on the practical realities of a relationship beyond the good fight. Angel decides that Buffy deserves more than he can give her, so he will leave. This is not the synthesis because it does not meet all three criteria.

It doesn't cancel the conflict between thesis and antithesis. Instead, it gives into the antithesis. It does not preserve the elements of truth present in thesis and antithesis or transcend opposition and sublimate the conflict into a higher truth. The conflict between fighting the good fight with Buffy and Angel being able to give her a normal life is still present. Synthesis comes when Angel puts Buffy's life in danger. No longer is it just about children and daylight. Feeding off Buffy not only saves his life, but it is like an alcoholic having a drink. When we see Angel in the hospital, he is supercharged. He has to get away from Buffy now. He can't even manage to say goodbye.

Angel leaves Buffy as part of his commitment to the good fight. When he goes to LA, he saves people from vampires as his part in that fight. That's a good thesis, but he still has those vamp cravings, the antithesis. Doyle, his new messenger from the Powers that Be, gives him the new synthesis. He can use the antithesis to help motivate him to do the thesis. "Left you with a bit of a craving, didn't it? Let me tell you something, pal, that craving is going to grow and one day soon one of those helpless victims that you don't really care about is going to look way too appetizing to turn down. And you'll figure hey! what's one against all I've saved? Might as well eat them. I'm still ahead by the numbers!" ("City of")

This new synthesis includes the idea of "It's not all about fighting and gadgets and stuff. It's about reaching out to people, showing them that there's love and hope still left in the world...It's about letting them into your heart. It's not about saving lives; it's about saving souls. Hey, possibly your own in the process." ("City of") Angel reaches out to Tina, but discovers that sometimes you can't save everyone. Then it isn't about love and hope. It is the antithesis, revenge. "Doyle, I don't want to share my feelings, I don't want to open up. I want to find Russell and I want to look him in the eye...Then I'm going to share my feelings." ("City of).

That leaves Angel feeling pretty empty. "I killed a vampire. I didn't help anybody." Angel finds the synthesis, with Cordy and Doyle's help, by opening Angel Investigations. He can reach out and pound bad guys at the same time. He will be the protector of the helpless.

The first thing to challenge this is the Gem of Amarra. In "In the Dark" Angel goes from warrior to tortured. "What do you want, Angel?" Does he want to help people? Not really. He is doing it because he wants one thing, forgiveness and this is his way to make amends in order to earn it. It is an interesting antithesis. Angel Investigations, which is dedicated to helping the helpless, isn't about the helpless. It is about Angel making amends.

Little by little that changes. As Angel helps more people, he connects with them. This connects him with his own humanity. In IWRY, Angel actually becomes human. He is released from his fealty. In a moment in which the Oracles declare Angel to be "not a lower being," he finds the synthesis he needed. "We don't belong to ourselves. We belong to the world, fighting." ("Hero")

What the fight is exactly will be the subject of several triads. First up, Doyle dies for the good fight. Angel is willing for this sacrifice to be negated in order to get his friend back. This becomes synthesis when Wesley joins the group and Angel really starts to put together his new family. Second, his actual family (someone he sired) comes back. Through this he is able to see that Angelus is still in him, but he is more than just Angelus. The fight is internal and not just the good fight. It means protecting his family ("Expecting") and all dimensions ("She") from fear/blackness ("I've Got You Under My Skin") and dealing with his past ("The Prodigal"). It can mean protecting demons ("The Ring"), even if they aren't necessarily good ones. It can mean helping your biggest enemy ("Five-by-Five" and "Sanctuary") even if you have to stand up to the person you love most. The fight is expanded until there is only one other direction for it to go.

In "To Shanshu in LA", the antithesis is presented when it is Angel's friends that are directly threatened. It becomes even more personal when Angel is presented with the possibility of reward. Angel discovers that he can't work for a reward and that the road to redemption is rocky. It also does involve progress as Angel takes possession of the Hyperion. The past may inform us, but it doesn't mean that how it informs us is a given. Just as Bethany is able to get beyond the abuse she suffered at the hands of her father, Angel is able to get beyond his obsession with the woman that sired him.

First his human family at Angel Investigations and his work there form a strong thesis that requires an equally strong antithesis. That antithesis is Darla and Angel's "dark" phase. The synthesis of these will lead to Angel's "Epiphany." Then it will meet the pure form of the demon on Pylea and Angel will learn that he is stronger than the demon in him.

