ATPo Archives June 2004

June 2004 posts

Previous June 2004
More June 2004

Noticed something in "Smile Time" -- HonorH, 00:00:31 06/06/04 Sun

Forgive me if this has been discussed already, but I noticed that right after Lorne asked, "Is there a Gepetto in the house?" they cut straight to Dr. Sparrow, who did Gunn's mind alterations. Gepetto=puppet maker. Dr. Sparrow is equated to him in visual language via that cut. So Sparrow is making Gunn a puppet.

Replies:

[> Uh-huh -- Wizard, 00:52:13 06/06/04 Sun

Editing brilliance, and an allusion, all rolled into one.

If it wasn't for Everwood and Smallville, I would *so* ditch the Frog!

[> [> Re: Uh-huh -- purplegrrl, 16:27:47 06/07/04 Mon

***If it wasn't for Everwood and Smallville, I would *so* ditch the Frog!***

I'm only staying for Smallville, and only because it looks like Clark and Lex may actually become enemies.

The WB has lost my loyal viewership. (If it wasn't for Buffy, they wouldn't even have Charmed.)

[> Re: Noticed something in "Smile Time" -- Angluvr, 14:19:06 06/07/04 Mon

Smile Time! SNEEBLE SNEEBLE SNEEBLE SNARBLE SPLORK!

[> [> I believe you meant: -- mrsubjunctive, 19:27:40 06/07/04 Mon

Smile Time! SNEEBLE SNEEBLE SNOOPLE SNARBLE SPLORK!

Kids today. No attention to grammar.

[> yep--link to earlier discussion inside -- anom, 12:11:12 06/08/04 Tue

No need for forgiveness--or modesty, either: I brought this up in February, in Masq's "Puppets or Puppets?" thread. It's about 2/3 of the way down on this page in the archives. (I couldn't remember the doc's name, so I actually called him "Dr. Gepetto" in a later thread [5th post in thread at top of page]!)

3001...(Angel Odyssey 5.22)(sp 5.22 and poetry-*laden*) -- Tchaikovsky, 06:29:16 06/07/04 Mon

like all fans, you sort of put all your hopes and expectations into that episode because it's the last one. They can't possibly wrap up all the dangling plot lines and points.

And then of course they have to say something Profound about the message of the series.

-el Masq- cowboy hat in place, describing exactly the challenge confronting Joss Whedon and Jeff Bell in writing the episode, and all of our difficulties in watching it.

5.22- 'Not Fade Away'

Hello everyone.

And so to the final episode ever. Which is a really excellent episode, as long as you're not looking to take away some kind of 'The hardest thing in this world is to live in it', one line summary. Lindsey mentions Cliff Notes, and this is an episode which cannot be simmered down, because it's a complex inter-tangle of characters and plots and ideas on just why we're here, and what we should do about it. Like this board. Like the show.

I somehow doubt Arthur Hugh Clough's been given a lot of thought since the episode aired, so let's rectify that...

When the smoke clears, we'll see where we stand.
-Lindsey

SAY not the struggle naught availeth,
The labour and the wounds are vain,
The enemy faints not, nor faileth,
And as things have been they remain.

If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;
It may be, in yon smoke conceal'd,
Your comrades chase e'en now the fliers,
And, but for you, possess the field.

For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,
Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back, through creeks and inlets making,
Comes silent, flooding in, the main.

And not by eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the light;
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly!
But westward, look, the land is bright!

Quintessentially Victorian, and one of my grandfather's favourite poems, but deeply relevant to Angel's final decision. Angel is not fighting this battle because the tide seems not to be coming in, but despite the fact, in belief that it will eventually come flooding in. This isn't a kamikaze mission formed from a moment of perfect despair, but a calculated response to the stimulus of the season. And Angel ends fighting, with Spike the shadow, Gunn the human and Illyria the demon along side him. The balance of Liam, Angel and Angelus that he's been meaning to strike for 277 years. It is just work for him. The work of Anne, doing a pawn's work despite any higher plan. The work of Buffy, battling on to save the world not because it's her destiny, but because, in seeing those murdered children, the cartoon watching high schoolers on the verge of growing up, she realises it's what needs to be done. Willow in 'Choices', giving up a million premier offers to premier colleges. Cordelia's 'Demonise me already!'. Connor pummelling Hamilton.

But if we end on the fight continuing, that is resolutely not a penil point end to the episode. The last scene doesn't encapsulate the rest of the episode. In a way, the show's last scene is analagous to the Season's last episode. Season Five is not 'said best' by 'Not Fade Away', (in the way that, say, Season Two Buffy is said best by 'Becoming'). Rather, this is one message among many in a more serial, more cerebral season. We dug the Greek Hero of Season Two, the melodrama of Season three and the turgid supernatural soap opera of Season four, but here we're into a theme and variations style. And, if he had any taste, Handel would be proud.

The episode never loses a customary, bleak humour. There are references which have been used before, and some new but germane ones. A few that caught my ear here were:

-If you're about to tell me to 'Kill Spike', then I might have to kiss you.

A 'Much Ado About Nothing' reference, to Beatrice' 'Kill Claudio'. Benedick and Beatrice end up kissing, and Claudio, Benedick's more self-interested, less arrogant foil (actually basically the leading man, but Shakespeare was doing a Whedonesque subversion!), ends up considerably other than dead. Here the Black Thorn imagine themselves toying with Angel and Beatrice does with Benedick. But in reality, the Shanshu is on the other foot.

-'Don't I at least get the chance to deny you three times?'

Spike is up with the Biblical inter-relevance as ever. But he's never been the Betrayer in this Season. The betrayers have been almost everyone else. Gunn, without realising it, in signing the sarcophagus into Wolfram and Hart. Knox, the sober voice of science, actually a crazed cult member. Angel, in betraying Connor and raping his friends' minds. And most of all, Wesley, repeating the betrayal of Season Three in breaking the Orlon Window, and hence remembering both. Here Wesley gets to affect a final betrayal of Angel, but in the end he doesn't have anything but solidarity with him.

But Wesley in this episode is the one man who will not spend the day trying to achieve perfection, and the one man who has always been so careful to celebrate the difference between 'Truth and Illusion'. Are we to see Gunn's sudden interest in Anne, Spike's poetry and Lorne's final performance as mere illusion? Are they trying to re-capture characters they once were, in a fragile belief that that's how they are going into their battle-hardened carapaces for the final fight? Or is Wesley unnecessarily hard on himself?

IN my opinion, although it is right not to ask Illyria to re-suummon Fred, Wesley is suffering from an inability to recapture any pleasure in the world where he lost Fred. To find those shafts of hope he talked about so beautifully, but so desperately, at the end of 'Shells'. There, Illyria asked 'Is that enough?', and we heard no answer. Here it appears clear that for Wesley, it never quite was. He battled on, not believing he was about to die, but with not enough strength in life's moments of clarity, of beauty even, to make himself live.

He finds himself with one of my father's favourite poems, about a man fallen into Wesley's tragic frame of mind:

I am: yet what I am none cares or knows,
My friends forsake me like a memory lost;
I am the self-consumer of my woes,
They rise and vanish in oblivious host,
Like shades in love and death's oblivion lost;
And yet I am, and live with shadows tossed

Into the nothingness of scorn and noise,
Into the living sea of waking dreams,
Where there is neither sense of life nor joys,
But the vast shipwreck of my life's esteems;
And e'en the dearest -that I loved the best
Are strange -nay, rather stranger than the rest.

I long for scenes where man has never trod,
A place where woman never smiled or wept;
There to abide with my Creator, God,
And sleep as I in childhood sweetly slept:
Untroubling and untroubled where I lie,
The grass below -above the vaulted sky.

-John Clare

An odd amount of imagery fits with Wesley here- the forsaken friends, the Two Men Joke as 'the living sea of waking dreams', Illyria as 'strange, nay, rather stranger than the rest'.

RIP Wesley.

And what of the rest of our Gang? And who is that gang anyway. Going roughly from the outside to the inside, here's the lowdown:

Harmony, the bumbling cleric, is eventually irked enough by Angel's distance and bad mood to betray him to Hamilton. And there's the telling line towards the end where Angel denounces her as 'soulless', and Harmony, brilliantly for once taking the literal as the metaphorical, (a direct inverse of her comedic mistake for most of this Season), responds with 'I would if you had confidence in me'. Damn the metaphysics, this is the point. Harmony's betrayal has come from Angel's lack of interest and confidence in Harmony. Harmony's betrayal is not treated as a stab in the back to anyone who believed a soulless vampire could be well-meaning, but as a further indication of Angel as the hapless Lear.

The reason why this is clear from a storytelling perspective is that Harmony, the to-be-betrayer spends the first act having an unbeating heart-to-heart with Angel about what it was to be human. The bad parts, but the heart of it. Angel as the Heartless boss, the metaphor for the isolated vampire for so long. If my heart could beat, it would break my chest And then Spike in 'Soul Purpose', the Real Boy. But that's all smoke and mirrors, for in a world where the Black Thorn pricks all those in its way, leadership is barely about humanity. It takes Angel to win this mission. The Angel who abandons his Shanshu for the cause. The Angel for whom prophecy is bunkum, and the past is prologue. The Angel who lives in the anticipation, and the action, of fighting the dragon. The Angel immortalised for ever in the very last scene, as a man, for perhaps the first time- living right and precisely in the present.

The tragic irony of this situation- the reason why Angel can do this in his final scene, is that he's about to die. It is only in the final scene of the fifth Season that the audience is not thinking about what will happen next. For our expectations as the audience are in a large part the Show's prophecies. Whedon has gone to great lengths to subvert the prophecies, to turn them on their heads. And in doing so, we see the Shanshu means nothing, and our collaborative future, little more. What matters is Angel's fight with the Dragon. The dragon with a tradition from the distant past, and a likelihood of surviving into an unknown future. But it's very tangible presence in the now is what makes it such a great symbol.

Lindsey looks like he might be the winner in all this, just for a moment. Angel seems to have reconciled the part of himself from Season Two, the 'Epiphany' speech, with the verging on madness of 'Power Play' and Lindsey's speech at the end of 'Underneath'. And, perhaps for the first time, they have a go at understanding each other. Lindsey and Angel here are Buffy and Spike in 'Becoming'. The unlikely people, with different purposes angling towards the same outcome. We even get intimations of a possible budding relationship. One which a certain character, and a certain Idea, kill off with bullets to the chest.

For there is a moment in this episode which is the bleakest in the run, and one of the bleakest I have ever seen in television. Lorne's final few scenes here- metaphors for a vast array of different people, are the alternative ending to Angel's half-happy one, where despair wins out, and cancellation ends in ultimate grief and nihilism. Tell me you've watched the scene where Lorne shoots Lindsey and not felt uncomfortable and sad. But tell me also that it didn't feel true in some way. Wesley's death in this episode, while working thematically, never reached the heights of pain and truth Lindsey's did for me. And all because of the perpetrator.

'There's something stronger than loyalty: hope', speaks Sebassis and ventriloquises Whedon, playing off Angel's scary sentiment in the season premiere that the one thing stronger than conviction is mercy. Conviction springs from loyalty: to a cause, to a person, to reality. Mercy springs from hope. It is not strained. It comes because the hope-giver believes, like Giles in 'The Wish' or, bleakly, Wesley smashing the window, that there is Good in the world, and, as Sam says a little sentimentally at the end of 'The Two Towers', that it is worth fighting for. Angel gets to hope above loyalty. But the prophecy is no longer emblematic of the Hope to him. Now his hope lies in fighting for fighting's sake.

But when we lose that hope? When we lose the ability to believe that Lindsey may still be good? When we lose the ability to think we can fight on after our mission has finished? Then we become, as we have become so often, Lorne. Lorne's lines in this episode are, for me, gut-wrenching painful. For we see him sing, and we're lulled into an oddly false sense of security- that he, like the Spike we are to see later, is living what he really wanted- and remembering what his lfie was like before Wolfram and Hart. And then the knife-twist. Firstly when Lorne says to Angel 'Don't try to find me'. And we realise, that for this viewer, for this writer, it's not a world where the fight goes on after Darling Violetta play the credits out for the last time. For him, this really is the end of the line- the end of the spirit of a show which didn't seem ready to die.

