March 2003 posts
To Surprise the First, Surprise Yourselves -- Just George, 09:21:32 03/01/03 Sat
The limits of Buffy's current leadership style have begun to show. Buffy has no experience in leading so many people. Her frustration is becoming obvious. She has had several good ideas, among them: "To Surprise the First, Surprise Yourselves". But she is not getting the most from her army. Buffy's "top down" management system is stifling the generation of new ideas and innovative solutions.
Business and military leaders run into the same problem in dealing with fast moving competitors and enemies. One solution is to reorganize how decisions are made and devolve power from the top to the bottom of the organization and empower individuals to find better solutions.
To maximize their chances, Buffy's army needs to be reorganized. Here is one way it could work.
--------------------
OBJECTIVE: Defeat The First
MISSION STATEMENT: To Surprise the First, Surprise Yourselves.
METHOD: Break up Buffy's army into small teams. Buffy gives each team a goal and lets them find there own best way to achieve it. Keep the people with unique powers outside of the team structure so they will be available to reinforce/support the teams in their missions or to execute Special Ops Missions under as directed by Buffy. Teams can request support from Special Ops as their needs arise.
Leader: Buffy
Special Ops: Willow, Spike
Team Dawn (Research Team), with Anya, and Andrew
Team Giles, with 1-3 Potentials
Team Xander, with 3-6 Potentials
Team Robin Wood, with 3-6 Potentials
Team Kennedy (Training Team), with guest instructors and any Potentials not currently attached to any other team.
LEADERSHIP TEAM: Buffy, Willow, Spike, and the Team leaders meet every evening to exchange ideas and refine their goals and tactics.
COMMUNICATIONS: Each member of the Leadership Team keeps a cell phone with them and on at all times.
TEAM GOALS
RESEARCH TEAM GOAL: Catalog everything anyone has ever heard the First Evil say and do. Look for patterns, weaknesses, and possible next moves.
TEAM GILES GOAL: Find / protect additional Potentials (what he has been doing, but with the support of some Potentials).
TEAM XANDER GOAL: Find the Bringers (they have an ass that can be kicked).
TEAM ROBIN WOOD GOAL: Protect Sunnydale from wandering / "new in town" vampires and demons (take over Buffy's patrolling job. Vampires and demons also have asses that can be kicked).
TRAINING TEAM GOAL: Make sure the Potentials are ready for anything. Guest instructors can be anyone who has something to teach.
ENGAGEMENT ORDERS: In the field Team Giles, Xander, and Wood should take down individual enemies when possible. They should scout groups and very powerful individual enemies for future assault by a reinforced team and/or Special Ops.
HOW IT SHOULD WORK: Buffy sets up the structure, sets goals (in concert with the Leadership Team), and everyone gets to work. Buffy, Willow, and Spike work on achieving individual goals or on supporting a team that requests their abilities or knowledge. But Buffy does not tell people how to get their jobs done. They tell her what they need. Individual teams could make use of Buffy, Willow, and Spike right away.
Team Giles could use Willow (magic) to help find additional Potentials.
Team Xander could use Spike (demon contacts), Willow (location magic), or the Research Team (missing persons reports) to help find the Bringers.
Team Robin Wood could use Buffy (knowledge of supernatural Sunnydale) or Willow (demon finding magic) to identify "hot" spots to patrol.
The Research Team could interview Spike, Willow, Dawn, Andrew, and Wood about their conversations with The First. They could interview Buffy about her dreams, encounters in Amends / CWDP, and adventures in the Shadow Land. They could use Willow's memory magic to help get all possible information from the interviews.
The Training Team could use any team leader or member of special ops to teach the Potentials special knowledge or give them experience against special foes. A group of potentials could have a training battle with Buffy or Spike to learn how to fight super strong foes. They could have a training battle with Willow and learn how to deal with enemies who have magic. Anya could teach the Potentials about demons. Xander could teach them about previous BTVS adventures (possible field trips to "The Great Lairs of Sunnydale"?). Giles or Wood could teach them additional martial arts. A Potential could teach others her language. If all else fails, Kennedy could run them into the ground.
--------------------------
This structure helps in a couple of ways. In terms of fighting The First:
* It reduces peer pressure to "go along" with the "group think" and frees up individuals to "think outside the box" and come up with innovative solutions. (Buzz words much?!)
* It is easier for small teams to develop an "esprit de corps". Since one of The First's main weapons is inducing fear and hopelessness, high "esprit de corps" is a powerful defense.
* It frees Buffy, Willow, and Spike up from leadership tasks to focus their powers in places where they can do the most good.
In terms of telling good stories:
* It provides an easy rational why everyone isn't in every scene.
* It focuses stories on the crises and decisions of individuals and small groups.
* It makes it easy to focus stories on secondary characters.
* It makes it easier to put small groups in jeopardy.
* It gives lots of characters the chance to be smart.
--------------------------
Some of these ideas were influenced by guidelines on successful leadership developed by General Anthony Zinni (USMC Ret). Zinni is experienced in the theory, planning, and conduct of Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW). I have adopted a few of his guidelines here (the originals can be found at http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20030228.asp)
* Stay focused on the mission. Line up tasks with objectives. Avoid mission creep and allow for mission shifts. A mission shift is a conscious decision, made by the leader in consultation with the team commander, responding to a changing situation.
* Centralize planning and decentralize execution of the operation. This allows subordinate commanders to make appropriate adjustments to meet their individual situation or rapidly changing conditions.
* Coordinate everything with everybody. Establish coordination mechanisms that include the interested parties.
* Don't lose the initiative and momentum.
* Open a dialogue with everyone. Establish a forum for each of the involved parties.
* Encourage innovation and nontraditional responses.
* Personalities are often more important than processes. You need the right people in the right places.
* Be careful whom you empower. Think carefully about who you invite to participate, use as a go-between, or enter into contracts with since you are giving them influence in the process.
* Centralize information management.
--------------------------
What do you-all think? How should the gang work against The First?
-JG
[>
This is Great. They should hire you as a consultant!! -- Slay Bells, 09:55:30 03/01/03 Sat
[>
This, oddly enough, reminded me of the sitcom '3rd Rock from the Sun' -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:20:10 03/01/03 Sat
In a certain episode, two of the characters (Harry and Sally) volunteer to help work with teens on probation. These teens all come to their house/apartment and that's where the humor starts: in order to equally divide their attention, the kids are divided up into two groups, one being watched over by Sally, and one by Harry. The rules are that the groups must each wear different colored headbands to differentiate them, must stay in their particular side of the house, and aren't to bother each other ("unless you have to defend your turf, of course" said Sally). Naturally, they wind up with a mini-gang war in their apartment.
Now, granted, what "3rd Rock from the Sun" did was different from what you were proposing. Theirs was much more divisive, and was being used in regards to kids who were, more likely than not, previously in gangs. Nevertheless, dividing people into different groups can still have bad effects if you expect the groups to work in cohesion.
For example, Team Xander and Team Robin might start to feel more self-important than the other, non-fighting oriented teams. Also, there could be friction between them in regards to who is supposed to do what (for example, Team Robin deciding to kill some Bringers, and Team Xander being upset that they didn't have the chance to do so).
Another example: if one team encounters a problem, they may decide that to handle it themselves, while really it's something that help from the other teams is needed for.
Yet another example: presumably, the potentials we don't get to see much of are developing friendships with each other. And, suppose there was a potential who was best suited for researching who was friends with a potential who was better at fighting. By being put in different teams, they might feel internal-team pressure to not associate with their friend.
Final example: by being classified into certain teams, the potentials may begin to feel that they have to fit with that team. Thus, someone in Team Robin or Team Xander might not feel right proposing anything too intellectual, for fear of it clashing with their fighter mentality. Also, potentials in Team Giles or Research Team might not put their full spirit into training physically, thus making them readily able to be killed should the First's minions attack.
I'm not saying that your idea is bad, just that it isn't necessarily the ideal system, though I don't think the current one is, either. While it looks quite reasonable, there are still a number of things that could go wrong.
[> [>
Re: A rotation schedule would probably solve most of those problems -- Sheri, 11:24:36 03/01/03 Sat
They'd wanna make sure that all the potentials are able to defend themselves... so keeping some of them on continuous non-combat duty wouldn't work out. So they would rotate the teams once a week to make sure that the conflicts that Finn Mac Cool mentions won't be allowed to develop... and they'll end up with a stronger team overall cause everyone will have experience in the various areas.
[> [>
Re: And from 'Dilbert' -- Just George, 11:24:42 03/01/03 Sat
In a certain episode, two of the characters (Harry and Sally) volunteer to help work with teens on probation. These teens all come to their house/apartment and that's where the humor starts: in order to equally divide their attention,
the kids are divided up into two groups, one being watched over by Sally, and one by Harry. The rules are that the groups must each wear different colored headbands to differentiate them, must stay in their particular side
of the house, and aren't to bother each other ("unless you have to defend your turf, of course" said Sally). Naturally, they wind up with a mini-gang
war in their apartment.
In one series of comic strips, Dilbert's company was reorganized into "Battling Business Units" (BBU's). Each BBU was responsible for generating it own profits regardless of how much it cost the other BBUs. Chaos ensued. As Wally put
it, "Don't piss off the Janitorial BBU!"
For example, Team Xander and Team Robin might start to feel more self-important than the other, non-fighting oriented teams. Also, there could be friction between them in regards to who is supposed to do what (for example, Team Robin deciding to kill some Bringers, and Team Xander being upset that they didn't have the chance to do so).
Certainly groups can get into conflict. Would the esprit de corps of a group make them independent and effective or arrogant and combative? Depends on leadership and circumstances. Would competition in fighting capability between Team Xander and Team Wood lead to strife or striving? Depends on how the leaders and the Potentials work things out. The goal should be to maximize the effectiveness
of the entire group.
Another example: if one team encounters a problem, they may decide that to handle it themselves, while really it's something that help from the other teams is needed for.
But they are the people in the best position to make that decision. They make a mistake. But who is more likely to "get it wrong" a "leader" who is far from the action or one who is right in the thick of things?