Angel's strength and small acts of kindness will be cast into doubt when they are ineffective. Then he will become an example "to show the world what it can be." That example will decide to compromise with Wolfram and Hart to save his son. It will learn what power is and in the end decide to fight, not to help others, not to win, but to be strong.

And that is where our hero is left at the end of his series. Has he found his Absolute Truth finally? I would say there are more triads in his future. The antithesis of fighting to be strong is not fighting to be strong. There is a time for all things under heaven. I would say our hero has at least one more lesson to learn.

Replies:

[> Re: Enter at your own caution (really long, even by my standards) -- Ames, 19:27:08 07/30/04 Fri

Very nice overview of Angel's spiritual journey. Well argued, and not too long at all.

[> [> Re: Enter at your own caution (really long, even by my standards) -- skpe, 07:30:02 07/31/04 Sat

I agree with Ames Well argued and not too long, and this from a person who has never liked Hagel.Though I will admit my dispute is more with Hegel's disciples than with him. Especially when applied to politics, (i.e. Marxism).

[> [> [> It's easy to lump teacher and student together -- Lunasea, 11:46:19 08/01/04 Sun

That's actually why I had to learn Hegel. I was making a lot of the same changes to Kant that he did and I kept getting them mixed up. This is the hardest part for me when I read philosophy. I can't stop my brain long enough to just read what someone else thought. My mind starts going off at a squillion miles an hour and what to me seems like something philosopher X actually said is really an expansion or even contradiction.

That's why for the purpose of this essay, I stuck strictly with the triad, rather than all the stuff backing it up. I love German Idealism. If I had to say what the show was, I would say a synthesis of German Idealism and Existentialism. This does not just mean that it has elements of both, but that it:
1. Cancels the conflict between Idealism and Existentialism
2. Preserves the elements of truth present in Idealism and Existentialism
3. Transcends opposition and sublimates the conflict into a higher truth

Of course this idea is so delicious to me because the two do seem to be in such opposition that this seems to be impossible, just like people thought rationalism and epiricism couldn't be brought together.

What a tangeled web we weave...

[> [> Thank you very much and more about vampires -- Lunasea, 11:30:48 08/01/04 Sun

It could have been a lot longer and probably should have. I really didn't do season 2-5 justice, but the Mandelbroit series nature of the show meant I could look at the overall triad rather than the little ones that led to it. The events of Darla and Connor really deserve a better treatment.

What I found interesting was how the soul's presence/loss affected the triads. It would be rather simplistic to just say that this took the thesis and turned it evil/antithesis. It didn't, especially on BtVS. When Angel is resouled, his issues are still there. The triad doesn't really change that much. Vampire cannot love Slayer develops as the natural antithesis to vampire loves Slayer. This transitions smoothly to cursed vampire cannot love Slayer. The triad remained the same, even if the motivation changed.

I also think it is interesting how being unsouled locks someone into conflict. Once that initial synthesis is formed, which becomes the new thesis, the vampire cannot really develop further. We can look at Darla and Spike for further support of this idea. Angel is not the only character that illustrates the Hegelian dialectic. They all do, human and vampire. It is just more evident with the vampires because they are more extreme due to their metaphysical state.

[> Re: Enter at your own caution (really long, even by my standards) -- Susan, 12:16:11 07/31/04 Sat

Reading what you write is like reading a good book.
I get caught up in it and track of time is lost. Thanks.

Susan of Susan's Pages

http://wtv-zone.com/herstorythree/entrancetwo.html

[> [> Maybe one day I'll actually write a good book -- Lunasea, 11:52:13 08/01/04 Sun

I think that is my goal now, which is why I probably won't be around here as much as I have been in the past. I'll still write essays as they come to me. Right now I've just started to watch Firefly. My mind is racing and has so much it wants to say, and I've only seen 4 episodes.

[> Linear Thought or No, I learned something from it. :) -- SS, 05:28:57 08/01/04 Sun

My life doesn't generally allow me to study philosophy, but philosophy is important because all improvement of life comes from philosophy. Which is a big problem in our world right now, because everybody is so busy being "practical" that nobody is really being "practical". No one can see let alone work with the bigger pictures.

I wish I could enjoy philosophy more, like I think that you do. But a lot of philosophy goes over my head and makes my head explode (in a different way from what you were saying about your head exploding. I gather your head explodes because of too much enjoyment. My head explodes because my mental hard drive doesn't have enough disk space for it usually.)