And then in killing Lindsey, the audience dispense with Hope. With the belief in time for Angel's full redemption. With the belief that Illyria will one day become a Real Girl. With the belief that Spike is on a road to resolution, or that Gunn can invest his refound humanity into Angel's aching void. Lorne's story is not the bottom line in this episode- as so often [see 'Spin the Bottle'], it's the metanarrative up and around the narrative. But if you want full-on despair, track Lorne's story this Season. No character has ever had a bleaker denouement to their journey in the Whedonverse. By which I mean, even those who died tended to die with some love around them- or some purpose. Our embittered audience kills the Hero's shadow in their life. Cancel their cable and drive off elsewhere.

And so away from the tragedy, and to Spike. And, it turns out, thematically at least, that he's been right all along. He just never had the experience to show it. When we see him knocking back drinks, we assume we are to see the falsely painted punk rebel for one last time- the fighter in the Trophy Duster. But we forget that he's left the coat behind in one of his many Purging Fires- this one in particular the one in Italy. Spike's not getting the old Dutch courage he offered Willow for a brawl, but for a recital. Finally the inner poet wins out over the outer front of street fighter. And as I was saying to Anne when I didn't know these lines were in this episode, it's fascinating how a few intonation shifts can change some lines of verse. It brings back memories of the two different versions of Angelus' monologue in 'Passion', the one by Ty King and the re-tooled Whedon one.

Here, we get the following lines:

My soul is wrapped
In harsh repose,
Midnight descends in
Raven-colored clothes.

But soft: behold
A sunlight beam
Cutting a swath of
Glimmering gleam.

My heart expands,
Tis grown a bulge in it,
Inspired by your beauty
Effulgent.

Now the shift of 'Your beauty' up a line gives less emphasis to 'by', makes 'effulgent' scan better, gives 'beauty', the most important word, it's own showcase, and changes the style of the whole four-liner from doggerel to rather good. And the first eight lines are much better than the last four. Spike has become what William wanted to be, rather than a reaction to his desires. And that's unspeakably moving. Of course, the fun of unspeakably moving in Whedonland has always been the under-cut. And hence the immortal line: 'This next one's called "The Wanton Folly of Me Mum.'

Gunn connects with Anne, the person who Buffy inspired all those years ago- the only thematically important cross-relevance to Buffy in this episode. The episode is not about Angel or Spike's love, so Buffy's inspiration of the two is dealt with obliquely as Chanterelle passes oon what Buffy taught her to Gunn. It's an excellent sleight of hand.

And thence to Angel. A few intelligent thoughts elevates the carefully complex resolution to the season. We have the final gentle dig at religion with the cult intoning like a Catholic service in the first act. Angel's lone voice will drown out all the rest. In Sebassis' case, literally. We have Angel's 'Live' speech, something that each member tries with varying degrees of success. Wesley fails, and Lorne's attempt is hollow. But Gunn and Spike have found things to hold on to, just as Illyria does in telling Gunn that he is 'not unpleasant to [her] eyes' and in grieving over Wesley's death. And so they survive to the alleyway- the same alleyway that we see Angel in every time we see the opening credits- that alleyway in the very first episode. We've come first circle, but now, Angel is not alone. Now, he understands how symbolically Illyria (Angelus), Gunn (Liam) and Spike (Angel) make up his character. It's taken five years, and it's been five years in which, aside from self-reflection, he has achieved one good thing, 'the only good thing we have ever achieved'.

And so to Connor. Connor helps kill Hamilton off his own back. Connor understands where Angel fits into his life, and doesn't begrudge him the odd bit of time. He has a sense of humour, and is grateful for Angel's action. And when Angel can say to a fully remembered Connor, that 'as long as you're OK, they can't' destroy him, we have a first, so near to never found moment of true father/son understanding. Which closes the arc set up by 'Home' in an elegant and speedy way.

Angel is thrown out of an executive window in just the same way as he did to the head lawyer, Lindsey's boss, in 'City of...'. But because he really isn't part of the corporation, he brings in family to be avenged. He has understood the need for love and emotional honesty.

He has also understood, that though he lives in a world run by an angry atheist, there is still a very definite spirituality in there somewhere. To complete my tri-generational poetry spree, I return, as so often, to Carol Ann Duffy:

Prayer

Some days, although we cannot pray, a prayer
utters itself. So, a woman will lift
her head from the sieve of her hands and stare
at the minims sung by a tree, a sudden gift.

Some nights, although we are faithless, the truth
enters our hearts, that small familiar pain;
then a man will stand stock-still, hearing his youth
in the distant Latin chanting of a train.

Pray for us now. Grade I piano scales
console the lodger looking out across
a Midlands town. Then dusk, and someone calls
a child's name as though they named their loss.

Darkness outside. Inside, the radio's prayer -
Rockall. Malin. Dogger. Finisterre.

Spirituality. Loss. Language. Belief. That's five years of Angel to me. A dark and perfect joy.

So ultimately the messages we're supposed to take are, like the devils in the swine and Jasmine's followers are legion, as Angel repeats the echo of last Season. An echo that repeats through time, but

TCH

Replies:

[> Closing credits (Angel Odyssey: Penelope's Cloth) -- Tchaikovsky, 06:47:30 06/07/04 Mon

So the ratings for the Season. Disclaimer as ever:
a) Given the time, read the reviews and don't take the numbers at face value. No Angel episode is without merit, and there's certainly no episode this Season, (not even that one), which doesn't enrich another.
b) Some inconsistencies may exist between my preferences earlier in the Season and my ratings now. That's because I prefer to rate after an entire Season after I've seen where it's going:

Alrighty, then:

Conviction: 8
Just Rewards: 6
Unleashed: 7
Hellbound: 7
Life Of The Party: 2
The Cautionary Tale Of Numero Cinco: 9
Lineage: 7
Destiny: 10
Harm's Way: 8
Soul Purpose: 8
Damage: 7
You're Welcome: 9
Why We Fight: 6
Smile Time: 7
A Hole in the World: 9
Shells: 10
Underneath: 9
Origin: 7
Time Bomb: 8
The Girl In Question: 10
Power Play: 8
Not Fade Away: 9

TOTAL: 171/220
Comparison:
Season Two: 158
Season Four: 156
Season Three:156
Season One: 147

OK, I wasn't expecting that much of a differential, but it just goes to show Season Five's consistency.

Thank yous as ever to anyone who's read one of these things. Double thank yos to anyone who's replied to one- some of the replies have been extraordinarily brilliant in this Season and every Season. And triple thank yous to aliera, who's made this Season possible by her very persistent shipping (the postal kind, not the fanfic kind), and yabyumpan, who started this madness off in the first place.

Penelope unpicked all the work she'd done in her cloth every night, so that the suitors after her since Odysseus' appaent death in the Trojan war wouldn't get their hands on her. Kinda analagously, Yeats wrote the lines (Don't worry Rah, it's not 'The Second Coming'!):

We sat together at one summer's end,
That beautiful mild woman, your close friend,
And you and I, and talked of poetry.
I said, "A line will take us hours maybe;
Yet if it does not seem a moment's thought,
Our stitching and unstitching has been naught.
Better go down upon your marrow-bones
And scrub a kitchen pavement, or break stones
Like an old pauper, in all kinds of weather;
For to articulate sweet sounds together
Is to work harder than all these, and yet
Be thought an idler by the noisy set
Of bankers, schoolmasters, and clergymen
The martyrs call the world."

That kind of determination is what, despite all his faults and my minor and few major problems with his work, I still assoicate with Whedon. And if just a touch of that persistence has rubbed off on me during the last 140,000 words, it is him to whom I have to be most grateful.

For such a muse.

Thanks everyone for reading.

TCH

[> [> Re: Closing credits (Angel Odyssey: Penelope's Cloth) -- aliera, 08:40:17 06/07/04 Mon

Very welcome, and again apologies for my lags, and the inanity of US customs.

And thank you so much for adding to the enjoyment of the show. I have to print this for later for more specific comments; as usual, I'm at work, and this is on the fly...

[> Odysseus docks at Ithaca and kicks back with a beer (spoilers for ANGEL 5.22) -- cjl, 08:52:16 06/07/04 Mon

A wonderful end to the Odyssey, TCH. To be honest, the view of Gunn, Spike and Illyria as Liam, Angel, and Angelus didn't occur to me, mainly because I still think Angel has a long way to go to truly integrate these three parts of himself (four if you count the demon).

Nonetheless, a fine review. My increasingly bloated S5 review is forthcoming, and should attach itself to this thread like a leech in a day or so....

[> [> I agree -- Tchaikovsky, 05:21:39 06/08/04 Tue

That Angel has a long way to go, and I don't know how deliberate the final gathering of the four was, (though anom does a super job of comparing Angel, Gunn, Spike and Illyria to Buffy, Xander, Giles and Willow respectively below). Just thought I'd throw it in and see if it held any water.

Preparing for leechery...;-)

TCH

[> cliffs, hangers, notes, & glasses -- anom, 13:38:02 06/07/04 Mon

OK, I lied about the hangers.

"And Angel ends fighting, with Spike the shadow, Gunn the human and Illyria the demon along side him. The balance of Liam, Angel and Angelus that he's been meaning to strike for 277 years."

Wow. I mean, wow. Maybe there can't really be a Cliffs Notes version--of the entire series yet, not just the finale!--but this sure comes close. I hadn't thought of this parallel to the Buffy characters as Hand, Heart, Mind, and Spirit before--& although they don't fit as exact one-to-one counterparts, that order is my take on how they correspond in the 2 series: Angel himself, like Buffy, as the Hand, who needs to integrate the 3 interior elements as a basis for acting in the exterior world. Gunn, the only one of the 4 w/a beating human Heart. Spike, Angel's shadow or reflection (I know, vampires aren't supposed to have one, but in many ways Spike, for all his insistence that they're nothing like each other, is the mirror image or, as Shadowkat would have it, the photo-negative of Angel--a reversal, but really the same image), who has been shown in this season, on this show, as seldom on Buffy, to be more reflective than he ever even thought himself, as the Mind--& after all, isn't poetry a cerebral activity? Illyria, the demon--a word derived from one that originally meant Spirit rather than the all-too-concrete beings it refers to on these shows. And without the benefit of a spell to pull all 4 together, Angel, as you say, just has to do the hard work, like all of us.

"The work of Anne, doing a pawn's work despite any higher plan."

This made me very uncomfortable when I first read it, because I read "pawn" as meaning one unknowingly controlled--played--by someone else. But then I realized you mean "pawn" as a foot soldier in the metaphor that is the game of chess. Although either way, she's still more independent, not part of any explicit strategy (except the writers'!).

"Or is Wesley unnecessarily hard on himself?"

When isn't he?

"...Wesley is suffering from an inability to recapture any pleasure in the world where he lost Fred."

There you go w/that pinpoint accuracy again, TCH. That whole paragraph is beautiful--less Cliffs Notes than a perfect distillation of Wes' situation. And the Clare poem is uncannily apt to what you call his "tragic frame of mind." What's most tragic about it is exactly that "what I am none cares or knows" is his frame of mind more than it is reality: none knows because he won't let them, & that's because he believes none cares. It's a mindset that won't let him find out any differently. Even when it's what he most wants, although it's probably exactly what Fred would have said & done & even, as we see later, is true for Illyria to whatever extent it can be, he can accept it only as a lie.

"And there's the telling line towards the end where Angel denounces her as 'soulless', and Harmony, brilliantly for once taking the literal as the metaphorical, (a direct inverse of her comedic mistake for most of this Season), responds with 'I would if you had confidence in me'."

If this is true, Angel's lack of trust in Harmony ironically ends up being the most self-fulfilling prophecy in the history of the show, even as (OK, shortly after) he signs away the one he had hoped & worked so hard to fulfill, rather than letting it fulfill itself. I wonder if that was human blood in Harmony & Marcus' wineglass--did they know she wasn't going to be tested for it again?