Yet another example: presumably, the potentials we don't get to see much of are developing friendships with each other. And, suppose there was a potential who was best suited for researching who was friends with a potential who was better at fighting. By being put in different teams, they might feel internal-team pressure to not associate with their friend.
Any situation poorly managed will lead to poor performance. However, the friendship is at least as likely to help generate good inter-team communication as it is to generate friction.
Final example: by being classified into certain teams, the potentials may begin to feel that they have to fit with that team. Thus, someone in Team Robin or Team Xander might not feel right proposing anything too intellectual, for fear of it clashing with their fighter mentality. Also, potentials in
Team Giles or Research Team might not put their full spirit into training physically, thus making them readily able to be killed should the First's minions attack.
Group think is a potential problem in any group. However, I think that rotating the Potentials through the Training Team periodically (every day when Xander and Wood are at work for example) will keep them focused on the fight. I didn't suggest putting any Potentials on the Research Team, but it might be a good idea to rotate at least one Potential through the Research Team at all time so that they all get some experience researching.
I'm not saying that your idea is bad, just that it isn't necessarily the ideal system, though I don't think the current one is, either. While it looks quite reasonable, there are still a number of things that could go wrong.
Thanks for the feedback. It's all academic anyway. But it was fun putting it together.
-JG
[> [> [>
Ah, I could definitely see this working with a rotating schedule. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:39:01 03/01/03 Sat
Most of what I suggested had to do with the fact that, while large groups have their problems, it does create a sense of unity. A bunch of small groups, when working in close contact with each other, jogged some historical stuff where it didn't work (in the Revolutionary War, each state had its own army with their own uniforms and flags, which caused a great deal of disorder in the rebellion). However, if the potentials rotated from group to group, your scenario works much better (though a problem might arise in the fact that some of the potentials might become more adept than Xander or even Wood at fighting, which could lead to them trying to take over the group, but this isn't that likely of a scenario, as long as there are at least two superpowered beings in the house).
Also . . . LOL! Thanks for the bit: "Don't piss off the Janitorial BBU!"
[> [> [> [>
What about each team pulling from the entire potential pool? -- Vickie, 16:03:23 03/01/03 Sat
Instead of setting up subgroups of potentials who rotate from team to team (thus identifying the states in our federation and setting NationBuffy up for the troubles that plagued the American Revolutionary Army), have the team leaders pull staff from the general pool.
If the leaders all understand the goal of mixing up the groups and rotating the personnel so everyone gets cross training, this should work reasonably well, Add a regular (not too often) all-hands meeting.....
Gads. Sound like a big corporation doing matrix management. I take it back, I think.
[> [> [> [> [>
Reminds me of resistance cells -- Scroll, 17:20:59 03/01/03 Sat
I recently re-watched "Michael Collins", a movie the Irish rebellion and civil war of the early 1900s, and these small groups working independently reminded me of Collins' resistance cells. They worked because even if somebody got captured, the hostage couldn't be tortured into betraying the entire group, only his own cell. And even if one cell was taken out, the others could still keep working to fight. I like your plan, JG!
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: About Rotation -- Just George, 18:29:36 03/01/03 Sat
Sheri: They'd wanna make sure that all the potentials are able to defend themselves... so keeping some of them on continuous non-combat duty wouldn't work out. So they would rotate the teams once a week to make sure that the conflicts that Finn Mac Cool mentions won't be allowed to develop... and they'll end up with a stronger team overall cause everyone will have experience in the various areas.
I doubt anyone in Sunnydale would be on continuous non-combat duty. Even those Potentials working with Team Giles are likely to meet Bringers (both Giles and Buffy have met Bringers while hunting for Potentials).
Finn Mac Cool: Most of what I suggested had to do with the fact that, while large groups have their problems, it does create a sense of unity. A bunch of small groups, when working in close contact with each other, jogged some historical stuff where it didn't work (in the Revolutionary War, each state had its own army with their own uniforms and flags, which caused a great deal of disorder in the rebellion). However, if the potentials rotated from group to group, your scenario works much better (though a problem might arise in the fact that some of the potentials might become more adept than Xander or even Wood at fighting, which could lead to them trying to take over the group, but this isn't that likely of a scenario, as long as there are at least two superpowered beings in the house).
I expect the smaller teams would help in the forming of what the military call "primary groups". People get to know and "bond" with others who help each other survive extraordinary circumstances. These bonded primary groups work well because they know each other's strengths and weaknesses. As the bond strengthens, they are willing to fight and die for each other. Rotating the Potentials would actually delay the forming of these primary groups.
I wouldn't worry too much about the Potentials challenging Xander and Wood. Their leadership would be based on having information, experience, and Buffy's trust rather than having pre-eminent combat skills
Scroll: I recently re-watched "Michael Collins", a movie the Irish rebellion and civil war of the early 1900s, and these small groups working independently reminded me of Collins' resistance cells. They worked because even if somebody got captured, the hostage couldn't be tortured into betraying the entire group, only his own cell. And even if one cell was taken out, the others could still keep working to fight. I like your plan, JG!
Interesting analogy. Though I would hope that Buffy's teams would work together more than most resistance cells.
Thanks everyone for all the feedback!
-JG
Belated (some what random ) comment on Honorificus' Super Evil Review -- Alison, 11:07:58 03/01/03 Sat
The necklace Dawn wore was once worn by Willow.
[>
Quite correct. -- Honorificus (The Daringly Non-Trendy One), 12:08:57 03/01/03 Sat
Apparently, dear Dawnie's up to her old kleptomaniacal ways, which only raises her in my opinion. We'll get that girl on the Dark Side yet.
return from death in s6:request for help -- DEN, 13:30:28 03/01/03 Sat
I've been working on an essay whose subject is images of heroic death in western culture. As I put the research together, I am struck by something. I can find no "hero"--indeed, no CHARACTER--in "heroic" literature or any related genre who has been returned from the dead and has been anything but grateful for the experience--EXCEPT Buffy Summers. Everywhere I find characters who welcome the second chance, for a broad spectrum of reasons. I find even more who resist dying--even on shows like "Touched by an Angel," where one might expect a high percentage accepting, or even welcoming the kind of future life promised there. But I find no one who goes into a deep depression from having been brought back, and receives a full story line to develop the situation!
It seems to me that Joss just may have done something truly original in Western culture. Yet I find little discussion of the concept, even on this board, and almost none elsewhere.
So can our men and women of letters, and the philosophers and anthropologists, help along a poor historian? IS buffy's reaction as unusual as I think it is? What parallels exist? And what might the significance of it be?
Thanks in advance
[>
Don't know if this counts, but Lazarus? -- Tchaikovsky, 13:57:15 03/01/03 Sat
[>
2 examples, 1 obscure, 1 not... -- Rook, 14:30:54 03/01/03 Sat
There's a series of books called Wild Cards (There are somewhere around 20 or so), edited by George RR Martin, and written by various sci fi authors (Roger Zelazny, Victor Milan, Lewis Shiner, and a bunch more). The books are an attempt to present "super hero" type beings in a realistic way. Anyhow, out of the dozen or so characters that seem to appear the most, there's a character called Demise that fits the description pretty well. He was brought back to life, but constantly experiences the pain of his death, leaving him pretty much prepetually pissed off and insane, his existence consisting of trying to drink away the pain and get revenge on the guy that brought him back to life.
The other, less obscure example, is Frankenstein. Not exactly brought "back" to life,like Buffy, the creature is resentful of his creator and isn't happy with his existence. ("Did I request thee, Maker from my clay to mould me man? Did I solicit thee, from darkness to promote me?".) His seeking a companion is an effort to make his existence more bearable, which somewhat parallels Buffy's seeking comfort in a relationship with Spike.
[>
Re: return from death in s6:request for help (Spoilers Lord of the RIngs) -- grifter, 16:07:07 03/01/03 Sat
Well, Frodo didn't literally die in Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (the book, not the movie) in the fight against Shelob, but it¥s been pointed to as a death and rebirth-scenario.
After that, he wasn't really as depressed as Buffy was, but he didn't live "happily ever after" either. The wound the Lord of the Nazgul gave him (in Fellowship) would never heal, even though he did sail to the west with the elves. And in the end, he ultimately failed in his quest (not throwing the ring into the vulcano)...must kinda suck to know that you would have succumbed to evil if not for someone biting your finger off.
Far-fetched and obscure?
Yes! That¥s my second name! (Nah, my second name is actually "Anselm"...far-fetched doesn't seem so bad now, does it?)
[> [>
some Outer Limits show -- WickedBuffy, 16:23:53 03/01/03 Sat
Well, this is going to be vague - but maybe someone else saw this show a couple weeks ago. It was one of the new Outer Limits shows (I think), that opens at a mans funeral. He suddenly pops up out of the coffin in the middle of the funeral service and acts surprised his daughter and wife are shocked.
The medical people attribute it to some nearly plausible explanation and the guy goes home with his elated wife and young daughter. He appears happy at first, then he gets very depressed. His family can't figure out why he's sad, they are so happy to have him back. He feels like he was taken from someplace that he needs to go back to, but doesn't know why he came back. He's morose. His wife makes all his favorite foods and he can't even eat it. He spends all night recreating the scene in his head of where he went - cutting bits of magazines and books up to make a collage of this place.
It's bright, multi-hued with translucent light coming through a scene of flowers at the base of a gorgeous waterfall. The man cuts a picture of himself out and puts it in the collage. (It takes up an entire glass window.)
But, something is still missing, and he finally thinks he knows WHY he came back. Ot was to get his daughter. He cuts her photo out and puts it in the collage and seems to think this is the answer. He tells her this, she doesn't' like the idea and to make this short, he is killed (again) as he tries to kill her to bring her with him.
The last scene is shown from his pov in the coffin. Looking up from it, there is a very familiar scene in a high stained-glass window of the church. The many-hued scene of flowers and a gorgeous waterfall painted onto the window of the steeple. The first thing he saw when he "woke" up.
ummm, didn't Edgar Allen Poe write some stories about coming back from the dead and not being real happy about it?