That having been said, you explained dialectic, thesis, antithesis, and synthesis better than my philosophy professors in college did. (Which makes me wonder if you are a philosophy prof or TA or something.)

Now I will understand those terms when I hear or read them. Ohh. Maybe I will even use those terms now. :)

As for the Angel segment of your piece I think it is a good way of summing it all up. If I had read it before starting to watch Angel I probably would have understood it and enjoyed it more.

Now I understand what someone said once about Angel the Series being more grown up than Buffy the series.

Thank you.

:)

SS

[> [> Heads go boom -- Lunasea, 12:03:26 08/01/04 Sun

Thank you very much. I'm neither a prof or a TA. My Official Field of Study isn't even technically philosophy. It was psychology. Now I'm not even in academia at all. Then again, you can take the girl out of the Institution, but you can't take the Institution out of the girl.

Writing all this stuff the last few weeks was great. It was like the trumpets blaring and the walls of Jericho falling. There was this huge cloud of dust and then freedom. My mind was allowed to run in infinate directions at once. That's why my head tends to explode when I get to Hegel. Two ideas, seemingly that go in opposite directions suddenly join hands and merge into each other. It like taking two people and having them occupy the same spot. It's theoretically possible because we are more empty space than matter. Take the matter of one and stick it in those empty spaces and no Universal Laws are violated. The dance continues but not as we think of it. This new interaction creates a new dance so that laws are not violated. As I move, the location of the spaces changes, so the person must move and vice versa. What a wonderful interaction.

I guess if I did Hegel, next would come Epiricism or Rationalism. I'll work my way backward to Socrates.

[> Thank you for your kindness and an addendum -- Lunasea, 11:15:49 08/01/04 Sun

It's nice to know I'm not writing into a vacuum. It's really nice. Thank you everyone.

Not sure what essay I'll write next, but here is a way to apply what I just said to a debate this board sometimes has: Be it resolved that Angel is a hero and not an antihero.

First step in any debate (after a witty anecdote that will beautifully sum up your position and make any disagreement with you seem futile) is definitions. For our purposes, the importance is the difference between a hero and an antihero. That difference is in their character. A hero is heroic ;-) That means s/he is admirable. Typically this means positive qualities such as high ethical standards, commitment to duty, perseverance, and courage. An antihero would be the opposite of this, inept, cowardly, stupid, dishonest, yada yada. Both hero and antihero are on a quest. Motives are important to determine whether someone is hero or antihero. The Mel Gibson movie Payback is a good example of an antihero. Richard Stark wrote The Hunter which is what this movie was based on. It might be something the board is interested in reading.

I believe we can agree on this definition. The question is not whether Angel illustrates these qualities from time to time, such as getting in the wrong car or his "dark" phase. The question is what is Angel. What is his character?

Using the dialectic I illustrated earlier, we can see that Angel does exhibit the traits of an antihero from time to time as he investigates the antithesis. If his development stopped there, I would contend that Angel is indeed an antihero. It doesn't. If Angel were an actual antihero, there would be no synthesis. There would be no progression to an Absolute Truth.

I contend that even though Angel can exhibit traits of an antihero from time to time, his character is that of a hero because he does make progress toward an Absolute Truth. So-called "Dark" Angel is just a phase that he goes through that is necessary to bring him to his "Epiphany." As we look at each negative action that Angel has taken, they are not defining his character, but forming an antithesis so that a synthesis can result from this conflict.

Since the development of Angel is through this dialectic, IMO this entire process has to be looked at to determine what Angel is. Since his story includes detours, but the ultimate journey is that of high ethical standards, commitment to duty, perseverance, and courage, Angel is a hero and not an antihero. Just as elements of comedy don't make the show a comedy, occurances of ineptness, cowardess, stupidity, or dishonesty don't make Angel an antihero. If anything, these occurances are used to highlight what a hero he really is.

The dialectic can be used to say he is both, hero (thesis) and antihero (antithesis), but there is a third part of the triad (synthesis). As long as that synthesis is a true synthesis and takes Angel toward the Absolute Truth of a hero, he is a hero. To label him anything else, misses the big picture.

[> [> You aren't writing into a vacuum -- OnM, 19:12:40 08/01/04 Sun

Many of us read and enjoy, even if we don't always post a response.

So keep on truckin'.

:-)

Current board | August 2004