And I wonder how much Angel knew about how far Spike had--and, in the end, hadn't--come without a soul, & how knowing that might have affected how he treated, & what he expected of, Harmony and, for that matter, Lawson. On the other hand, Harmony's betrayal recalls the chipped Spike's early attempts to find ways to carry on doing evil that didn't require him to personally carry out violence. Harmony's incompetence at evil = Spike's chip? Maybe human!Harmony's shallowness--as opposed to William's comparative depth--was as much a factor in her decision to betray Angel as her soullessness. And maybe Angel, like so many of us, bases his expectations of others, or at least of other unsouled vampires, on what he would've done under the same circumstances.

"And, perhaps for the first time, [Angel & Lindsey] have a go at understanding each other."

But it turns out Angel is already sure he understands Lindsey. Well, apparently. Is it an outright lie when he says he'd rather Lindsey be the one to step into the power vacuum created by killing the Black Thorn members? Does he tell him this to see what response it elicits, & then decide the devil he knows isn't preferable to all the devils he doesn't (& is that also based on the devil he knows best--the one inside him)? Or does he mean it at the time & later change his mind?

"Lorne's lines in this episode are, for me, gut-wrenching painful. For we see him sing, and we're lulled into an oddly false sense of security...."

And maybe he is too. Because in that scene, he doesn't know yet what Angel's going to ask of him. (It occurs to me that sending him out to "live" for the rest of the day with that knowledge would've been one of the wrongest things Angel could've done, even in this episode where right & wrong things are as interwoven as shadings in the Escher pieces that have been referred to so often in the series. Maybe it's the wrongest thing Angel doesn't do.) What don't we see, when the gang comes back together to get their assignments? What did Angel have to do & say to convince Lorne that there was no way around killing Lindsey? Or did Lorne, having heard Lindsey sing, already know what would have to be done, just not that he'd be the one called on to do it? Having also heard Angel sing, did he know that this was at least a possibility as far back as Season 2? (Hmm, did the writers know back then?) At that later meeting, Angel says it'll be as dangerous for Lindsey as for any other member of the team. ("Team" is used a lot in the last few episodes, isn't it?) But in the part we don't see, he makes sure it'll be more dangerous for Lindsey--in fact, more than just dangerous: Lindsey's death isn't just a risk, it's a certainty. So is the "as dangerous" line another mislead?

I've got to ask you to help me out w/a few things here. Some may be typos, some expressions that don't translate so well over the Pond (or just are over my head!):

"Connor helps kill Hamilton off his own back." His own back? Don't understand this.

"Rockall. Malin. Dogger. Finisterre." Um. Are these place names? Do they have any correspondence to "Spirituality. Loss. Language. Belief," or did you just happen to use 4 words here right after the 4 that end the poem? Seems unlikely, but if there's a connection I'm not getting it.

"...like the devils in the swine...." What's this a reference to? All I can think of is Circe, but those were men she turned to swine.

And then there's the very, very end: "An echo that repeats through time, but" Did the end of your post get cut off? Or was this deliberate, ending w/an unending moment (or sentence), like the finale itself? @>)

But I'm not ending there--not quite. I'm comin' back around to the beginning. Er, the end of the beginning, or at least of the 1st poem you quote:

"And not by eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the light;
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly!
But westward, look, the land is bright!"

When I read this, I couldn't help hearing Kendra in my head: "Eastern exposure." What would this verse mean to a vampire? Hope (as the poem urges for humans), being able to see daylight from the shade even though s/he can't walk in it? Or despair, for the very same reason? A warning to get inside or underground now? A reminder that the world still belongs to the humans? OK, as so often, I'm taking it too literally. But a literal reading of the 2nd verse fits some of the speculation in chat right after the series finale that the Slayer cavalry was right around the corner! Of course the other point is that you don't know one way or the other. That's especially true if you don't live to find out. As the same glass can be seen as half full or half empty, the same action can be done for optimistic or pessimistic reasons. I like your more optimistic take on it. I'm just not as sure as you are that Angel shares it. Or maybe seeing it as "work" means that he takes neither but just sees half a glass of water (or blood). As Buffy said, "This is the work that I have to do." It's what the situation calls for...as Angel sees it.

[> [> Devils in the swine -- Wizard, 15:31:31 06/07/04 Mon

This is a reference to the demon (demons?) known as Legion, whom Jesus exorcised from swine.

[> [> Answers- mostly British idioms to blame -- Tchaikovsky, 05:18:56 06/08/04 Tue

-"Connor helps kill Hamilton off his own back."

This means 'of his own accord'. He does it without Angel prompting him to do it.

-"Rockall. Malin. Dogger. Finisterre."

This is a very important line to the poem, but one which takes a little explaining to a non-British audience.

In Britain, we have various radio stations, and the most popular ones are the BBC's, who have five major stations, called, with typcial public service efficiency, Radios 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 live. Radio 1 caters for pop music, 2 for contemporary music for a slightly older audience, Radio 3 is classical, and 5 live gives news and sport. This leaves Radio Four, which is a real institution. It is a speech radio station, combining arts, drama, news, lifestyle and myriads of different ideas, and all fitting together rather cleverly.

As a public service broadcaster, it also has certain responsibilities, one of which is the Shipping Forecast. Potentially a turn-off, it has become a minor insititution in Britain, because it is so relaxing listening to the seemingly effortless poetry. For sailors, it might be a life-saving few minutes. For the rest of us, it's like listening to music or something.

Viking, North Utsire, South Utsire, North or Northwest 6 or 7, increasing Gale 8 at times in North. Light showers, good, becoming good to moderate.

So then, to get to the meat of the issue, 'Rockall. Malin. Dogger. Finisterre.' are four of the shipping regions. As a cursory note, the four wouldn't appear in this order, but Duffy wasw obviously looking for trochees, and 'finisterre' meaning 'end of land' nattily finishes off both the poem, and, as it happens, the collection 'Mean Time'.

Ther point being that the radio, not quite knowing the full importance of the words, (as probably the announcer doesn't), is praying as we pray.

Hope that makes some sense. For a British reader offay with such things, it's a truly fantastic end to a poem.

-"...like the devils in the swine...."

As Wizard says, this is a reference to the Biblical story. I transcribed it for my review of 'Sacrifice'

-"An echo that repeats through time, but"

This was me being pretentiously arty!

On the other things: I did think twice about putting the word 'pawn' for precisely the reason you raised: I wanted the resonance to be of the little fella in the chess game who might one day be a Queen if he perseveres and is a lucky, rather than the literal meaning.

I saw the stuff in the wine glass as red wine- but that's because I have no imagination and fresne has corrupted me. The blood makes for various intriguing echoes: the blood of the sacrament. Angel as a lamb to the slaughter of Hamilton's altar. Angel, who has often been compared to Abraham, finally getting a good relationship with Isaac (Connor). Or even Angel, as the vampire sacrificed, as Isaac himself, with Jacob and Esau representing Connor and Spike? Now I'm just speculating...;-)

And maybe Angel, like so many of us, bases his expectations of others, or at least of other unsouled vampires, on what he would've done under the same circumstances.

I think he certainly does do this, and I also think at times, a complex and visceral understanding of others' motivations is what hamstrings him. It's the whole joke in the early Seasons with Cordelia- how unthinkingly insensitive he can be at times. And yet Cordy still loves the big dumb lug. Like we all do.

I'm still not sure I understand how the Angel/Lorne/Lindsey triangle works in the episode. I mean, is the whole Angel/Lindsey a scene an Angel plot? Because that saps large sections of its meaning, for me at least. I'd like to read the story as Lorne acting off his own initiative, as bleak as it is, because it has emotional resonance for me. But how does that square with Angel's assurance to Eve that 'Lindsey's not coming for you'? Maybe I eventually just hope for too much internal consistency in this most tangly of episodes.

TCH

[> [> [> As long as its good wine (spoilers, I guess) -- fresne, 13:49:06 06/08/04 Tue

The rich meaty red of dissolution. Full of earth tones and luscious mouthfeel. Round ruby tones with just hint of chocolate in amid the bramble. A brunette in a red dress of a wine. Watch out.

Hmmm...but Harmony's a blond. Well, bleach, grape crush, the color is all in the process.

Ahem.

Excellent poesy. I was quite tempted to forward to some friend and then went, perhaps sending depressing poems (however appropriate) to depressed friends isn't the way to go.

Which brings me to Lindsey and Lorne, forlorn. The quality of hope, mercy, conviction, loyalty, strained through a cheese cloth to remove the lees from the wine. Forming the pattern on Lindsey's shirt as he falls, saying Angel's name. The longing to be the Joker of the deck, but Batman has retired to a different fight and you're facing the Green Knight, caritas in his dry eyes gone. The Sea Breeze has lost its salt.

Water into wine. Wine into blood. Abraham had many sons. Standing in the rain. As when Connor, Stanford grad to be, was born. All the evils of the world escaped from the box, but hope, well, it's a narrow ally. It's not a bad tactical position.

I mean, sure, the Spartans (and their hairdressers) all died at Thermopylae, but that was a betrayal issue. And since they were, potentially, all going to be eating dinner with Hades, at least they had a big breakfast. As it is, (cue Couplings theme song) perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, there will be a tangle of tangos in the rain.

[> [> [> Re: Answers- mostly British idioms to blame -- Rob, 16:05:52 06/08/04 Tue

But how does that square with Angel's assurance to Eve that 'Lindsey's not coming for you'? Maybe I eventually just hope for too much internal consistency in this most tangly of episodes.

You could interpret it that Angel did not expect Lindsey by himself, with only Lorne for back-up, to be able to succeed in his mission.

Rob

[> [> [> [> don't think so -- anom, 19:45:31 06/08/04 Tue

Lorne tells Angel before everyone heads out to take out their targets, "I'll do this last thing for you, but don't look for me afterwards" (paraphrased). Is there anything else this could refer to? Especially considering how Lorne looks when he says it?

[> [> [> [> [> anom's right -- Rufus, 20:42:26 06/08/04 Tue

Lorne was there to take care of business...

ANGEL: Lorne...

LORNE: Uh, I'm not a fighter, Angelwings. I never had the stomach for it. Looks like I'm your weak link.

ANGEL: I just need you to back up Lindsey.

Sounds like an innocent enough request till you get to the scene where Lorne does his last job.

LINDSEY: You don't trust me. You don't think a man can change?

LORNE: It's not about what I think. This was Angel's plan.
(sighs)

LINDSEY: Come on. (smiles)I could sing for you.

LORNE: I've heard you sing. (takes out a gun with a silencer and shoots Lindsey twice in the chest)

LINDSEY: (stumbling back, looking at his wounds, then at Lorne)Why-why did you...

LORNE: One last job. You're not part of the solution, Lindsey. You never will be.

Made sense to give the job to the one demon who has seen past the wonderful voice to what lies underneath, and that man no one can trust. Lindsey simply couldn't change, he would always be about getting the most and defending what he had. Lorne knows that because he has heard Lindsey sing so many times (refer back to Dead End in season two).

From Dead End...

Host comes over to them: "Isn't he fabulous?"

Angel: "He comes here?"

Host: "He used to come all the time before some caballero chopped off his strumming hand. - Looks like he's got a new one."

But the nail in Lindsey's coffin came in "You're Welcome"

LINDSEY: (nods sarcastically)There's always time for redemption. Isn't that your whole thing?

ANGEL: You had your chance. I guess some people, they just never change.

That's when Lindsey should have been paying attention and get out of Dodge, but he couldn't and Angel was no longer giving chances, Lorne just delivered that last message.

[> [> [> [> [> [> thanks, rufus--i'd say that clinches it -- anom, 23:38:52 06/08/04 Tue

I was in a "I'm not gonna play it back again right now" mood. But you found the exact right lines.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> All of which means -- Tchaikovsky, 02:14:41 06/09/04 Wed

I'm going to scrunch my (metaphor) eyes up and kind of peer next time I watch that Angel/Lindsey scene, because it still works so much better for me with both of them talking honestly.

TCH

[> [> [> thanks, tch & wizard! -- anom, 23:35:44 06/08/04 Tue

Very interesting answers, esp. about the Shipping Forecast! Makes me glad I asked.