How I spent my summer vacation. The AtPO all-purpose non-fiction thread -- Sophist, 14:18:11 03/01/03 Sat
aliera suggested a thread for non-fiction recommendations. This seems like a good time, since we're in-between new eps. aliera probably would have come up with a better title.
I limited my selections to one volume works. I happen to love Gibbon, but most readers, even on this Board, aren't likely to dive head first into 7 volumes. I guarantee that they are not highly technical and not difficult to read. My own experience, however, is that non-fiction is more like reading poetry than prose -- you have to slow down and process it rather than just letting the words flow by.
Following, in no particular order, are the 15 books that have most influenced me with some brief comments:
1. Abraham Lincoln, Collected Speeches. Lincoln possessed rare gifts: he could express profound ideas in terms both simple and poetic. You can't really appreciate his greatness without reading his speeches. There are several collections. Library of America has a 2 volume set (I know, I know), but there are one volume editions also.
2. James Madison, Notes of the Federal Convention. People always recommend The Federalist Papers -- which are great, don't get me wrong -- but I like the Notes even better. For one thing, they read less like political theory or lawyer's briefs because they are speeches. For another, you get a better understanding about the basic principles of government and the compromises that went into the Constitution.
3. Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War. Still the greatest historian ever, telling a dramatic tale. You don't even notice his aristocratic bias. If you want to view the same events through the lens of democracy, there are several good recent works.
4. Plutarch, Lives. The collected total is large, but each one is short and easily readable. Just remember he's a moralist.
5. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations. I wonder how many people read the whole book? If you do, Smith's status as a moral philosopher is clear, as are the limits of what he expects from capitalism.
6. Karl Marx, The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. His philosophical criticisms of Smith. These are far more interesting than his failed attempts at economics.
7. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty.
8. Eric Foner, Reconstruction. Might want to read this right after Lincoln. The sad story of a noble effort to create a new society in the South after the Civil War. A hundred thirty years later, it's still a work in progress.
9. Taylor Branch, Parting the Waters. The Civil Rights movement from 1956-63. Makes a great trifecta with Lincoln and Foner. If you don't cry reading this book, you need an emotion transplant.
10. B.H. Liddel-Hart, Strategy. The best explanation of military theory ever.
11. Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition.
12. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. One of the 2 or 3 most influential books of the 20th Century. Forbidding title, but not that difficult to read. It was a revelation when I read it, but it has become so well known it may get an "of course" reaction from readers today.
13. Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation. I guarantee this is easy to read and that you will be thrilled by its implications.
14. Antonio Damasio, Descartes' Error. Damasio is a brain researcher and this is his explanation of how the mind (I should say mind/body, because that's his point) works.
15. Douglas Hofstadter, Godel, Escher & Bach. This is the only one on the list that I would describe as difficult to read, but I can't leave it off. I can't even describe the book well, but you'll be shaking your head in awe.
[>
Re: How I spent my summer vacation. The AtPO all-purpose non-fiction thread -- aliera, 15:42:06 03/01/03 Sat
aliera probably would have come up with a better title.
oh right! You're just too nice Soph!
I have one for you to test read for me...maybe next summer! From Endicott Studios most recent set of reviews, (I thought of you immediately even though I know the myth would be a bit of a new path ?fortis mundus?):
Michael Chabon's Summerland (Miramax, September 17, 2002) is a beautifully textured exploration of the myths of childhood, both literal and figurative. Using the game of baseball to provide centrality and structure, Chabon manages to create a uniquely "American" take on the universal Otherlands of legend. If he can convince a dyed in the wool opponent of organized sports such as myself (this is the reviewer NOT aliera speaking) of the validity of the medium . . . there must be magic at work.
More later...I hope.
[> [>
Sounds intriguing. I'll give it a shot. Here's one for Rah. -- Sophist, 16:06:05 03/01/03 Sat
I have one for Rah (and any others interested) that's too specialized unless you're very familiar with 17th Century British religion and politics: Richard Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government. Puts Locke squarely in the radical underground led by Shaftesbury.
And Rah, I can't believe you didn't tell me that Christopher Hill died.
[> [> [>
Sorry!! -- Rahael, 18:10:57 03/01/03 Sat
I know! I heard the news and wasn't that surprised (he's so old) but remember thinking, maybe I should actually read his book on Milton that I bought 2 years ago and haven't gotten around to starting.
I actually made some non fiction recs on another board - they were wanting textbooks on the 17thC. My tastes are very specialized, my favourite textbook only covers one year (but what a year!) - Austin Woolrych's Soldiers and Statesmen.
Also anything by Blair Worden. Unfortunately his most sparkling stuff is all articles in various history journals. But if anyone is interested in Philip Sidney, "The Sound of Virtue" by Worden is the book to check out.
And ooooh a book about religion and politics in 17thC England? Sounds great Sophist, that's definitely going to get bought and read. I'm always worried that I'm going to get behind current scholarship.
The only book I'm really reading right now is nonfiction, about Philip Larkin "Out of Reach: The poetry of Philip Larkin" by Andrew Swarbrick, which I picked up in a second hand bookshop in Ohio just because of the subject. It is very good.
In fact, examining the stack of books beside my bed, all of them are non-fiction, except one. They are:
Commonwealth to Protectorate by Austin Woolrych (the book sports a quote by Christopher Hill on the front. This is a rereading, and so I can say that it is very good, the most authoritative on the Barebones Parliament.
Matter and Consciousness by Paul Churchland. Interesting, but dry.
Another textbook: Critical Reasoning in Ethics by Anne Thomson. Basic, and unexciting.
The Odes of Horace Slow going because I keep making myself read the Latin as well as the English translation. Okay, I've only read as far as the first Ode.
A biography of Robert Harley: Speaker, Secretary of State and Premier Minister by Brian Hill. I'm not recommending this one. It's very dry and unexciting. Doubtless I should plough through this, but since I'm not required to write an essay anytime soon, where's my motivation?
Finally: More What If: Eminent Historians imagine what might have been ed. Robert Cowley. One of the essays made me weep a little on my train ride home. I don't know if this is a good thing, or even a recommendation. Interesting, even if I'm a little suspicious of counterfactual history. (Mostly prejudice against Niall Ferguson)
Well, all these books are by my bedside because I think I should read them, but I'm not. The books I really want to read have been read in one sitting! LOL. I've just finished reading the last three graphic novels in "Sandman" (thanks KDS!), and I'm enjoying dipping in and out of the book about Larkin.
Guess I'll have a whole lot of time on my hands this month, so it seems like a good time to get cracking on your recommendations, Sophist. I actually have the Thucydides somewhere. I am of course, always plagued with guilt that I haven't read Gibbon, so that's always on my list of things to read.
The book about Godel, Escher and Bach sounds very promising. Will let you know how I get on!
Non fiction works have always had a profound influence on me. I should go and think of some to recommend, but at the moment, I'll just cop out and list some books on my bookshelf:
The pleasures of the Imagination: English culture in the 18th Century by John Brewer. He's a historian I really like, and in this he addresses culture, so it's all good.
Montaigne's Essays.
Wallington's World by Paul Seaver. I love this book. It made me laugh out loud, it touched me and it inspired me. It's a history book about an obscure man. Ordinary and extraordinary.
Romantics, Rebels and Revolutionaries: English Literature and its background 1760-1830 by Marilyn Butler. Poetry, history and politics combined.
The Cheese and the Worms by Carlo Ginzburg. Seminal, very well written, very interesting. One that should appeal to the non historians as well as the historians. A miller from the Friuli region of Italy is tried by the Inquisition for his unusual belief that creation of the world involved rotting cheese and worms.
Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault. Reading this while watching Season 6 of Buffy is recommended. It's all about power, don't you know.
I don't have this on my shelf but I wish I did: Renaissance Self Fashioning by Stephen Greenblatt. Must pick up a copy of my own. This is the trouble with having great libraries nearby. You get lazy about buying copies of favourite academic books. But this one is very accessible, and exciting.
[> [> [> [>
Here's more for you -- Sophist, 20:41:43 03/01/03 Sat
Don Wolfe, Milton in the Puritan Revolution. I'll have to look for Worden.
Also, to take in a much earlier time, try The Barbarian Conversion by Richard Fletcher. He's at least as cynical as Gibbon.
I have read Churchland (The Engine of Reason), but they don't write nearly as well as Damasio.
Too bad about the Harley bio; I'd like a good one on him.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Here's more for you -- Rahael, 05:34:02 03/02/03 Sun
The Wolfe sounds very very familiar - I think I've read other stuff by him (not surprising, considering the period he must specialise in).
Do you have any recs that might cover the ground of the Churchland I'm trying to read but more exciting (the Churchland sounds like it's written for students of the subject, and one of the great things about no longer being a student is getting to ignore books like these!)
I can't recommend Worden enough. His two published books, one on Sidney and an old general textbook covering the Rump Parliament are not nearly as exciting as his articles. I developed a kind of crush on him purely based on a series of articles analysing the 17th century religious mind, a crush which kind of foundered when I actually saw a picture by him (it didn't conform to the image of a dashing young historian LOL).
Also, I'm a little biased because Worden (and funnily enough a lot of other English 17th century historians) did the same specialist subject course I did at university. I liked to think that they were picking up the same books at the History library, photocopying the same primary sources, and thinking about the same questions week in week out. Most conveniently, they went on to provide answers to these questions in their later career!
I like to think that they fell in love with this period, as I did, doing this course - it was just wonderful. I had never been happier at University.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Here's more for you -- Sophist, 16:19:27 03/02/03 Sun
I assume the Churchland book you mentioned is about the brain. My best recommendation is Damasio. He has 3 books out, all easy to read and enlightening.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Yes. And thanks for the rec! -- Rahael, 02:57:13 03/03/03 Mon
[> [>
I'm going to hear Chabon Speak tomorrow -- Dochawk, 16:31:12 03/01/03 Sat
Soph - if your interested he is speaking at UCLA tomorrow (Sunday 3/3). I am not sure if he is doing a reading as well - if he is it would be Summerland (which is fiction btw, I thought this was a nonfiction list), but I am sure he will talk about Kavalier and Clay as well.