I'd heard the phrase "My name is Legion," & I seem to have vague memories of the story, but my knowledge of the Christian Bible is far from thorough. So a legion = 2,000? You suppose people in the Middle East at that time knew anything about lemmings?

"...the little fella in the chess game who might one day be a Queen if he perseveres and is a lucky...."

Ooh, I like that! Never thought of that aspect of it. But I doubt Anne's in it for that prospect.

"I saw the stuff in the wine glass as red wine...."

Maybe 'cuz it was in a wineglass...& maybe I saw it as blood because the 1st shot in that scene is Harmony lying still w/a trickle of red at the corner of her mouth. I'm sure we're meant to wonder for a moment if she's dead, even though we all know if she were, all we'd see would be dust. But we cut to that scene off Angel's mention of how dangerous the plan is to all the members of the "team," so at least we have to think Marcus may have caught on to Harmony's supposed role in that plan & knocked her out. But then she moves, & then she speaks, & her words make the true situation clear.

Besides, I thought it looked more like blood.

"An echo that repeats through time, but"

Aha! So you did do it on purpose!

"...Jacob and Esau representing Connor and Spike?"

Trying to think how this might fit...which is which? Is Esau, skilled in the hunt, Spike the predator or Connor the tracker/destroyer? Then who's Jacob the quiet tent-dweller? If anything, the dichotomy applies to each of them: Connor raised by Holtz is Esau, Connor raised by the Reillys is Jacob; Spike (presoul, at least) is Esau, William is Jacob. Of course, Esau had a pretty good relationship w/his father, so maybe it doesn't fit at all.

As for "the Angel/Lorne/Lindsey triangle," see below.

And would this post be complete w/out a whole new q.? "For a British reader offay with such things...." What's "offay"? Here in the U.S., "ofay" used to be an epithet for white people, but I doubt there's any connection w/that.

[> [> [> [> Corruption of "au fait" -- KdS, 23:43:01 06/08/04 Tue

[> [> [> [> You're welcome! Glad to be of help! -- Wizard, 02:40:28 06/09/04 Wed

[> Thank you! Finally someone figured it out(sp 5.22 and poetry-*laden*) -- s'kat, 15:41:48 06/07/04 Mon

Spike's not getting the old Dutch courage he offered Willow for a brawl, but for a recital. Finally the inner poet wins out over the outer front of street fighter. And as I was saying to Anne when I didn't know these lines were in this episode, it's fascinating how a few intonation shifts can change some lines of verse. It brings back memories of the two different versions of Angelus' monologue in 'Passion', the one by Ty King and the re-tooled Whedon one.

Here, we get the following lines:

My soul is wrapped
In harsh repose,
Midnight descends in
Raven-colored clothes.

But soft: behold
A sunlight beam
Cutting a swath of
Glimmering gleam.

My heart expands,
Tis grown a bulge in it,
Inspired by your beauty
Effulgent.

Now the shift of 'Your beauty' up a line gives less emphasis to 'by', makes 'effulgent' scan better, gives 'beauty', the most important word, it's own showcase, and changes the style of the whole four-liner from doggerel to rather good. And the first eight lines are much better than the last four. Spike has become what William wanted to be, rather than a reaction to his desires. And that's unspeakably moving. Of course, the fun of unspeakably moving in Whedonland has always been the under-cut. And hence the immortal line: 'This next one's called "The Wanton Folly of Me Mum.'

Thank you for this. It was bugging me on different boards when the episode aired. (Spike centric boards believe it or not. LOL!) So many people insisted the poem was the same as before, it hadn't changed, he was still the Bloody Awful Poet all had changed was the reading of it. And I kept insisting - no, it changed. I'm not crazy. Sigh.

At any rate thank you for this validation...

Great review by the way - amongst the best I've read on the episode to date.

[> [> Re: Thank you! Finally someone figured it out(sp 5.22 and poetry-*laden*) -- Rufus, 19:10:39 06/07/04 Mon

That's why I posted the two segments from first Fool for Love and then Not Fade Away. It seems that Spike had found the words in the last days of Angel that eluded him in his life in Victorian times. I think that shows that experience does a lot to inform what one has to say.

[> [> Thanks -- Tchaikovsky, 05:25:44 06/08/04 Tue

The whole thing plays on the thin line between the perceived as dreadful poetry and the perceived as good poetry. Because I'd say it's relatively rarely the ideas being expressed which make people consider poetry bad, it's the style. And style is just having an eye and an ear for the tiniest little changes. Which is what Whedon and Bell's re-write of Petrie's original lines, (not criticising Petrie- he was obviously writing deliberately poor poetry), show so elegantly.

TCH

[> [> [> Re: Thanks -- Rufus, 17:24:18 06/08/04 Tue

Yes, dreadful poetry from a fellow who has not lived a life far from comfort and security with his mother. Basically he was immature (immaturity isn't age specific) and that also showed in his approach to his art. If you look at the conversation he had in FFL with the butler you can see that he is an observer in life instead of a true participant...

CUT TO:

8 INT. LONDON (1880)- VICTORIAN PARLOR- NIGHT 8

A very different Spike is sitting and composing poetry off in the corner of a dinner party. The spirited laughter of the party-goers can be heard in the background. Spike's hair is long and unruly and he's dressed as a proper gentleman, complete with tie and reading spectacles. He's awkward and bookish- none of the confident swagger we're used to.

SPIKE: (to himself)Luminous... oh, no, no, no. Irradiant's better.

A WAITER approaches and holds out a tray.

WAITER: Care for an hors d'oeuvre, sir?

SPIKE: Oh, quickly! I'm the very spirit of vexation.

The waiter smiles patronizingly and moves off into the crowd. Spike's eyes are drawn to CECILY, young woman just entering the party.

William/Spike observes the world like one would a painting, his reaction to the world filtered through a mind that is still being formed by his experiences. The poem he was working on is this...

A group of young ARISTOCRATs- a woman and her two male companions- are gathered, discussing current events.

ARISTOCRAT #1: I mean to point out that it's something of a mystery and the police should keep an open mind.

One of the men turns to Spike as he passes by.

ARISTOCRAT #2: (to Spike)Ah, William! Favor us with your opinion. What do you make of this rash of disappearances sweeping through our town? Animals or thieves?

SPIKE: (haughty)I prefer not to think of such dark, ugly business at all. That's what the police are for. (looks at Cecily) I prefer placing my energies into creating things of beauty.

The third aristocrat snatches the poem from Spike's hands.

ARISTOCRAT #3: I see. Well, don't withhold, William.

ARISTOCRAT #1: Rescue us from a dreary topic.

SPIKE: (to Aristocrat #3)Careful. The inks are still wet. Please, it's not finished.

ARISTOCRAT #3: Don't be shy. (reads) "My heart expands/'tis grown a bulge in it/inspired by your beauty, effulgent." (laughs) Effulgent?

Everyone laughs, mocking Spike. Uncomfortable, Cecily glances at Spike and walks off. Spike shoots Aristocrat #3 a sour look, snatches back his poem, and follows her.

The poem is an incomplete thought from an incomplete mind. William isn't participating in the world, instead remaining apart from it. The ugliness of the murders that are happening around him are not his business or his work. His poem unfinished because William is unfinished. Fast forward to Not Fade Away and the finished product produced by someone who has more life experience behind him.

Cut to:

17 INT. BAR - DAY
Spike is sitting on a stool on a stage, talking into a hand-held microphone. The spotlight is on him as he performs a poetry reading. Behind him is a sign that reads "Poetry Slam, Thursdays 4:00". Holding the mic in his left hand, he's got his right hand draped over the mic stand, holding a glass of whiskey in his fingertips. The audience is silent.

SPIKE: "My soul is wrapped in harsh repose, midnight descends in raven-colored clothes,
but soft...behold!
A sunlight beam cutting a swath of glimmering gleam.
My heart expands, 'tis grown a bulge in it,
inspired by your beauty...effulgent."

MAN IN THE AUDIENCE: Yeah!

The audience applauses. Spike receives a standing ovation.

MAN IN THE AUDIENCE: That was great, man.

SPIKE: (standing, smiling)Thank you. That was for Cecily. All right. This next one's called "The Wanton Folly of Me Mum."

If that was the last thing Spike did he would be happy. He finally is able to finish his poem. That poem once filled only with reference to light no incorporates the always nearby dark. In 1880 he was rejected, now in 2004 his poem finally finished, he receives the applause he longed for.

[> [> [> [> Re: Thanks -- Tymen, 18:32:31 06/08/04 Tue

Has anybody noticed that what he wrote could be taken from the scene near the end of Chosen.

[> [> [> [> [> Yes -- Rufus, 20:18:55 06/08/04 Tue

As well as the punch from Connor upsetting the balance of power in the fight with Hamilton reminded me of Angel's entrance in End of Days interrupting the fight with Buffy and Caleb. The difference being Connor actually participated in the battle where Angel stepped aside when Buffy told him to. Later of course Angel asked Connor to step aside in the final battle in the alley as Connor was Angel's shanshu in that he would continue on even if Angel did not.

Spike said that poem was for Cecily but that completed poem could just as well reflect his progression as a result of his experiences with Buffy and being a vampire.

[> [> [> [> Love the light/dark mention -- Tchaikovsky, 02:30:36 06/09/04 Wed

Light doesn't make sense without darkness. It's a powerful symbol for duality, all the way back to 'And God said let there be light...He separated the light and the darkness; the light he called day, and the darkness night'. Spike is more able to celebrate the idea of effulgence having for so long lived in a world riddled with darkness- indeed, having lived in a world in which darkness is the only medium in which he can continue to exist, (necro-tempered glass aside).

TCH

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Love the light/dark mention -- Ann, 04:21:45 06/09/04 Wed

Spike became effulgent with this completed poem. In Chosen he used light but was still destroyed by it's power, with this poem he became light. I think it was with this, that he truly expressed his whole and completed soul.

[> Beautiful & heart-wrenching poetry -- Jane, 16:00:10 06/07/04 Mon

As always, I am so moved by your inclusion of poetry in your reviews. The bleak despair felt by Wesley, the soft, faint hope that his action would make a difference felt by Angel, encapsulated in poetry. I read, and weep for the pain and loss felt by Lorne. I remember the surprise and delight I felt when Spike finally got his applause for his poem. Your reviews have been a highlight for me, and I just want to say thanks. Thanks for reminding me of the power found in poetry. I had forgotten that.

[> [> On poetry -- Tchaikovsky, 05:28:08 06/08/04 Tue

I was a bit worried I'd over-egged the cake this time, but I really wanted to include all three of the poems, which I thought fitted together nicely with the review. So thanks for that.

TCH

evil -- head_wizard, 22:14:33 06/07/04 Mon

I have noticed in Buffyverse that evil doesn't seem to be any real belief in evil, at least for the big evils(The First Evil, Wolfram and Hart) It is more about power and getting more of it, is Joss saying that is what evil is just an attempt to gain power by any means, is greater evil then the vampire who just kills for fun?

Replies:

[> it's not about Good vs evil -- luvthistle1, 00:08:15 06/08/04 Tue

..it's about "Power!".... ithink that was the theme of buffy season 7 and Angel season 4 and 5. in season 4, we wasn't really sure rather or not jasmine was an agent of good or evil. although she was suppose to be an a power that be, she didn't seem to care about the people who was hurt or killed bringing her about. all she wanted was the power to control everyone.

[> [> it's about power -- frisby, 12:34:58 06/08/04 Tue

and 'power' is always already 'will to power'

[> [> [> Re: it's about power -- doublethink84, 09:30:50 06/09/04 Wed

I dont think its just 'power'. Its how you use the power. Some people argue that the message was that the end justifies the means. But i disagree. in the buffyverse, it has always been about how you use power, and how the consequences of misusing power effect your life.

[> [> [> [> Re: it's about power (Spoiler for Ats 5.22) -- StarryNightShade, 09:54:21 06/09/04 Wed

Hey Doublethink

You're basically right, it's about how power is used, but it's also about claiming your own power - and maybe that's what's meant by satisfying your ambition.