[> [> [>
Sounds more interesting than what I'll actually be doing -- Sophist, 17:35:19 03/01/03 Sat
Which is helping my daughter study for her AP Bio test on Monday.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Sounds more interesting than what I'll actually be doing -- Random, 07:51:24 03/02/03 Sun
Ouch! I remember that one. Gave me more of a headache than A.P. History, A.P. English and A.P. Physics combined. Why? Haven't a clue. Did great on 'em all, though! barely repressed smirk of self-satisfaction
[> [>
Re: The above... -- aliera, 16:56:25 03/01/03 Sat
as Doc pointed out that should be fiction not non-fiction. Excuse me, Sophist, I just had it on my mind since I read the review. Back to the on-topic thread. :-)
[>
Some recommendations... -- shadowkat, 22:59:33 03/01/03 Sat
Here's some of the non-fiction books I have in my library...
1. Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898
by Edwin G. Burrows and Mike Wallace.
It's huge but it is a great resource on NYC history. I've used it as my bible on the period. I believe it won either the Pulitzer or national book award.
2. Celtic Art: Symbols and Imagery by Miranda Green - An excellent book on Celtic Art and Archeology. With photos of artifacts and descriptions of the mythology and uses behind certain pieces. I met Miranda Green in the 80s in Wales. Interesting lady.
3. Which Lie Did I Tell : More Adventures in The Screen Trade and Adventures in The Screen Trade by Willaim Goldman. The first one has the complete script to Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid and does a breakdown on how he wrote it. Goldman who wrote the screenplays to movies such as Marathon Man, Cassidy and Sundance Kid, Princess Bride, Misery...goes through the process of writing the script, fliming them, adapting from novels and how the script changes when actors, directors and producers get involved. Fun reads for anyone interested in this field.
4. Man and His Symbols edited with an intro by CG. Jung. A series of essays on the psychology of visual symbols and mythic and psychological meanings behind the symbols.
5. Learning a Trade: A Craftsman's Notebook 1955-1997 by Reynolds Price. Reynold's Price is one of the writers of American South in the literary school of Shelby Foote, Walker Percy. He wrote Kate Vaiden. The book is about his writing life, contains his writing journals and details how he wrote and constructed stories.
6. CHE GUEVARA: A revolutionary life by Jon Lee Anderson. This is a fascinating and well researched biography of Che and reads fairly easily. Huge. But interesting.
I have others I can list, but haven't read them yet.
SK
[> [>
Oh! oh! oh!... -- Random, 07:56:38 03/02/03 Sun
...thanks for reminding me (plus giving me a new book to check out!): anything by Jung! Memories, Dreams, Reflections is a favorite, plus Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Don't actually own the latter (borrowed it), but I believe you can just peruse the Collected Works of Jung and it will be one of the volumes. Forget Campbell -- read the original master!
[>
Really out on a limb here -- Too nervous to admit my name, 23:35:19 03/01/03 Sat
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes.
A theory of cognitive evolution, based on the only available source on how people thought--their words. Working with original Latin, Greek, and Hebrew literature, moving forward in history to Freud and Jung. An older book, but kind to those of us who don't tolerate the "suddenly, a miracle occurs" method of proof well.
[> [>
That's a wonderful book -- Sophist, 07:57:12 03/02/03 Sun
I'd have put it on my list, but I decided it was a little too obscure (plus the title is more forbidding than the book). It's great, though.
[> [> [>
Superorganisms -- cougar, 22:11:29 03/02/03 Sun
I've just read Jungs "Memories Dreams and Reflections" and am in "Modern Man in Search of his Soul". I have a hankering to investigate the Roman Empire next and this is a great lead! I've already reserved the one on Celtic symbols, another topic that has been snagging my attention lately. I've printed up everyone's favorites and plan to investigate a few.
Another take on power, from a biological or socio-biological point of view is "The Lucifer Principle".
[> [>
Gotta look for that. Sounds fascinating -- Random, 08:14:10 03/02/03 Sun
[>
Re: How I spent my summer vacation. The AtPO all-purpose non-fiction thread -- aliera, 06:53:08 03/02/03 Sun
This is actually a little tough. I don't usually buy books unless they are used and then they don't turn out to be the most memorable (at least not in general). Things I still have that I bought last year (although I wouldn't say that they changed my life) three books by Stephen Gould (I would have read my microwave manual if it was written by Gould), Greek Philosophy from Thales to Aristotle give me illusions of calling myself Diotima, Sylvia Perera's Descent to the Goddess, deserves a quote, so I will:
I, the woman who circles the land
--tell me where is my house,
Where is the city in which I may live...
I, who am your daughter...
the hierodule, who am your bridesmaid
Tell me where is my house...
The bird has its nesting place,
but I--my young are dispersed,
The fish lies in calm waters,
but I--my resting place exists not,
The dog kneels on the threshold,
but I--I have no threshold...(19)
...Susan Haskin's Mary Magdalen, interesting and very scary, Steven Pinker's How the Mind Work's.
My readings are generally very lacking in the lovely items mentioned by Sophist and Rahael and yourself (except for the Jung, of course!) Since last spring, I've tended to down load of the internet, so for example last night there was the most recent February Archives (the archive always highly recommended by me. I get to catch up on all those glorious threads I might miss during the hustle and bustle of the week), The Keeshond Coat by Bonnie Simrell and I was just starting into Six Elegiac Poems, Possibly by Anne Cecil de Vere, Countess of Oxford by Ellen Moody, when sleep descended. I also am not able to read as late as I like, since the most recent addition to the household, a male kees named Cole, generally pounces on me promptly at 6:45am each morning, and he, unlike my noisy alarm clock, cannot be turned off. ;-)
On my bedroom shelves are (all read and enjoyed and quick to hand in case my printouts run out):
Botanica's Roses
David Austin's Old Roses
The Complete Keeshond Ron Cash
Sleeping on the Wing by Kenneth Koch and Kate Farrell- An anthology of modern poetry and essays on reading and writing
Oriental Mythology by Joseph Campbell
The Letters of JRR Tolkien Edited by Humphrey Carpenter-answers many questions about both the man and his works
Myth and Middle Earth by our own Leslie Ellen Jones (and I'm going to shamelessly plug this book which was both readable and entertaining)
But the main current reading, and sites that I love, would be the following:
Enidicott Studios An organization for the Mythic and Interstitial Arts
Surlalune A portal to the realm of fairy tale and folklore studies featuring 26 annotated fairy tales and over 1,000 illustrations
Myth*ing Links An Annotated & Illustrated Collection of Worldwide Links to Mythologies, Fairy Tales & Folklore, Sacred Arts & Sacred Traditions
the CG Jung Page founded in 1995 to encourage new psychological ideas and conversations about what it means to be human in our time and place...
Myths & Legends A great collection of annotated links
And in anticipation of the time (hopefully soon!) when I'll be pulled away from the computer to lose time in my garden, scratched by thorns and elbow deep in the earth, only returning when encroaching dusk reminds me of other obligations:
Paul Barden's Rose Site Beautiful, full of information, and the man breeds roses too...I planted out my first crosses this winter and the inexpressible sight of the first seedlings shouldering their way through the soil...promise of spring...heart lightening.
If....
You come to fetch me from my work to-night
When supper's on the table, and we'll see
If I can leave off burying the white
Soft petals fallen from the apple tree.
(Soft petals, yes, but not so barren quite,
Mingled with these, smooth bean and wrinkled pea);
And go along with you ere you lose sight
Of what you came for and become like me,
Slave to a springtime passion for the earth.
How Love burns through the Putting in the Seed
On through the watching for that early birth
When, just as the soil tarnishes with weed,
The sturdy seedling with arched body comes
Shouldering its way and shedding the earth crumbs.
[> [>
Thanks for sharing those great links, aliera! I can't wait to follow them. :> -- WickedBuffy, 15:18:03 03/02/03 Sun
[> [>
Re: How I really spent my summer vacation. -- aliera, 04:41:46 03/03/03 Mon
Sorry, I meant to post this yesterday...this is the non-fiction mythic journey list posted by Ded, anom, sk and redcat last June...I think it's excellent...it certainly set up my summer reading. I was also curious about some of the underrepresented areas. Anybody have any great books like How Fractals changed my Life or the Tao of Theoretical Physics?
Anywhoo...here's the repost:
[> [> [> [> Well, I'm up for wasting some board space. -- Dedalus, 15:36:42 06/27/02 Thu
It's always nice when someone wants to even go beyond the bibliography.
Well, if we're talking myth, I would suggest anything Campbell, naturally, but you probably have that covered. Though none of this relates exactly to what I discussed in my essay, there is some very interesting stuff out there that I have read.
Mircea Eliade and the Myth of the Eternal Return is something of a classic. I think it was certainly influential to Lucas' style and his perceptions of mythic time. Jesse L. Weston did a very good one on the Holy Grail legends called From Ritual to Romance. The thesis is a bit out of favor today, but it is still quite interesting. For a general overview of a lot of myth and a lot of mythologists, try JF Bierlein's Parallel Myths. If you're into discussion type stuff like The Power of Myth, I was recently reading through Bill Moyer's Genesis, another PBS series that is currently available in book form. If you're into Star Wars, Stephen Galipeau wrote a book called The Journey of Luke Skywalker, which gets into things from a Jungian perspective, though his descriptions of scenes can be redundant at times.
Just for reference, there is also a book available at most Borders called The Dictionary of Symbolism by Hans Bierdemann. Very cool and informative.
If we're talking Eastern philosophy, there is a wonderful book called The Tao is Silent, by Raymond Smullyan. It's one of my favs, and is rather funny, if you're into that sort of thing. Stephen Mitchell has done recent translations of the Baghavad Gita and the Tao Te Ching which are excellent, as well as edited a volume of poetry I like called The Enlightened Heart. As for Alan Watts, a lot of his lectures have now found themselves in book form. What is Zen, What is Tao, and Still the Mind are all very good. One of his most famous ones is called The Way of Zen, though I have yet to read it. The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are is based on Vedanta, and is quite a read. I would also suggest a neat little translation of some of the Upanishads by Juan Mascaro.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> an alternative translation & yet another button -- anom, 22:46:11 06/27/02 Thu
"Stephen Mitchell has done recent translations of the Baghavad Gita and the Tao Te Ching which are excellent...."
When I finally looked for a copy of the Tao Te Ching to read a couple of years ago, I was surprised to find one by Ursula K. LeGuin (better known as an sf/fantasy author--her The Dispossessed is deservedly recommended by OnM in another thread). Actually, she calls it "a new English version," not a translation--she worked closely w/a professor of Chinese, which she doesn't speak herself. Her account of the process of writing this new version & her history w/the book is fascinating in itself; one of the things it does is restore the gender neutrality of the original. Not to be PC or anything--apparently Chinese just doesn't get specific with regard to gender in many cases. Or verb tenses, either...OK, I'm getting carried away here--see what I mean?
"As for Alan Watts, a lot of his lectures have now found themselves in book form. What is Zen, What is Tao,..."
Heehee--reminds me of a button I wear a lot: "That was Zen, this is Tao."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> A few other suggestions... -- shadowkat, 05:35:19 06/28/02 Fri
Well you're taking me back in time...but you can try:
Robert Graves: The White Goddess, Graves has written other works as well. I studied more Graves than Campbell when I was doing my Mythology minor.
Enrich Neumann wrote several books, one on Cupid and Psyche, another on the Collective Unconscious (can't remember exact title)
Some films you might look into are by Luis Bunel - who is really into myth depiction. That Obscure Object of Desire,
The Exterminating Angel. Also the film Black Orpheus.
If you can - get a good copy of Greek and Roman Myths.
Fictional Books: CS Lewis does a take on Cupid/Psyche with Till We Have Faces. Other writers who have a firm grasp of the myth in their writing but are less obvious are:
Faulkner, Gabriel Marquez(sp?) (A Hundred Years of Solitude), JAmes Joyce
Celtic Mythology - The Mabinogion - it's the medieval rendering of the celtic myths. William Butler Yeats also collected several fairy stories and myths - he collected
the Books of Ulster and irish myths.
Give you credit for finishing Campbell so quickly. I'm still struggling with it. But I am reading a portion of The Hero With A Thousand Faces - the atonement of the father.
Interesting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Absolutely not...books are like chocolate... -- redcat, 17:56:43 06/28/02 Fri
You ask, " What happened before the Greeks and Egyptians and after Campbell?"
With a gentle smile of my own, I would answer the first question with, "the Sumerians, of course." Inanna's "Descent into the Underworld" is the oldest extant example in human literature of the classic hero's journey, as well as being among the oldest extant pieces of human writing yet discovered. It contains all of the classic components of the hero's journey as articulated by Campbell, including those focused on by Ded in his essay. The best and most accessible translation/modernization is Samuel N. Kramer's and Diane Wolkstein's,_Inanna, Queen of Heaven and Earth_, still widely available after almost twenty years since it's original publication in 1983. Also of interest in the context of Ded's articulation of the centrality of experience to religious ecstasy is _Inanna, Lady of the Largest Heart_, Betty deShong Meader's fabulous translations of the poetry of a Sumerian High Priestess of Inanna, Enheduanna, who was also a daughter of the first true emperor in world history, Sargon. Meader's meditative biography of the 5,000-years-dead poet places her "numinous" experiences, as revealed through three very long lyric poems written in praise of the goddess,in historical and social context.
If you're interested in reading from the other side, one of the most influential works within postmodernist historiographic politicized theorizing has been Joan Wallach Scott's article, "The Evidence of Experience," originally published in _Critical Inquiry_, Vol 17, no 4, summer 1991. The journal is generally available if you live near any major university; the article has also been reprinted numerous times in anthologies, both feminist and non. It's a very carefully constructed argument that experience and language cannot be separated, including "sacred" or "numinous" experiences of the type Ded discusses.
I would just like to suggest in a spirit of balance that women mythologists, Buddhist sages and Christian theorists have also contributed greatly to both academic and general cultural conversations about the role of religious experience in modern life. Carolyne Larrington's _The Feminist Companion to Mythology_ is a wonderful read in conjunction with Campbell. Barbara G. Walker's work on myth and symbols is often quite illuminative and always educational, an excellent addition to anyone's myth library. And for a very interesting ramble through the world of feminist pagan experiences of the sacred, may I suggest any of Carol Adams' individually-authored works or her bright anthology collections of other women's writings, _Ecofeminism and the Sacred_.
[>
Re: How I spent my summer vacation. The AtPO all-purpose non-fiction thread -- Random, 07:47:05 03/02/03 Sun
Assuming this thread lasts through tomorrow, I'll return when I've had more time to think (I haven't had a chance to get on-line since Thursday), but:
1) echoing Sophist's Hofstadter choice (which is truly awesome),try also The Mind's Eye by the same (I believe)
2) Any of Borges' non-fiction: "The Book of Imaginary Beings" is a fascinating bestiary. Borderline non-fiction, but...try his Selected Non-fictions and Seven Nights -- also check out Jorge Luis Borges: Conversations, or Borges on Writing. But Borges' fiction (he's my favorite author, hands down!) has to be read to be believed. One of the four or five most influential writers of 20th century. Get it. All of it. Ficciones. Labyrinths. Everything. (Sorry about OT...it just needed to be said. Plus several (Personal Anthology, Labyrinths, et al, contain non-fiction works. The trick is to figure out which is which. Heh, heh, heh... (evil smirk))
3) Umberto Eco: a tryptich -- Art and Beauty in the Middle Ages, The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas, and Travels in Hyperreality; plus I also enjoyed the more informal collection of essays, How to Travel with a Salmon. For the more intrepid, his books on semiotics provide an interesting way to while away the afternoon. Plus, as with Borges, his fictions.
4) Jacques Barzun: fairly famous popularizer, but often extremely fascinating. From Dawn to Decadence is a more recent one that sparked a certain amount of controversy -- which always makes for good reading. It's slightly unfocused, and seems to have been written for effect on the public as much as for serious scholarly explication. But it's still interesting. He's somewhat conservative, especially for a French social historian (actually, he's pretty much American, but....)
5) The True Believer by Erich Hoffer. A classic (1951)work on the psychology of mass movements -- Nazis, Crusades, whatever. Fascinating work that should grace everyone's bookshelf.
perennial favorites include The Prince, T.S. Eliot's essays (look in library for collection. There's also a book, "Selected Essays 1917-1932" which provides a good overview and has,I believe, been recently re-issued. I may be mistaken on the latter point); Horace's Epistles; John Wycliff: if you're interested in the upheavals in the church in the late Middle Ages, read his stuff. Interesting, and more accessible than most medieval theologians (trust me, I've read most of them!); The Double Helix by James Watson: a primary (as opposed to secondary or tertiary) source for an account of the discovery of DNA structure. Great, very readable book. I think somebody in another thread mentioned The Selfish Gene already. Plus, in the same vein, Lucy and From Lucy to Language, both by the discoverer of the famous Lucy fossil, Donald Johanson. Old favorites include writings by Plato. Prefer Phaedo and Symposium but collected works are available in one volume.
Let me mull. Hopefully, I'll come back with some better ones. I know there are a few that I want to recommend fervently, but, for some reason, they're escaping me right now.
[> [>
A couple more... -- Random, 08:05:17 03/02/03 Sun
...of course I'd think of two more exactly three minutes after approving my prior post! The White Goddess by Robert Graves -- a history of poetry and myth. Great work. Very powerful. And, on a related note, The Golden Bough by Sir James Frazer. Once the definitive reference work on magic and myth and religion and folklore and anthropology. It's been assiduously deconstructed lately, and its scholarly creditials have been questioned, but it's a definite must-read for students or even casual readers of the subjects. Try to find an unabridged version if you can. The library will probable have one. Failing that, the abridged single-volume version in the bookstore will suffice.
[>
Re: How I spent my summer vacation. The AtPO all-purpose non-fiction thread -- Haecceity, 16:18:15 03/02/03 Sun
Okay, not even supposed to be on the board today as I'm SWAMPED with work, but saw this and can no more pass up a booklist than a bookshop, so figured it's not technically cheating on my work first, play later vow to do a quick cut & paste of my reading list the last 3 months, right?