Without any power we are just victims. Everything happens TO us and not because of any choice we make. There's a lot of that throughout the 5 seasons of Angel. W&H have spied upon, manipulated, twisted, etc. Angel and his team when they were outside of W&H. The same kept going on in Season 5. Once inside they weren't going to be allowed to simply resign and walk away...Angel had to reclaim his power to not be owned by the W&H/SP. It's not power over others, but reclaiming what's his. When first seeing the finale I thought...bugger, is this how it ends. Now I think it's the way they needed to end it.

The use of power dominate others, to avoid pain of one's own, avoid responsiblity, etc. has consequences which are damaging.

SNS

[> [> [> [> Re: it's about power -- head_wizard, 21:24:35 06/09/04 Wed

would that imply thought that evil will not use good means if it gets them power though?

[> [> [> [> Re: it's about power -- frisby, 17:14:55 06/10/04 Thu

is power simply something that can be used? or is not using (or utility) itself a mode of power? apart from power, nothing gets done. power itself comes in three modes, possible power, actual power, and necessary power. things begin with power. to not have power is to not be. so many criticisms i hear about power always assume a narrow notion of it. simply to perdure or maintain through time requires power. for nietzsche, power itself is always already will to power. heidegger writes of power as subsuming passion, affect, and feeling. it's about power, 'it' being life.

[> Re: evil -- Gyrus, 08:00:13 06/08/04 Tue

I have noticed in Buffyverse that evil doesn't seem to be any real belief in evil, at least for the big evils.

Faith comes immediately to mind--she turned to evil partly because she didn't believe in good and evil.

Some villains, however, seem to be true believers in evil. Angelus, for example, doesn't act solely out of self-interest; he appears to believe that doing evil things (ex. destroying the world in S2) is an end in itself.

[> [> Re: evil -- kana, 06:32:07 06/09/04 Wed

Hang on, Faith didn't turn evil because she didn't believe in good or evil, it was a result of her poor self-esteem, bad childhood and the rage she fostered as a result of all those things. She used the whole i don't believe in good and evil thing as an excuse to make herself feel better.

[> [> [> Re: evil -- Gyrus, 07:53:57 06/09/04 Wed

She used the whole i don't believe in good and evil thing as an excuse to make herself feel better.

It was certainly rationalization, but I don't think she could have turned evil without it.

[> [> [> [> Actually, I think Faith very much believed in good and evil -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:14:53 06/09/04 Wed

However, she had something of a negative view towards the side of good. She saw most of the good guys as uptight and unaccepting of her. These feelings, after she killed Alan Finch, led Faith to believe that she couldn't be good, that she could never really fit in with people like Buffy, and so she decided to become a bad guy, believing that was the only place left for her. Faith did believe in good and evil, she just saw herself as being on the wrong side of the spectrum.

[> [> [> [> [> I disagree -- Gyrus, 09:26:35 06/09/04 Wed

When Buffy said something to Faith about endangering innocent people, Faith said, "No such animal." As for her attitude towards Buffy, Faith appeared to see her as self-righteous rather than righteous. Faith didn't turn her back on good; she simply decided that it didn't exist.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I disagree -- Ann, 10:49:15 06/09/04 Wed

I always took it that Faith wanted to do the right thing, but because so much water got past the bridge, she thought she was a lost cause so took the view -what the heck -and dove in head first. She would have moments of thought that crossed her face revealing that she was so tempted by Buffy's good choices but put up the brave evil front, bravado pushing her. The mayor took advantage of that. She didn't think she deserved the good, and that is why her encounter with Riley was so moving. That was the only time that she saw herself as someone who could be loved and it scared her senseless. The reflection of this in Riley's eyes terrified her. Each choice of her's towards evil made her think there was no saving her. If someone doesn't think they can be saved, they won't be. It was a self fulfilling prophesy for her. Only when she could forgive herself, with Angel's help, did she accept herself as potentially good.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I disagree -- StarryNightShade, 11:37:41 06/09/04 Wed

Ann,

I agree with you. If not, then there is no rationale behind her desire to change. Why change if there's no difference? ...and as you point out it starts with her response to Riley's love for Buffy(not knowing it's really Faith).

Faith's comment about no such animal as an innocent can be due to a number of reasons....such as rationalising her concept that she's evil and can't escape it or even that none of us are truly innocent even if there is good and evil. I recall a quote by an 18th century English writer (sorry, but I can't remember which one) who said something to the effect that we shouldn't ask for justice for if justice were to be done we should all be hanged by the necks until we were dead. Note that this statement assumes good & evil and that no one is innocent.

SNS, who's kinda worried about that noose thing

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I disagree -- Gyrus, 08:25:07 06/10/04 Thu

If not, then there is no rationale behind her desire to change. Why change if there's no difference?

Because her experience with Riley showed her she was wrong. Riley demonstrated genuine love for Buffy, and Faith didn't believe (or, more accurately, didn't want to believe) that real love existed. IMO, that's why the whole experience was so shocking to her -- it completely changed her world-view. She had rationalized her own actions because she believed that love and selflessness didn't exist, that they were just the inventions of people who pretended to be superior (ala Buffy).

And then love and selflessness were suddenly shoved in Faith's face, reversing her perspective on absolutely everything. Buffy went from being smug to being right. Mayor Wilkins went from surrogate father to monster. And Faith herself went from realist to sadistic murderer. Why else would she pummel her own face at the church? Believing that she could be saved wouldn't make her hate herself, but clearly seeing her own evil for the first time would.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> So we agree. -- SNS, 10:34:55 06/10/04 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sort of. -- Gyrus, 10:49:49 06/10/04 Thu

We seem to agree that witnessing Riley's love for Buffy spurred a massive change in Faith's POV. The difference is, you appear to believe that only Faith's beliefs about HERSELF changed as a result, i.e., that she began to believe in her own capacity for goodness/redemption. I argue that Faith's entire world-view changed, in that she had denied the existence of goodness in ANYONE until Riley (unwittingly) showed her that she was wrong. Or do I misunderstand you?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, you did misunderstand...I was saying the same thing as you -- SNS, 12:39:14 06/10/04 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sort of. -- kana, 04:18:01 06/11/04 Fri

i'm sorry but i think that this nothing to with one's views changing, i think it is to do with validation and self worth. Faith desperately wanted to feel good about herself but her bad childhood and finally her jealousy of Buffy got in the way of that. Because of her isolation, her only lifeline was then the Mayor. This doens't mean that she didn't believe in good and evil it, she simply deemed validation as more important. That is why she hit Willow when she gave her a few home truths in Choices. 'You hurt me i hurt you' It did hurt because she knew Willow was right. Her words wouldn't have had any effect if Faith hadn't believed in good or evil. Deep down she knew Willow was right. Plus i don't think her experience with Riley changed anything. She wouldn't have gone to LA to have Angel kill her if she believed in good of any sort, doesn't make sense although some would say it is to rid herself of the guilt. But my point still stands, It is to do with the way faith felt not her actual view point. Low self esteem and pain made Faith do what she knew to be wrong. think back to Five by Five, when Faith said 'I'm bad, i'm evil'. She knew the difference between good and evil then just as she always has.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?" -- Sophist, 15:10:00 06/10/04 Thu

Hamlet, II, ii, 561.

It's one of Rah's favorite quotes.

[> Re: evil -- HonorH, 10:20:49 06/08/04 Tue

Evil in the Jossverse, as in the real world, is more of a result than a motivation. Do you think evil people in the real world just wake up one morning and say, "I think I'll be evil!" No, they decide to pursue their own agendas and pleasures without regard to those they might hurt along the way. Either they're like Spike, tearing a bloody swath through the world without stopping to look at the damage; or they're like Angelus, taking pleasure in the act of hurting others. In either case, though, their only master is themselves, not what C.S. Lewis called the "turnip ghost" of Evil.

I have managed to miss the kind of evil Jasmine was. She was the "by any means" evil. She had an agenda that she called good, but it required everyone to give up their free wills and some to feed her. She's like those who self-righteously claim the ends justify the means, and those who die don't matter if the mission is accomplished. That's the most subtle kind of evil, because it comes wrapped in a shiny veneer of "good."

[> [> Re: evil -- LeeAnn, 12:07:32 06/08/04 Tue

Yeah... good points.

I always found Jasmine more evil than, say, The Master, or Glory, because she kept confusing issues by saying she was "trying to save the world" when her world would have put everyone in her service. And on her menu.

[> [> [> Re: evil -- David, 13:13:59 06/08/04 Tue

I agree with the others. In the Buffyverse evil isn't really the point, they just do what they want to get power and i think they believe that evil lets people do that e.g. good doesn't let people kill others yet evil will give you more freedom. i do think that the FE was pure evil but it wanted for power for itself and its side since when it was in drusilas form, she/the fe kept saying that there were sides and you had to pick.

Also i think the FE wanted to make everyone evil and according to caleb, be a cleansing fire that cures the world of weakness so in other words good which shows that most beings use evil for power because it cleanses weakness

Hope this makes sense

[> [> Jasmine is an interesting case -- Bjerkley, 14:41:05 06/08/04 Tue

And I'm not sure it's quite as simple as just saying she is evil. I think it cuts to a deeper issue of what price a better world.

I believe that Jasmine was completely sincere. She thought that she was saving the world, that it was the right thing. And that the sacrifice of a (relative) few was necessary to sustain this. Which is not an uncommon idea to many governments that would not be considered evil nowadays ;-)

And on the issue of free will - Jasime wasn't a human, never was never will be, so she couldn't understand why we hold it so important. To her it was an impediment to a better world. By removing free will, she was saving us. And indeed, Angel's insistence on preserving it will allow many other evils to exist because it is essentially a neccessity for free will. So, taking a step back, what is the evil? That free will is eliminated, or that we insist on it's importance. It all depends on perspective.

On a similar note, has anyone read Atomised by Michel Houellebecq? To me, that raised similar issues, if in a more oblique fashion.

[> evil versus survival -- Briar Rose, 19:53:38 06/08/04 Tue

I have always seen JW's take on vampires as not necessarily evil unless they have another, and more destructive, agenda beyond feeding.

Angelus is a great case for this. He didn't stop at feeding. He enjoyed the torture and psychological warfare much more than simply using humans for food.

He also wanted power, as was shown in his attempt to raise the demon for Dru and himself to take over Sunnydale.

Spike was really not a pure source of evil, such as Angelus was, since (other than killing Slayers) he wasn't as into the whole evil torturer and anhialator as Angelus was.

We see very few truly "evil" vampires in Buffy/Angel-verse. Most of the truly evil characters are either humans that quest for power (Caleb, The Mayor, Dark!Willow, The Geek Trio and Maggie Walsh) or Old Ones that come back to assume power (Jasmine, the Master, Glory, The First Evil and WR&H, if you want to count them.....)

And I agree with Bjerkley.... Jasmine was much more about power than truly evil. What made her evil was how she assumed to get her power, and that isn't much different than Allyria was trying to do. Both wanted humans to serve them so they could ultimately rule the world again.

I never saw Jasmine eating people as evil. Just as I don't see a vampire feeding off a human as evil. Animals kill other animals to live. So do we humans.

There isn't a single living organism (that I can think of) that doesn't kill another living organism to feed. Maybe the dust mite... or a flea. But even vegans kill another living organism to eat.

Feeding isn't evil. No matter what the one being fed upon thinks. Evil is actions taken beyond the need to survive. Survival (most of the time) requires an amount of killing and fighting. In our society, it means fighting economically and in the market place, against others at work (psychological warfare and emotional manipulation) and success depends upon how well we fight in our way.

But most of us aren't playing major games to gain ultimate power. We are not evil, because we are not trying to gain more than what we need to survive. But some humans in the real world do turn into what can only be termed as evil... They quest for much more power than is necessary to survive.

All comics and sci-fi face this issue of the human condition. That there are a few that will see ultimate power as much more than most humans do. They are beyond the will to survive, and many delude themselves into thinking that their plans are genuinely noble. Another good example of the quest for power being disguised by the concept of 'what price is too high to save the world?' is covered in The Watchmen graphic novel.... One tries to bring peace to the world by sacrificing half of New York. Is it worth the price? What exactly is "acceptable loss" in the human body count?