Anyway, someone's got to preserve the thread:)
So, in no particular order & without commentary (which would be time-consuming, thus cheating)here's my list:
Under the Spell of Orpheus : The Persistence of a Myth in Twentieth-Century
Art by Judith E. Bernstock
The Magic Mirror : Myth's Abiding Power (Suny Series in the Philosophy of
the Social Sciences) by Elizabeth M. Baeten
The Discarded Image : An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance
Literature (Canto Series) by C. S. Lewis
Boundaries of the Soul : The Practice of Jung's Psychology
by June Singer
The Archetypal Imagination
by James Hollis, David H. Rosen
Tracking the Gods : The Place of Myth in Modern Life (Studies in Jungian
Psychology by Jungian Analysts, No 68) by James Hollis
The Dialectics of Seeing by Susan Buck-Morss
The Classical Tradition : Greek and Roman Influences on Western Literature
by Gilbert Highet
Fields of Vision: Essays in Film Studies, Visual Anthropology, and Photography
By Leslie Devereaux (Editor), Roger Hillman (Editor)
The Visual Story: Seeing the Structure of Film, TV, and New Media
By Bruce A. Block
In/Different Spaces: Place and Memory in Visual Culture
By Victor Burgin
Perception
By Irvin Rock
Visual Thinking
By Rudolf Arnheim
The Uses of Images: Studies in the Social Function of Art and Visual Communication
By Ernst Hans Gombrich;
Visuality Before and Beyond the Renaissance: Seeing As Others Saw
By Robert S. Nelson (Editor)
Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters
By David Hockney
The Psychology of Illustration: Basic Research
By Dale M. Willows, Harvey A. Houghton (Editor)
Book Illustrated: Text, Image, & Culture 1770-1930
By Catherine J. Golden (Editor
MallarmÈ's Children: Symbolism and the Renewal of Experience
By Richard Candida Smith
The Survival of the Pagan Gods: The Mythological Tradition and its Place in
Renaissance Humanism & Art
By Jean Seznec
Art & Fear
By David Bayles & Ted Orlando
Artists on Art: from the XIV to the XX Century
By Robert Goldwater & Marco Treves (Editors)
The Art of Memory
By Frances A. Yates
Why Are Our Pictures Puzzles? On the Modern Origins of Pictorial Complexity
By James Elkins
Art & Physics: Parallel Visions in Space, Time & Light
By Leonard Shlain
Art & Visual Perception
By Rudolf Arnheim
Literature and the Gods
By Roberto Calasso, Tim Parks (Translator)
Individuation in Fairy Tales
By Marie-Louise Von Franz
Ariadne's Clue
By Anthony Stevens
Psychological Meaning of Redemption Motifs in Fairytales
By Marie Louise Von Franz
The Marriage of Cadmus and Harmony
By Roberto Calasso, Tim Parks (Translator)
Archetypal Dimensions of the Psyche
By Marie-Louise Von Franz
From the Beast to the Blonde
By Marina Werner
Landscape & Memory
By Simon Schama
The Alphabet Versus the Goddess: the Conflict Between Word and Image
By Leonard Shlain
The Moral Animal-Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology
By Robert Wright
A Natural History of the Senses
By Diane Ackerman
Cunning Intelligence in Greek Culture & Society
By Marcel Detienne & Jean-Pierre Vernant
The Evolutionary Origins of the Storied Mind
By H. Porter Abbot
Dark Conceit: The Making of Allegory
By Edwin Honig
Myths and Mythmakers
By John Fiske
Myth & Reality
By Mircea Eliade
The Freedom of Man in Myth
By Kees W. Bolle
The Lives of the Muses
By Francine Prose
The Liar's Tale: A History of Falsehood
By Jeremy Campbell
Archetypes and Strange Attractors
By John R. Van Eenwyk
Pan & the Nightmare
By James Hillman
Exposed By the Mask: Form & Language in Drama
By Peter Hall
Pinnocchio's Progeny
(forgot the author, but a totally cool look at the place of puppets in literature, etc. Includes stuff on the Balinese shadow puppet theatres-GID)
Synchronicity: Science, Myth & the Trickster
By Allan Combs & Mark Holland
Reading Popular Narrative
By Bob Ashley
My Wars Are Laid Away in Books: The Life of Emily Dickinson
By Alfred Habegger
Oneness (parallel passages from the world's religious texts)
By Jeffrey Moses
The Art of Looking Sideways (Neat book on creativity)
By Alan Fletcher
The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and the Origins of Art
By David Lewis-Williams
Ancilla to Classical Reading
By Moses Hadas
The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar & Rhetoric (this one's tough, but rewarding)
By Sister Miriam Joseph
Just For Fun
Personal Pleasures
By Rose Macauley
The Royal Road to Romance (read this @ 12, an absolute favourite, all about a young scalliwag's adventures touring Europe, etc in the 20s)
By Richard Halliburton
Non Campus Mentis (watch out--this one'll have you laughing so hard, you'll cry) don't remeber the author
---Haecceity
Back to the Salt Mines
[> [>
Wow! -- cougar, 22:20:31 03/02/03 Sun
[>
Could Caroline or someone else reccommed some basic books on psychology? -- Arethusa, 07:57:23 03/03/03 Mon
I've never studied psychology, so beginners' as well as more advanced would be apppreciated. Thanks.
[> [>
Re: Could Caroline or someone else reccommed some basic books on psychology? -- Gyrus, 08:25:03 03/03/03 Mon
I don't know any general books on psychology that aren't boring textbooks, but Elliot Aronson's book on social psychology, THE SOCIAL ANIMAL, is both very informative and a good read.
[> [>
Recommendations -- Caroline, 09:21:51 03/03/03 Mon
Hmmm. It's been a long while since I studied this stuff and university and can't remember a lot of the texts we used. My main interest is in the psychoanalytic side of things, but we basically read directly from the main sources - Freud, Klein, Jung. I would probably start off with Jung's Man and His Symbols - but that's because I have a rather Jungian bias. I'm drawing a blank here on commentaries or summaries of psychoanalytic work - I'll post more from home later today or tomorrow.
[>
Smith and Marx -- Caroline, 09:12:49 03/03/03 Mon
Being an economist and one who studied economics and economic history at a post-grad level, I had the privilege (not!) of reading the entire Wealth of Nations as well as almost everything written by Marx and many other pre-Marshallian economists.
I would not recommend Smith to anyone. I just sold my copy of the 2 volume Wealth of nations - it was taking up too much bookcase space. It's a rather boring work - and I was not inspired by it. All that endless stuff about the division of labor - I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. There is some mildly interesting stuff on the sometimes sinister effects of the 'invisible hand' in capitalism but it's not worth going through 2 volumes for it. I would rather recommend work by Marshall and Keynes - the latter in particular has a rather fun writing style. Schumpeter is even better.
As for Marx, I would not so easily dismiss his contributions to economic thought. While Sraffa's work on Production of Commodities by means of Commodities has shown that the Marxian labour theory of value is not necessary in the determination of prices, wages and profits, Marx is the first economist to actually develop a theory of production rather than just a theory of exchange, which, after all, is what neoclassical and marginalist economics is. And the work of Joan Robinson and the post-Keynesians as well as Sraffa on the inability of marginalist economics to define capital (and therefore its price, profits etc) if far more damning to current marginalist economic theory than on Marx's work.
[>
Re: How I spent my summer vacation. The AtPO all-purpose non-fiction thread -- fresne, 09:41:15 03/03/03 Mon
You know this would be a lot easier if I were at home where my non-fiction books lurk, but here goes.
1. The Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T.E. Lawrence is one of the most messed up, get in a guy's head, fascinating autobiographies that I've ever read. It's an adventure story with periodic pit stops for philosophical, historical and just plain angsty thought. Keeping in mind that this was a man who changed his name like clothes and was very aware of the power of presentation and language.
2. The Mint also by T.E., by that point going by the name of Airman Ross (well, actually the book covers a period of two different names). Very different language wise from 7 Pillars. Stripped down to the essentials. It's about the process (from the inside) of minting out soldiers. Very interesting.
3. Bring on the Empty Horses by David Niven. Enough of philosophy. Really funny book about Hollywood in the 30s - 50s. Niven wasn't above changing details to make a good story, but chapters range from hilarious to quietly sad.
4. An odd recommend from me, since on the whole grammar is the enemy, The New Well Tempered Sentence and The Deluxe Transitive Vampire by Karen Gordon. A grammar book that uses gothic examples, "I won't rise to the occasion, but I'll slide over to it." An extremely reference book.
[>
Some picks for the non-historian, non-philosophers.. -- dream, 10:05:35 03/03/03 Mon
And generally everyone who prefers his/her non-fiction on the lighter side (with an emphasis on art, food and home, my favoriate stuff)-
The Power Broker, Robert Caro (biography of Robert Moses)
The Gastronomical Me, MFK Fisher
Rembrandt's Eyes, Simon Schama
Any gardening books by Beverly Nichols (warning, not for those with a low tolerance for whimsy)
Stuffed Animals and Pickled Head, Steven Asma (a light history of natural history museums)
Utopia Parkway, Deborah Solomon (biography of Joseph Cornell)
Art and Visual Perception, Rudolf Arnheim (if you care about art)
American Visions, Robert Hughes
The Letters of Vincent Van Gogh
The Merry Heart, Robertson Davies
Serious Pig, John Thorne (more food writing - the only living food writer who could polish Fisher's shoes, in my opinion)
The Life and Death of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs
Road Trip USA, Jamie Jenson - yeah, it's a guide book - you got sumthin' to say about it? A guide to the old U.S. federal highways. Be still my heart.
[> [>
Jane Jacobs -- Sophist, 10:32:08 03/03/03 Mon
Almost any book by her is well worth reading. I especially liked The Wealth of Cities (from memory; hope I got it right).
It's not easy being Green(walt) (Angel Odyssey 2.12-2.14) -- Tchaikovsky, 15:20:19 03/01/03 Sat
-Thanks yabyumpan as always- particularly this time as I was getting withdrawal symptoms from such great previous episodes, and you got the new ones to me very quickly.
-A quick addendum to 2.2. I realised the other day what the Hyperion had been reminding me of. There's an oldish dilapidated hotel right in the centre of Leamington Spa called 'The Regent'. It's been slowly crumbling away, despite being right next to the rather grand town hall, for what looks like decades. It's boarded up, adn appears to be completely deserted. I for one have no idea why, but it's just sitting there, as if slowly sucking the life out of the town- also rather like a relic of lost British Imperialism. That's eerily close to the Hyperion, in my view, [except for the British Imperialism bit, I guess]. Just thought I'd mention it.
These three episodes were not up to quite the same standard as the supreme 'The Trial'/'Reunion'/'Redefinition combo, but then I still think those are the best three back-to-back episodes I've seen on either show, so I suppose it isn't that surprising. These episodes as usual sent me into some (perhaps weird) literary places. Apologies in advance for the extreme random-ness of my brain. Hey, it's the only one I've got.
2.12- 'Blood Money'
I felt this episode was perhaps a little bit too structured. By this I mean that the basic interest in the episode was held by the plot twists, with rather sparse offerings to hold interest in between. However, as a result of the (admittedly fiendishly clever) turns and double-backs at the end, the first two acts, which appeared to be setting up a simple confrontation, seemed to me deadly slow.
Was it nice to see Anne again? Certainly. As usual in the Whedonverse, we see that most characters can be redeemed by being shown their own strength and given care and love by others. In this case, Chanterelle is in exactly the same position as Buffy in the Season 2/3 hiatus. Buffy does something quite incredible, and in the heroic mode, by finding inner strength all on her own. Chanterelle treads the easier path of finding strength from Buffy's concern and self=confidence. By the time of Buffy's leaving, Chanterelle respects Buffy so much that she asks to take the name 'Anne', as even what Buffy did under that name was enough of a model for her.