And these are real issues in the real world of political power games. Vampires aren't really more than homeless people trying to survive. While Jasmine is a country's leader that sees some death as acceptable to uphold her master plan, even if she has to kill some collateral damage to get there and brainwash millions into her service in the process.

[> [> Re: evil versus survival -- StarryNightShade, 06:55:01 06/09/04 Wed

Hey Briar Rose

"Spike was really not a pure source of evil, such as Angelus was, since (other than killing Slayers) he wasn't as into the whole evil torturer and anhialator as Angelus was."

Is this really true? Spike had quite a reputation from his past and was pretty much a full member of the fanged-four. As for torture, didn't Spike sans chip and soul hire the specialist vampire torturer to torture souled Angel to acquire the Ring of Amara? Wasn't it Spike the acquired the pieces of the Judge to please Drusilla? What did he think was going to happen after the Judge was assembled?

Far too much has been made of Spike's alleged reason for helping Buffy against Angelus being that he didn't want the world consumed by Acathala. If that is the case, then how does one justify his walking away from Buffy when it appears that Angelus is about to kill her. Acathala has been activated, Buffy is about to be killed and Spike walks away because he has Drusilla. Did Spike want to save the world or was it an excuse to get Buffy to see him as an ally so he could get revenge on Angelus and get Drusilla for himself.

As for Angelus wanting to destroy the world that has always seemed very out of character with the pre-curse Angelus that refused to go underground with the Master. That Angelus very much liked the comforts of the world. One explanation, admitedly amongst many that can not be proven one way or another, is that the Angelus that appears in Season 2 of Buffy now has the experience of 100 years of a souled Angel plus 2 years of the love between Angel and Buffy. Perhaps it has been too much for him, as one of his first comments to Spike and Dru is that he hates Buffy for how "human" he made him feel. I'm still catching up on the series, so my views may change when Season 4 of Ats comes out on DVD.

In the real world, it's hard in the real world to define things like evil, soul, etc. Trying to make definitive statements about a fictional, supernatural world is always going to be more of a problem. It's even worse when, as the writers themselves admit, they will sacrifice consistency for the needs of the current stories they are writing. Making statements trying to reconcile conflicting "world views" from Buffy Season 1 and Buffy Season 7 or Angel Season 5 may not be the most productive approach. It might be better to consider the combined series as a collection of related stories in the same way that L'Morte d'Arthur consists of often very conflicting stories surrounding the legendary King Arthur.

Thanks for reading this far....and regardless of whether you or I agree, I appreciate your viewpoint.

SNS

[> [> [> Ah - but there's the rub.... -- Briar Rose, 16:22:25 06/09/04 Wed

"didn't Spike sans chip and soul hire the specialist vampire torturer to torture souled Angel to acquire the Ring of Amara?"

Spike didn't do it himself, he hired someone.

Darla and Angelus (as we saw in flashbacks) always accused Spike of being less blood thristy than they were and sort of a wimp when it came to torture. William the Bloody used psychological warfare more than any real attempt to torture and destroy someone's entire life. Unlike Angelus, he also had firm lines that he didn't normally cross.

I agree with you, The Judge was about Dru and getting Dru away from Angelus. But, again, Spike did it in the least personally involved way. He wasn't going to enjoy Angelus's death or Buffy's, he simply chose not to get involved in the dirty work.

Like I said, Darla and Angelus (even Dru) were always more into the actual torture than Spike.

But I do think you missed the point about political and personal real life analogies, as JW makes them all the time in Buffy/AtS-verse. Every one of his story lines is concerned with the philosophy of how the script parallels real life. His verse is our verse with symbolism.

[> [> [> [> Re: Ah - but there's the rub. -- SNS, 18:46:56 06/09/04 Wed

Thanks for your response.

Agree that Spike hired the torturer. That hardly absolves him of guilt on the charge of sadism, but I will agree that hiring a torturer would be seen as a means to an end...getting the ring.

I guess my trouble is trying to rank types of evil, such as sadism versus wanton destruction. Your position is that normal vampires that just kill to feed aren't evil per se, and ones that use torture (Darla, Angelus, Dru) that do are evil, since animals that kill to feed are evil. So, what about cats and other animals that toy with their prey?

I'm not sure what point you think I missed with respect to political and personal life analogies with respect to the stories. I thought I was saying that, in the 8 year-in-total run of the two stories, that these took precedence over internal mythic story consistency between say the 1st and 8th year...and how demons and vampires are viewed in the series did indeed shift as the years went by.

As an example of what I mean...in "Angel", Angel says he never killed a human after getting a soul. A few years later, in a flashback, we find he did...even if they were murderers, etc. I believe that the original line was meant to be a truth that later had to be rationalised with the flashback information....and there are several ways to do that. It doesn't bother me as each story met the need at the time.

If I have completely missed the analogy point, please tell me where as it is this point that has the most meaning for me. I've only recently become obsessed with all of this dang stuff and have used it to understand what's up in my own life. As an example of one way in which the stories have touched me personally, I get a little miffed at those people who don't want to see Angel redeemed (and there are a few even if they are a minority)or those that suggest that he can never be happy because of the implication it has for alcoholics and addits. You see, I've suffered a fair bit under an alcoholic boss who even tried to seduce me while on a business trip....in time I was able to forgive him (which by the way does not imply having to forget - apparently somewhere in the bible it says that people can forgive, but only God can forgive and never call the sins to mind).

I do think that Spike pre-chip was evil. He did evil...he killed and he enjoyed it. To say otherwise is to imply that he was originally a human without sin. The removal of the conscience (soul) results in the removal of all restraints upon the id...and I can't believe the Spike's id would have no destructive desires. I also think that he has had a remarkable journey through the series.

However, comparison with Angel fall into the trap that Spike has to overcome...living in Angel's shadow. In truth one can't judge (from an internal character / soul / moral view point) Spike in comparison to Angel unless he has "walked in his shoes"...so to speak.

Just a few examples here will illustrate....suppose Angelus II (i.e. after encountering Buffy) had a chip early on. Angelus was clearly affected by the souled Angel experience. What would have happened if he couldn't harm people or animals? We can only speculate.

On the other hand, would a chipped Spike have been able to approach the Scoopies and would they have accepted him in if they had not already known a so-called "good" vampire?

Sorry, I guess I'm beginning to lose it, so I'll stop here.

Cheers

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> That's what gets discussed a lot.... -- Briar Rose, 23:07:55 06/09/04 Wed

There is still a definite difference between survival and evil. As you rightly stated, a cat that enjoys toying with it's prey is by some (most?) people's definition evil. Certainly, I see most cats enjoyment of torture evil. However, I love cats all the same.

But I was talking about Angelus' enjoyment of driving Dru to insanity and tormenting Buffy post-coitus being easy to see as evil, where Spike's major offenses are more on the side of manipulation and general "badness" than actual sadism. Just as most of the vampires we are shown are not sadistic, they are simply trying to survive. They need to feed off the blood of a living thing. Some probably don't even know that animals, besides humans, will suffice.

I have to say that Angelus is a case of someone being inherently evil, as opposed to Spike. Why do I make the distinction? Because Angel still has to fight the urge against his inate sadism even though he has a soul, and Spike seems to be happy to leave it alone now that he has a soul. Would Spike lock lawyers in with Darla and Dru now that he has a soul, or even before? For some reason I don't think so, unless it had something in it directly to benifit him. Even then, he'd probably be less interested in what happened than how his own outcome went.

We do know that Spike still loves a good fight, and that he can be bloody brilliant in battle. But Angel is the one that truly uses that sadistic streak to make concerted attacks. All we see of Spike now is more manipulation.

Noxon laid it out in the flash back to Spike's first days with Dru, Angelus and Darla: Spike took to slaying Slayers as a way to fit into his new family. Even then, he was looking at an "evil" that would ultimately hurt his own agenda. Not a major evil that would harm the world. He worked at being a torturer himself, because he felt he had to to survive with the company he kept. But even his confrontation with Nikki was peppered with his need to kill her quickly and not to torture her.

It's easier for me to say that Spike is "bad" more so than Spike is evil. As I said before, the sadism isn't inherent in what he does, as opposed to Angelus' (and possibly Dru's and Darla's) way of doing things.

To understand where I'm coming from, I think I have to relate what I use as my definitions of good, bad and evil.... If we use the overall definitions of society to equate this, then sadism = evil and killing = survival.

The only times that this does not come into play is when we look at murder. Basically depending on the type of murder that we're talking about.... Dahmer style murder or spouse style murder. Simply because some murders do not have a whole lot of sadism involved and some do.

If an animal (human or otherwise) needs to kill to eat, then is that evil? Well, it doesn't involve more than a quick, clean kill and certainly doesn't need to involve long lasting torture. And most humans hire someone else to do their food killing for them. So in most instances, that isn't what I consider evil.

But consider the fact that some animals are tortured for us to eat them. Crabs can't possibly love having their claws snapped off and being left alive and one clawed, yet we eat them. We also pay someone to do this for us, in most cases.

So what I think is that even though torture is evil, sadism is evil, the fact that I might buy a crab that was thus tortured isn't saying that I am evil... I have just followed my own agenda in eating crab. I choose not to think about the fact that I basically paid someone to torture a crab for my dinner.

So I can't see Spike's hiring someone to torture Angel as as sadistic and evil as Angelus torturing Buffy and Giles (and others) all on his own and for his own personal enjoyment. Spike choose to get the job done in the way that would behove him, and he didn't want to know exactly what happened while the paid hand did it. Angel was his crab claw. He did't even watch the proceedings as Angel has done in the past.

As for the political ramifications of JW's work, I was actually talking about the fact that all of JW's work has relations to the real world.

He has covered politics in the form of The Mayor and The Initiative. There was no way to avoid noticing how the Mayor symbolized government and the thirst for power over all that they can get from their constituants. There is also no way to deny that the Initiative was a symbol for how the US government treats other countries and the political implications of that. There is a lot of political commentary in season 7 of Buffy as well....

He also covered political motives on AtS with Jasmine, and with the entire WR&H entity. Shadow governments that control and manipulate the entire world. It can't be a coincidence that JW came up with WR&H and the Initiative about the time that Bush and Rumsfeld came clean about there being a "shadow government" in place incase terrorists were to take out the entire US Government. That was introduced just after 9/11, and just about when Buffy met the Initiative and Angel met WR&H, if my calculations are correct.;)

We also see a lot of political and social commentary in how the demons are portrayed in AtS and BtVS. There are good, bad and neutral demons. Many people say that the demons stand in for many of the different segments of society, and I have to agree with this.

But everything in the Joss-verse has correlesence to the real world we live in. As most sci-fi does.

I love your hat! You're a definite asset to this board, and I love how you look at things. It's not about agreeing, it's about philosophizing until we all run out of things to say. And you are very good at that.:)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Not too fond of the animal/human comparison -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:00:04 06/10/04 Thu

I don't think killing animals is wrong because most of them are clearly unsentient beings. However, fact is, vampires seem to operate at the same mental level as humans, so it can't be justified in the same manner of sentience versus non-sentience.

Imagine you came across a pack of crabs that spoke English, expressed feelings of love, hate, jealousy, empathy, and all the other big emotions for each other, and even had their own little society. Would you still feel all right about eating these crabs? I wouldn't, but I've got no problem eating real crabs since they don't seem to have any sort of sentience. Vampires, on the other hand, kill beings which, mentally and emotionally, are very close to themselves. This makes the vampire/human dynamic and the human/animal dynamic uncomparable.

P.S. How does your personal view of Spike's badness/evilness take into account killing just for the hell of it (the guy whose neck he broke in "School Hard") or out of anger (like trying to stake Harmony in "Harsh Light of Day")?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not too fond of the animal/human comparison -- Simone, 09:45:54 06/12/04 Sat

>>I don't think killing animals is wrong because most of them are clearly unsentient beings. However, fact is, vampires seem to operate at the same mental level as humans, so it can't be justified in the same manner of sentience versus non-sentience.<<

I assume that by "sentience" you mean intelligence, rationality? Here's the problem with using that as THE criterion for judging the value of a being's life: it's completely arbitrary. We see it that way because WE are the only intelligent species on this planet (and in the universe, for all we know), which makes us feel special, unique, priviledged. Superior. It allows us to morally justify killing other living creatures, while still expecting our own lives to be sacrosanct to other intelligent beings. Convenient, that.