Here we see that she has found the strength to drag herself out of poverty and terror, and not only make a life for herself, but really continue the abstract Anne's work. But nothing is easy in Los Angeles, and by the end of the episode, we're shown that black and white simply don't exist. This is one of the most incredibly daring final scenes of the series I've seen. We see Angel, the monumentally flawed, battling presence, basically bet on a whim with his demon friend. And Anne accepts the money. Nobody is whiter than white, and where the money has come from is ultimately less important than what the money can do for her. A deeply morally ambiguous conclusion.
Before the very final scene, there is an 'Enemies' type twist. Now I have to admit that I fall for these every single time. I had no idea Angel was acting in 'Enemies', and I had no idea Boole was double agent-ing here. However, in 'Enemies', the result of the plot twist is simple. Angel was good all along, and good triumphs, (except for the fallout that Angelus appears to be lurking inside Angel). In 'Blood Money', the resolution is many more complicated moral resonances. Firstly, it appears that our [OK, my] attempt to believe that Angel is doing the right thing by Anne is undermined. He has merely used Anne as a pawn to capture the double-dealing nature of the company. And beyond that, Anne, having made her final decision to go ahead with the fundraiser, is robbed of the money she would have received. She gets it back, but only on Angel's rather warped terms. Meanwhile, he also manages to embarass Cordelia and Wesley by using their tapes as the apparently damaging one to Wolfram and Hart, thereby committing an egregious act of betrayal to his one-time-friends, even beyond sacking them. Angel is a darned difficult character to like at the moment, but that's the fun. I still identify, even though he is not just a flawed character, (as Buffy is), but a character knowingly making reprehensible moral decisions just because he feels wronged by Wolfram and Hart. This is becoming a fascinating portrayal of a really epic character who slides along the scale from White Hat to Big Bad like a well-greased snake.
Other thoughts:
-It was really interesting to have Anne as the Victim-of-the-Week character. At this stage of the proceedings, it is impossible to trust Angel's motives, and, despite her apparent new leaf in 'Anne', it is impossible to trust hers. Therefore, we're into a complex guessing game of just who is being honest. The only given is that Wolfram and Hart are being entirely devious, and even this leads to the question of whether there was a degree of altruism in their fundraising (probably not).
-The other story is about the remaining members of Angel Investigations still working under the motto of 'We help the helpless'. It's interesting to see just how the actions of Cordelia, Wesley and Gunn attempts are affected by Angel, just as Lilah and Lindsay's are. We are clearly meant to make the parallel, as there is the obvious analogue of the vacuum of leadership in both groups. Lilah and Lindsay have trouble working well because neither of them is in command. Similarly, neither Cordelia nor Gunn is willing to accept the idea of a 'Wyndham-Price agency', (an ingenious echo of the end of 'Guise Will Be Guise'). While Angel affects Lilah and Lindsay positively, he affects Cordelia, Wesley and Gunn negatively. By this I mean that the lawyers are disrupted by his presence, while the remnants of the Fang Gang are disrupted by his absence. While Lilah and Lindsay plead with the higher powers to let them take Angel out, the Investigations crew are suffering from the negative space of Angel's absence. The name hanging over their heads, and the unresolved conflict between Wes and Gunn.
-Holland Manners on the video was as slippery as ever, and the posthumousness reminded me a lot of Mayor Wilkins recording in 'This Year's Girl', although without some of the immense evil pathos Harry Groener brought to his role.
-Not a bad episode, but plodd-y to begin with.
2.13 'Happy Anniversary'
I might be considered a little deranged for this- I don't really know- but I think 'Happy Anniversary is easily my favourite of these three episodes. Partly because a thought which had been brewing in my mind crystallised, [hmmm, bizarre mixed metaphor, sorry]. It's the title of this post- David Greenwalt is a demon.
This might make sense eventually. The demon I'm referring to is a green-skinned, red-eyed one. You got it. Lorne. Let me explain a little.
Firstly, there was that iconic moment at the start of Season Two where we are introduced to him singing 'I Will Survive'. How completely strange. And to me that symbolised all that Greenwalt is about- quirkiness, humour in unlikely places, and the slight subversiveness of the son breaking away from the Father [Whedon]. Then in Lorne's subsequent appearances, the fact that he was empathic meant that he would often give the important plot point, revealing the emotions of the characters, but always in a slightly distant way, like he didn't really care one way or the other, (why would he?)
And now here, we have another very funny Greenwalt episode, possibly the funniest of the season so far, and we're told much of the plot by Lorne. He reveals the oncoming apocalypse slowly, and with many hilarious irrelevant diversions on the way. Then, as we are plunged into the middle of the episode, it becomes clear that the writer is doing just the same with the plot- slowly revealing how the world is about to end- and uncovering it as the marvellous Lorne and Angel duo uncover the hidden truths themselves. They eventually stop the apocalypse, after much prevarication on the part of Lorne. Just as Greenwalt prevaricates for fun and laughs. And we have Lorne to wrap it up at the end with the physicist and Angel, giving the (slightly trite) moral of the story.
So Lorne, clearly portrayed as the narrator several times in the episode, in fact has a role which goes one step further, for now at least- to portray the laconic creator's own thoughts. To be aloof from the story but rather intrigued. And, of course, he can sing 'The Star-Spangled Banner' with effortless beauty. Which is always good.
Three references in this episode, one of which may require you to narrow your eyes slightly and stare as if you're doing a Magic Eye thing. But they work for me.
1) Perhaps the most obvious reference- that to the science fiction genre. Buffy is usually fantasy, and Angel sometimes fits there as well, but each have their elements of science fiction. Here Whedon/Greenwalt go one step further with the story, putting in a well-observed if initially stereotypical quantam scientist and seeing how science might affect the world in which we live. The frozen water-drops was quite a compelling visual symbol, both of thepower and the unnaturalness of freezing time.
2) There's the very funny, playful reference to Sherlock Holmes. Wesley, in a fashion just teetering on the edge between believable yet funny and pure camp, clears up the family intrigue in true Conan Doyle style. You're just waiting for him to call Cordelia 'Watson' and of course his ridiculously over-blown Englishness (with the walking-stick), helps a lot. This subplot is also partly here to parallel with Angel's rather more technologically advanced mystery-solving.
3) So we have a science fiction Sherlock Holmes mystery. At this point, I introduce Keats, and ask you to stay calm. In 'Ode to a Grecian Urn' John Keats explores the Sylvan scene happenning on the side of the imagined urn he calls 'Thou still unravished bride of quietness'. One of the main ideas explored in the poem is the beauty and tragedy of being captured in one particular moment. There is a youth who is about to kiss a beautiful girl. He will eternally have the anticipation of being about to kiss her, but will never have the actual experience. It is both a wonderful and horrible experience. In the same way, the physicist wants to capture himself in time at the moment where he is still near to the woman he is about to lose. In this way, he will never lose her, although the irony is that of course he hasn't realised as Keats has that in the bubble he has created, he will always be about to lose her. So he will be eternally close but unhappy.
OK, back to the 21st Century. A couple of other thoughts.
-Lorne/Angel in their 'Muldering' really do represent the two sides of me quite well (no, not green demon and vampire, although believe that if you will). The constantly chipper, singing analyst of other's lives on one hand; the brooding, angsty confused anti-hero on the other. Possibly an indictment on me, but there you go.
-Virginia out-Cordelias Cordelia in her vacuousness, which I found incredibly funny.
-The line 'It's just a name' at the end is rather chilling. They are becoming detached from any reality in which a unliving, non-breathing Angel exists. And, of course, there's the meta-narrative that this is a show called 'Angel' where he doesn't appear to be interacting at all with the supporting cast.
Enjoyed the episode- much less wilfully confusing than the previous one; better paced, and sparking off a load of cross-references in my mind, which is always a god sign that I'm battling with the concepts brought up.
2.14 'The Thin Dead Line'
Well, this was somewhat close to the bone and an obvious metaphor if it means what it could mean. Is this genuinely an extremely black comedy meditation on the drawbacks of zero tolerance? That supposed safety of the streets is guaranteed at the expense of the liberty of people who merely look suspicious? That officers of law can turn into merely zombie-like militia, following violent orders and satisfying only the extremely simplistic needs of some evil leader sitting at adesk somewhere? If so, this is one of the most obvious occurrences of an Angel episode that really seems extremely left-wing with a political agenda that I've seen. If not,I'm just reading to much into a 50's B-movie homage plot again. You pays your money...
Beyond this, I didn't have that much interest in this episode except in passing moments. It was nice to see Kate given a little more to do again; and I thought her worried about her Dad as a zombie was honestly and emotionally portrayed. Wes and Gunn had some nice chemistry that developed the respect between the two of them a little further- and, by contrast to the indifferent street guy who is merely racist and self-serving, Gunn learns the real and unusual nature of his friendships with Cordelia and Wesley. In Angel, it is that much harder to forge lasting relationships. The natural order appears ot be towards chaos and angst, as opposed to Buffy, where the natural tendency is towards resolution and powerful friendships. I find the Buffyverse more comforting, but the Angelverse more realistic.
I don't think that the main cast can be kept apart much longer- there's going to have ot be a resolution to this rift both for logistical and story reasons. Logistically, after talking to himself in 'Redefinition' and then to Lilah, Lorne and Kate in subsequent episodes, he's running out of confidantes to share his state of mind. And for story reasons, I still can't see Wesley's gang surviving long, as in this episode their survival, (unbeknown to them) revloved around Angel smashing the statue. This just symbolises how Angel is still an essential missing component of their operation.
But reconciliation is going to be extremely hard, as shown by Cordelia's scathing words at the end of the episode. Angel wil have some serious apologising to do, somehting which, unlike atoning, he is extremely bad at. I look forward to seeing him try.
A couple of 'Huh?'s:
-Why do they keep changing the person who does the 'Previously'? Strange habit.
-I assume they resolve the truly weird 'Child with extra eye' storyline, but it's unusual to carry such a seemingly minor sub-plot over the end of an episode
-Darla appears to be taking several weeks off in the Seychelles. Sure she'll be back soon, but a strangely prolonged absence.