But there's nothing objectively priviledged about intelligence. Other intelligent beings may very well embrace some other quality as that which makes them superior and gives them the right to do with other species' lives as they please; any quality that they possess and no one else does would do. In the case of vampires, for example, they could very well argue that only (relative) immortality matters, that our lives are so brief as to be worthless and meaningless anyway - so why should they refrain from getting pleasure and nourishment out of ending them just a little bit sooner?

[> [> [> [> [> [> The debate on evil will go on longer than you or I will -- SNS, 13:07:28 06/10/04 Thu

"You're a definite asset to this board, and I love how you look at things. It's not about agreeing, it's about philosophizing until we all run out of things to say. And you are very good at that"

The trouble with being an asset is if you only get the first half right...then...

...and I certainly have an inexhaustible ability to say things. Meaningful things...well, not always.

The longer I live the more I distruct the commonly accepted things labelled evil, good, truth, etc. It seems each birthday is greet with yet another truth abandoned. I say this because through Btvs/Ats Whedon moves us from an essentialist view of morality (i.e. things are good or evil based upon their essential nature) to a more sophisticated existentialist morality which is defined by choice through free will. This has been true for me and perhaps many others. As a young person, good and evil seemed really clear. Today I distrust objective or globally defined good / evil as it impossible to settle upon a definition without taking a factional stance. Samuel Huntingdon in "Clash of Civilizations" rightly points out that the commonality in values across civilizations is indeed a thin veneer. Well that leaves a whole lot of things one society labels good / evil that will flip-flop in another. Having grown upon on the margins of two civilazations (North American / Native American) I understand now why taking a factional stance has been so difficult and why today I am without religion (yes, I will burn in hell for sure...but at least I will have lots of company).

I do not have any difficult in labelling some actions as acts of evil, the trouble is the source of the evil acts and the labelling of the individual as inherently "evil". In doing so requires a judgment on the inner nature of that person, and I don't think I would ever have enough knowledge to be such a judge...I leave that to the PTB.

I agree with Freud who claimed sadism and masochism were innate human drives. Liam / Angelus / Angel had some preference for the drive related to sadism. William / Spike had a drive for violence, including murder, for it's own sake and not purely for feeding. Without a conscience both acted upon these drives without remorse and hence can be thought of as evil prior to that poor gypsy girl being eaten.

As the stories unfold in the series, Joss continually undercuts one premise after another about vampirism.

Premise 1: Vampires have no souls and hence no conscience and are evil. [Comment: If they have no conscience they have no ability to distinguish right from wrong. If they can not distinguish right from wrong they cannot make a choice and they have no free will....therefore how can they be any more evil than a Great White shark? I suppose they could be aware of good and evil and be unable to choose. The theological implications are enormous, as Linus would say.]

Premise 2: Vampires can have souls, if someone gives it to them by magic, and if they have a soul they are good. [Comment: Humans with souls can choose to do evil. So, either Angel is not inherently good but mostly chooses to do so or if he is inherently good he has no free will...it turns out it is the former as this is explored in the Angel series.]

Premise 3: Vampires can have artificial souls (chips) which will condition them to do good. Such conditioning will habituate them to good to the point when they can acquire a real soul voluntarily. [Comment: Spike didn't consciously ask for a soul, but it was indeed his unconscious desire. He expressed this was early on in "Tabula Rusa" - "I'm a noble vampire....help the helpless...vampire with a soul".]

Premise 4: Vampires have free will and can make a choice to do good and acquire a soul - this would be a consequence of Harmony's statment, "I'd have a soul if you trusted me". [The only conclusion, if indeed Harmony's statment isn't simply rationalising her betrayal, is that vampires have become able to aware of good and evil and of their free will to choose....and they can acquire a sould without external intervention...i.e. they must have vestegial souls.]

There's two (well, at least two) ways to understand this.

1) Premise 4 was always the truth. So we have to retro-fit previous understandings in light of the new truth. For example, Angel's whole gypsy curse thing was "witch doctor" magic. It worked because he believed it would work....and even if he was not consciously aware of the happiness clause there is an unconscious logic to it. He had the soul to suffer, if he is not suffering he loses the soul. Statements like the Judge's in Surprise can be taken as only true in that it expresses a commonly held belief.

2) There is an on-going sociological evolutionary process. No vampire can acquire a soul until the Angel does...by accident and external magical intervention. This allows the possiblity to other vampires. Spike choosing a soul with the aid of a chip to prevent his predilection to evil means that vampires can now, at least with an "conscience aid", choose to grow spiritually in acquiring genuine free will and a eventually a soul. Finally, if Harmony's statement is acted upon...i.e. someone trusts that a vampire without a soul or chip can do good and that vampires does act upon it, this will shatter completely the divide between vampires and human.

I like the latter since it corresponds most closely to the role that the vampire symbol provides society. The vampire represents all those desires that are consider unacceptable in a society. In our society this has included sadism, violence, wantonness of sexual expression (particularly in Victorian times). The vampire carries these inate human drives for the humans. Once the humans acknowledge that, the vampires can be accepted within humanity. Now, hasn't something like that happened with Bvts/Ats.

So, the conclusion is that if one vampire can "shanshu", all vampires can potentially "shanshu". It's not an either Angel or Spike question.

I know I've gone completely tangential to the whole is there EVIL in Bvts/Ats question.

My affinity for the questions I have raised are due to the presence of the vampire in my dreams. I have had them in my dreams (as deadly threats...not friendly sorts) for a long time, that is until a couple of years ago with a very powerful dream that saw the vampire dissipate.

As I told you, I could go on forever...so, I'll just stop here.

Cheers

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The debate on evil will go on longer than you or I will -- Gyrus, 14:05:47 06/10/04 Thu

Premise 1: Vampires have no souls and hence no conscience and are evil. [Comment: If they have no conscience they have no ability to distinguish right from wrong. If they can not distinguish right from wrong they cannot make a choice and they have no free will....therefore how can they be any more evil than a Great White shark? I suppose they could be aware of good and evil and be unable to choose. The theological implications are enormous, as Linus would say.]

One can have an understanding of right and wrong on an intellectual level without having a conscience. Vampires are "born" with the same understanding of the rules of right and wrong that their human selves had--they just don't feel any need to adhere to them anymore, unless they have some extrinsic motivation to do so (i.e., S5-6 Spike wanting Buffy to like him).

Premise 2: Vampires can have souls, if someone gives it to them by magic, and if they have a soul they are good. [Comment: Humans with souls can choose to do evil. So, either Angel is not inherently good but mostly chooses to do so or if he is inherently good he has no free will...it turns out it is the former as this is explored in the Angel series.]

I don't think it was ever implied that Angel is good by virtue of his soul alone -- only that, without it, he's incredibly evil.

Premise 3: Vampires can have artificial souls (chips) which will condition them to do good. Such conditioning will habituate them to good to the point when they can acquire a real soul voluntarily. [Comment: Spike didn't consciously ask for a soul, but it was indeed his unconscious desire. He expressed this was early on in "Tabula Rusa" - "I'm a noble vampire....help the helpless...vampire with a soul".]

The chip, as we saw, did not condition Spike to do good; it only prevented him from hurting people physically. Spike went on doing bad things (stealing, kidnapping, etc.) until he realized he was in love with Buffy, and THAT was the impetus for his wanting a soul -- he knew Buffy would never love him if he didn't have one.

Premise 4: Vampires have free will and can make a choice to do good and acquire a soul - this would be a consequence of Harmony's statment, "I'd have a soul if you trusted me". [The only conclusion, if indeed Harmony's statment isn't simply rationalising her betrayal, is that vampires have become able to aware of good and evil and of their free will to choose....and they can acquire a sould without external intervention...i.e. they must have vestegial souls.]

Um, it's Harmony. If there's a vampire out there who doesn't have a clue about anything metaphysical, she's it.

My point is that there is not really any season-to-season inconsistency about the nature of vampires on BTVS and ANGEL; there is only an ongoing revelation of the details about how it all works.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Response to your points -- SNS, 14:38:29 06/10/04 Thu

"Vampires are "born" with the same understanding of the rules of right and wrong that their human selves had--they just don't feel any need to adhere to them anymore, unless they have some extrinsic motivation to do so "

I agree that they are aware of the rules of humans and the labels of them as "right" and "wrong", which is different I meant, which from an awareness of rightness and wrongness as internal responses.

"I don't think it was ever implied that Angel is good by virtue of his soul alone -- only that, without it, he's incredibly evil"

I think I agreed with that point, I was trying to come up with an alternative.

"The chip, as we saw, did not condition Spike to do good; it only prevented him from hurting people physically. Spike went on doing bad things (stealing, kidnapping, etc.) until he realized he was in love with Buffy, and THAT was the impetus for his wanting a soul -- he knew Buffy would never love him if he didn't have one."

That was a mistake on my part. You're right it only conditioned him to not harm humans and animals. It provided some impetus towards good and combined with Buffy actual motivation.

"Um, it's Harmony. If there's a vampire out there who doesn't have a clue about anything metaphysical, she's it"

As they say, "out of the mouths of babes". I don't think the series was going in this direction. However, they did write the line and hence they (the writers) had the concept. It was just wild speculation on my part of a potential direction in which they could go.

"My point is that there is not really any season-to-season inconsistency about the nature of vampires on BTVS and ANGEL; there is only an ongoing revelation of the details about how it all works"

Is there a difference between ongoing revelation and ongoing evolution in this case? If your awareness of something has changed can you tell if it is indeed your knowledge that has changed or if the something has changed. Without a fixed reference point you can never tell.

Thanks for your insight.

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Response to your points -- Gyrus, 15:02:13 06/10/04 Thu

I agree that they are aware of the rules of humans and the labels of them as "right" and "wrong", which is different I meant, which from an awareness of rightness and wrongness as internal responses.

I guess we'd have to get pretty deep into the definition of "conscience" to work that one out. If we define concience merely as an understanding (even an instinctual understanding) of right and wrong, then vampires could theoretically still have one; they would just be ignoring it. On the other hand, if conscience is an instinct to do right and avoid doing wrong, then vamps definitely don't have one.

"Um, it's Harmony. If there's a vampire out there who doesn't have a clue about anything metaphysical, she's it"

As they say, "out of the mouths of babes". I don't think the series was going in this direction. However, they did write the line and hence they (the writers) had the concept. It was just wild speculation on my part of a potential direction in which they could go.

I perceived it more as a last-ditch effort to avoid taking the blame -- sort of a "I only drink too much because you're mean to me" kind of response.

Is there a difference between ongoing revelation and ongoing evolution in this case?

Maybe not. It's not as though they wrote the whole series before they starting filming; it's more like, "OK, we've laid down the rules, now let's see what kind of stories we can generate within them."

If we were talking about HARRY POTTER or BABYLON 5 (series in which all the "rules" were outlined in advance), on the other hand, that would be a different kettle of fish. Or spoo, or Blast-Ended Screwts, or something.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're welcome -- SNS, 16:50:18 06/10/04 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, another year of experience always changes your view.:) -- Briar Rose, 15:18:29 06/10/04 Thu

I have to agree with Gyrus, that the definitions never really changed on vampires, what changed was how Buffy and the other Scoobies related to each vampire they encountered that didn't quite fit the definition as outlined.

When I was a teen, I would have seen both Angel/Angelus and Spike as equally evil. In my twenties, I would have applauded both for their survival instinct, no matter how evil the were (I was working in entertainment, go figure.*L) By the time I was thirty, I would have seen both as evil again. However, I don't at this over 40 point in my life.

Finn, any time that crabs are talking to me, I'm going to ask them permission to eat them.*L But I do take some personal umbrage in the distinction you are making between sentient and non-sentient as to whether we have the right to kill another living being. Any other living thing. We don't know if a crab can phiosophize or not, and most people don't care to find out.

I am not a vegan, because I understand that even a vegan kills living things to eat. Yes they do "bleed" and they also react to stimuli. Yes plants are sentient, in their own way. As are all living things. A crab knows to get out of the way when a big lime stone boulder is heading hir way. That is sentient.

Probably the only things I can conceed are not are dirt and rock and water and fire and air.But I won't even pass concrete judegement on those being non-sentient, as my Native American theological leanings tell me this is not so.

Time and personal experience will always change the way that we view things, (or I should hope so, if I am truly learning anything!), and each will be seen according to the person phiosophizing about them, and their own experiences.

BTW - I am one of what I amazingly found was a handful of people that didn't see dark!Willow's actions as evil. Nor the gray!Willow action of killing the deer. Probably this is why I also see major distinctions between Spike's brand of "evil" versus Angelus'. Is the sadistic act done for a purpose or simply for enjoyment? Is the "sadistic" act in the service of one, or of many? Is it in the name of the tribe, or in the name of personal ego?

Believe me, I have seen Buffy's/Gile's/Xander's and Angel's actions as evil as many times as I have seen Spike's/Angelus' as motivated by pure evil intent. But I can not call any of them, (except Angelus in his purest form), inherently evil.

And this is partly why I loved Whedon-verse so danged much! He showed that there are never any truly innocent people, nor are there ever truly evil beings. Each had something that saved them from being beyond all bounds of being catagorized into one simple statement of, "He's evil/She's evil."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Kinda disagree on premise one -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:29:50 06/10/04 Thu

I always thought the original premise was that vampires lost their soul, thus losing the drive to do good, but gained a demon, giving them the urge to pursue evil in the same manner that a human being would pursue good.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Kinda disagree on premise one -- SNS, 17:30:43 06/11/04 Fri

Vampires are products of the human mind. They are archtypes....identified with a human characteristic...in the case of vampires, this would be negative drives of the id. As long as they remain as symbols of human nature you are right. They act in accordance with the negative (evil)charateristic which they represent.

The difficulty is when, in a story, you begin to develop a vampire character to understand their inner life. Then you have to go beyond the premise you present...which we can call premise 0....to postulate how, prior to Angel getting his soul, vampires process the world and make judgments.

If they only pursue evil (as defined by humans) then they have no free will. For surely if they had free will at least one, somewhere, by pure chance, would have pursued good. None have...without external intervention.

Without a human soul, they would no more be driven by human values than we would by chimpanzee values. Their behaviour would be influenced by the values of their society...which in the case of vampires are small "family" bands losely collected in orders. When sired the family unit probably dictates their choices...clearly evident when Darla challenges Angel to eat the missionary baby.

We could start a whole thread on vampire social dynamics, so I'll leave it at this.

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> Small addendum on hiring out your torturing -- SNS, 13:17:07 06/10/04 Thu

If hiring out your torturing doesn't absolve the hirer of guilt. If it did, Adolph Hitler would be less guilty than a concentration camp guard. Torture is evil regardless if it's for pleasure, greed, lust for power or any other motivation.

The thing that hiring out dirty work does allow is to dissociate oneself from the brutal consequence of ones desire at any cost. It parallels the urbanisation of society and the view of rural folk as red-necks...and it suits many urban sophisticates like the lawyers in W&H and, by gosh, even the senior people in the bureaucracy in which I work.

Cheers

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> But see, this is a problem in the real world.... -- Briar Rose, 15:48:31 06/11/04 Fri

Was Hitler evil? He hired the people that started the torture. But does he appear to have been part of the theory that torture would work better than simply killing the people that he percieved were his enemies? Has anyone ever proven that Hitler condoned and gave directions to torture any one of the captives?

The same goes for George Bush in Iran and Afghanistan. . . . When does sending someone to kill others that are "in your way" or "against your agenda" turn from "Get it Done" to "evil intent?" When torture is involved? When someone, somewhere says, "Do whatever it takes that gets information out of captives", but doesn't actually give a direct command to use torture, or "certain types" of torture?

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not supporting Hitler at all, nor George "Old Smirk-ey" Bush. . . . But there does have to be a diferentiation between hiring someone to kill someone, even if it does lead to this hired hand torturing that person, and doing it one's self for nothing more than enjoyment of inflicting sadistic pain and torment.

Like I said, we see different aspects in Joss-verse that correlate to real life issues. Politics, personal power (the use and abuse of it), the role that our characters play in society as it relates to how we (the viewers, and ME) relate in our world.

Scrumptious stuff, all of it!

I can see how some people are talking about BtVS as a basis for a religious belief system. It has so many parallels to modern life that so many of the main stream religions simply lack.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sure, it's real world, but.... -- StarryNightShade, 17:19:49 06/11/04 Fri

...that's the one from which Joss has drawn his material.

Ulitimate Good and Evil in the Joss world seem to be drawn from the morals of our Western society. That's fine since his stories are allegories of our society.

Other societies can and do have different values. Many tribal societies not only condoned by encouraged torture of enemies. We don't in our society; and I think that's good.

However, I would be loathe to brand a sadistic psychopath as someone ultimately evil as modern medicine and psychiatry may cure this disorder.

The psychiatrist, Scott Peck, who wrote the "Road Less Travelled", wrote a book called "People of the Lie". In it he recounts 3 case studies of people whom he said would be the only ones he would consider calling evil. None were psychopaths. They all appeared as normal human beings, but what was so deadly about them was their banality, the sense of confusion the created about them and the deadly effects they had on others.

I personally would rank as more evil than a sadist...a corrupter of others. Further I would only associate ultimate evil only with someone being irredeemable.

Returning to the Joss world, if one vampire can be redeemed then any vampire can potentially be redeemed and hence is not ultimately evil. I would see a differentiation in vampires by the degree to which they vampire do evil....and Angelus does a lot....and so does Spike (wiped out that whole gypsy clan pretty fast...and not just for food but for the mayhem and destruction).

Is Angelus redeemable? In a sense he has been...he was given a soul by the gypsies and brought to know love through Buffy. Could he or any other vampire have redeemed themselves without intervention? That hasn't been shown to be true despite Harmony's excuse.

Does Spike with a soul still struggle with inner demons? I think he does. Otherwise, he wouldn't be part human.

I guess I'm just reluctant to judge. Some posters like to say things like, "Spike's a better man than Angel." I cringe at that kind of statement.

Let's consider the alcoholic analogy that Joss intended for the Angel series. Here we have an alcoholic (Angel) who's trying to stay on the wagon when United Distillers has set up a special projects office to ensure that he doesn't. Meanwhile another alcoholic(Spike) has been taken in by a local temperance community (the Scoopies) to help him. In the end both are "on the wagon". Who's the better man? The question is quite frankly unanswerable unless you articulate a ranked set of values and put both through exactly the same life experiences.

Reducing pre-chip Spike to only "bad" while Angelus is "totally evil" and seeing Spike at the end as someone without inner struggles and Angel as someone with enormous struggles would be to diminish the remarkable journeys of both.

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I definitely agree..... -- Briar Rose, 12:54:37 06/12/04 Sat

I have never been a Spike-fan. Simply because his story arc has been pretty preposterous all along. When I say that Spike doesn't have the same hallmarks of evil as Angelus (or any others I can think of) it's not about saying Spike is better, nor that Angel is.

But I see the fact that Angelus was portrayed as being just so evil that the viewer definitely had to see the dramatic change in him as part of the over-all message that evil exists, but evil can be made pure and good.

The back story with Spike simply never showed me much difference between Spike now and Spike then. Sure, he was a 'naughty boy' that loved chaos. He also had a sadistic streak (as do we all), but he just never came off as so inherently E-V-I-L as we were told Angelus was.

I don't remember tomes written decrying Spike's evil-ness, but there were tons about Angelus "The one with the Angelic face" that included the fact that he was viewed as the most evil vamp in history.

In some ways, I think that was being even more enforced with the Black Thorn story-line at the end of AtS season5. Funny that the Black Thorn didn't even seem to think of approaching Spike, while they were all over getting Angel into the Circle.

I think that ME did some significant ret-con to turn that story line into the viewers clue that Angelus was still the "Big Bad", even if Spike might act in a self promotingly evil way from time to time.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I definitely agree..... -- Bjerkley, 16:03:45 06/12/04 Sat

I don't remember tomes written decrying Spike's evil-ness

Although he was a famous enough vampire for him to be the subject of a Watcher's thesis (Checkpoint). Now while I suppose this doesn't automatically mean he's evil, it does suggest that as a vampire he was sufficiently interesting to be studied.

I'm also not sure I'm comfortable with the idea that Spike was just a naughty boy with a sadistic streak, who loved his old mum but was a decent sort after all. Doesn't make his victims any the less dead, and his willingness to torture and maim any the less painful and destructive. It's perhaps this trap of seeing Spike as a loveable rogue that led so many to view Buffy as the worse of the two in season six.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree and..... -- SNS, 14:28:04 06/13/04 Sun

thanks for the discussion.

It did get me to thinking about vampire sociology. Maybe I'll do an write-up on that because it seemed to me that there's a lot of peer pressure on vampires to conform to certain evil ways.

Having said that the only thing that makes the Spike transition plausible is:

1) He had a chip that prevent him killing
2) He was ostracised by the larger vampire community
3) He was at least tolerated, if not actually accepted, by a human family
4) He had a souled human-accepted role model in his grand-sire

I could see these factors influence someone, particularly if vampire peer pressure is a big factor. However, personally I WOULD have liked to have seen MORE personality difference between Spike pre-chip and Spike post-soul. It would have made his story more plausible.

One last point that I'll make on this subject is with respect to Angelus post-coitus in Buffy Season 2. Despite all the build-up, he wasn't very effective in attacking Buffy and her friends...this was noted by Spike. He had ample opportunity to kill at least Buffy, Joyce and Willow. He only killed Jenny when Dru warned him that Jenny was about to re-curse him. He only captured and physically tortured Giles when he didn't know how to activate Acathla. Altogether, I wonder if his heart (?) was really in it. In particular, I wonder how effective he would have been without Dru's inspiration and intuition.

Where he really shone in my mind was what he did with Jenny's body in Giles appartment. That was creative genius and pervert romanticism / compassion at it's best (worst ?). Instead of Angelus doing this with dead Jenny, imagine if Jenny were alive and had done this herself....lucky Giles. Perhaps Angelus was the Big Bad in his day because he was more aggressive (alpha male), smarter and more creative. Hmmm....don't these qualities aid one in advancing in human society? Heh, heh.

SNS

Ats season 4 finale -- Kana, 06:06:09 06/09/04 Wed

I was wondering how Jasmine's arrival relates to the Tro-clon mentioned in season 3. There was a line Wesley was translating in the Nyazian scroll saying that Conner's birth would eventually lead to both the ruination and purication of mankind. So does this mean that there was some dissent between the prophecy writers on whether Jasmine's arrival (subsequent of Conner's birth) was a good thing or a bad thing?

Replies:

[> Re: Ats season 4 finale -- Masq, 11:04:27 06/09/04 Wed

It was "either the ruination OR purication of mankind". My theory is that the Tro-Clon just was the series of events including Holtz' arrival in the 21st century, Connor's birth, Holtz taking Connor into Quortoth, the possession of Cordelia by Jasmine, the bloody swath of the Beast in L.A., and Jasmine's birth.

What was unclear to the prophecy writers was whether the arrival of Jasmine would purify or ruin mankind. She promised happiness to everyone (at the price of free will), but she also ate people. Would her continued reign have been to mankind's benefit or not? That's what the prophets couldn't figure out.

Jasmine's reign was of course brought to a halt by the father-son tag-team of Angel and Connor. Angel deposed her, Connor killed her. Connor, whose conception was made possible by Jasmine in the first place. Jasmine, whose Earthly presence was made possible by using both Connor and Cordelia.

And of course, the Nyazian prophecies in their original form also predict a future for Connor beyond Jasmine, namely, that he will kill the demon Sahjhan. Which he did, but only by getting back the skills he learned in Quortoth, where Sahjhan stranded him.

Was mankind ruined or purified? We got back free will, and we got back pain and suffering, when Jasmine was deposed. I guess it's a matter of perspective even after the events of the prophecy have been fulfilled.

Current board | More June 2004