-Next two are both Tim Minear. Hooray. Expect a rave some time later tomorrow.
TCH
[>
Thanks TCH. -- aliera, 15:46:24 03/01/03 Sat
[>
Great stuff!! -- Rahael, 17:20:48 03/01/03 Sat
I'm all over your Keats ref. Very astute.
I just finished watching three eps - Trial to Redefinition this morning. Tomorrow I'll watch the three above, perhaps even try to catch up.
More thoughts later - I'm a little zonked.
[>
Re: It's not easy being Green(walt) (Angel Odyssey 2.12-2.14) -- yabyumpan, 17:24:40 03/01/03 Sat
Thanks yabyumpan as always- particularly this time as I was getting withdrawal symptoms from such great previous episodes, and you got the new ones to me very quickly.
Thank the Royal Mail, I didn't get around to posting them 'till friday afternoon! I'm loving your reviews, I'm especially looking forward to reading what you think of Reprise and Epiphany, they're my two favorite TM eps.
Just a few thoughts on today's Odyssey -
Re: Wesley, Cordelia and Gunn. I think in a way (possibly a very 'warped' way), Angel gave them a gift by firing them and going AWOL. In amongst all the depression about being fired and the struggle to make their own way, it's given them a sense of purpose and self-confidence which may not have happened if things had stayed the same. To para-phrase the Host, 'it's change that's important'. Before, for Wesley and Cordelia in particular, it was pretty much 'all about Angel'. That's who Cordelia gets the visions for and it's Angel who gives Wesley acceptance and a chance to really forefill all that he'd been trained for by the WC (except without a Slayer). Their role was mainly to support Angel in his mission. Now they're discovering the mission for themselves, it's really become their mission aswell. While Angel is important to them and the mission, he's not crucial. I think that's an important learning curve for them. I do have more to say about their reaction to all that's happened but I'm saving it for the resolution of this arc.
For me, the most interesting and telling part of all three episodes is this exchange between The Host and Angel
Angel: "You want to know what my problem is? I'm screwed. That's my problem. I can't win. I'm trying to atone for a hundred years of unthinkable evil. News flash! I never can! Never going to be enough. Now I got Wolfram and Hart dogging me, it's too much! Two hundred highly intelligent law-school graduates working fulltime driving me crazy. Why the hell is everyone so surprised that it's working? But no, it's 'Angel, why you're so cranky?' 'Angel, you should lighten up. You should smile. You should wear a nice plaid.'"
Host: "Oh. Not this season, honey."
Angel: "Redemption. Darla had a shot at redemption. They took it from her. Now I have to hunt her down and kill her. I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna kill her, and then I'm gonna burn that law firm to the ground. My crew - they couldn't handle that. That's good. It means that they're still human. It means their better off fired."
Host: "You kind of left them in the cold."
Angel: "It's a lot colder in here."
It just sums up Angel's state of mind perfectly. All the anger, frustration, despair and hopelessness.
Bed now, maybe some more thoughts tomorrow
quotes from Psyche
[>
I've been waiting for this for days! -- Masq, 14:16:22 03/02/03 Sun
I can't believe it slipped into archive 2 before I saw it on the main board. Tsk.
[>
Some quick thoughts -- Rahael, 14:50:06 03/02/03 Sun
I just watched these three eps, so my thoughts are still a little jumbled.
But got to mention that Lilah and Angel have chemistry (the begging comes later, LOL) - I had forgotten this.
A big awwwwwww to Gunn and Wesley in Thin Dead Line. It's Gunn and Wes being friends, and all with the manly handholding. They are so sweet.
And you were dead on with the Keats observation (never, never shalt thou kiss....) the couple are frozen just as he is about to kiss her. Life made into art, but a terrible one.
Oh, and of course a special mention to Lindsey - "Boo hoo. Let me wipe away my tears with my plastic hand".
That line was just genius! LOL
[>
And now Tim Minear's thoughts on these episodes -- s'kat, 15:38:26 03/02/03 Sun
I'm taking these thoughts from SFX Vampire Edition, 2002, where in an interview Tim Minear explains what they were going for in each episode of Season 2.
Here's the three episodes TCH is reviewing. Thought might be interesting to see if the writer's intent fits what we saw.
BLOOD MONEY
"In Blood Money, Angel seems to be his old self as he apparently comes to the aid of a woman running a teen shelter, but in reality he's only using her to get closer to Wolfram & Hart. At the same time, the law firm has hired a demon - apparently an old enemy of Angel's - to battle him to the death."
"There were some things I liked about the episode, like the Western motif and the stand-off at the ending, " syas Minear, '"but I just thought that it was kind of a jumble and that it didn't really fulfill the promise of what happened when he went dark. It's like, 'I'm gonna screw you out of some money, but not reallu.' It was just kind of weird. I also think what that episode proves is that he remains Angel no matter what. He's more beige than dark, not unlike the '50s episode before he had a mission statement. There's a part of him that wants to do good, but he's just been so beaten down that he's more morally ambiguous than he is dark at that point."
HAPPY ANNIVERSARY
"What I liked about it was getting the Host out of the bar. Basically a buddy movie with Angel and the Host, and I think it's really interesting that those two characters, whenever you put them together, are an intriguing pair. They're so different, but I think that Andy and David really complement each other when they're on screen together. I think Andy Hallett has been a bit of a breakout for us. This was the first thing he'd ever done, and when Joss came up with the idea of this character, he based it on Andy who's a friend of his. They've known each other forever. Andy was basically working as an assistant on some level to Joss and Joss funneled a lot of Andy's personality into that character. When it came time to casting, he asked David Greenwalt if there would be any objection for Andy to come in and read for the part. But Joss didn't want to make the final decision, because he didn't want there to be any kind of nepotism at all. David [Greenwalt] had the final say and Andy was the best guy who came in to read for that. I just think he's grown a lot as an actor."
THE THIN DEAD LINE
"Thematically," Minear muses, "you've got these zombi cops who are maybe working on the side of the law. At the end of the episode Kate says that crime has gone down in this neighbourhood and now the evil's been stopped, things are going to get bad again. It's a comment about facism; how the trains run on time and the streets are clean, but there's a dark underbelly to all of that. The whole thing is a metaphor for Angel's state of mind, because what happens to Angel in the course of this season is he gets to a point where he doesn't stop fighting, he fights harder. But he's not fighting for any reason anymore, he's just going through the motions like a zombie."
(Interviewer states that 'One thing the season arc did was establish Cordelia, Weseley and Gunn as a force on their own, separate and apart from Angel.') "Glad you think that way," says Minear, " but I still have some problems with it. I don't think we service Gunn enough, but I hope to rectify that. I think I need to understand why it is he's decided to hang with these two people. That was one criticism we got from internet fans: as we got into the beige Angel arc, they felt that the supporting characters were being ignored a little. Which I think is not untrue. However I believe we rectified a lot of that by the end of the year." pp50-58
I'll do the Minear comments for the next group as well.
All comments are from SFX's 2002 VAMPIRE SPECIAL That came out last year. SFX is a UK magazine. I got mine at a B&N in Brooklyn, NY in 2002.
Fighting the Forces - book -- Sophie, 17:43:26 03/01/03 Sat
Well, NYU's library bought a book about Buffy! I finally got to check it out (it seems to be quite popular) and give it a read - and it is quite good. I'm certainly enjoying it.
"Fighting the Force" ed. Wilcox and Lavery, published in 2001. It is a collection of essays about the first five seasons of the show.
Has anybody read this?
Sophie
[>
Re: Fighting the Forces - book -- LonesomeSundown, 19:13:29 03/01/03 Sat
Yep, I bought it almost a year ago and found it very interesting and quite readable. I was a little afraid about that because all the essays have been written by academics, and it does show in places where the writing's stuffy and the jargon difficult to understand. Wish I could say something more specific about particular essays, but it's been a while since I cracked the book open and I've long forgotten the details. I do remember one thin: I loved chapter 14 which interprets some Buffyverse dreams.
[> [>
Oh, and another interesting book -- LonesomeSundown, 19:17:18 03/01/03 Sat
is "Reading the vampire slayer" edited by Roz Kaveney which has a more informal style.
[>
I read it... -- Rob, 21:32:07 03/01/03 Sat
...and only truly agreed with about 1/4 of it, but still, it was an interesting read, and worth reading, if only to support "Buffy' being taken seriously by academics. My favorite essay was the "Language of Buffy" one (sorry, can't remember the title exactly). I didn't agree with a great deal of its politics, feminism, and race section, but most of the others, particularly in the portion of the book about literary and mythological influences, I liked a great deal.
Rob
Has Joss ever explained the hammer and sickle in Anne? -- Rochefort, 00:12:03 03/02/03 Sun
At that moment, Ken is saying something like "Workers don't fight back. That's how it works." In that sense, the symbol would be pretty clear. Has he talked about it?
[>
Hard to believe, but it's a coincidence -- Scroll, 00:25:21 03/02/03 Sun
I remember reading a message posted by Joss, probably on the Bronze or someplace else, that it turned out to be pure chance that Buffy ends up with a hammer and sickle when fighting the slave-driving demons. Joss wasn't really trying to make a Marxist statement or anything, but he later realised how it looked and was pleased with how things worked out (subtexty message or subconscious desire to be a Marxist?). But no, he didn't plan it.
[>
Re: Has Joss ever explained the hammer and sickle in Anne? -- Darby, 07:08:20 03/02/03 Sun
I saw an interview with the show's weapons guy (on one of the DVDs?), and he said that Joss actually designed the weapon (which turned out to be a slightly modified hunga munga - see http://www.atlantacutlery.com/ethnic.html for picture, no endorsement implied). It's hard to believe that there wasn't some reason for him to actually go to the trouble of sketching the weapon if it wasn't supposed to look kind of hammer-and-sicklish.
This may be one of those areas where we can't completely trust what has been said...
[> [>
Re: Has Joss ever explained the hammer and sickle in Anne? -- manwitch, 08:34:04 03/02/03 Sun
Creative people tend not to like to confess their symbols. I think if you can find it in the work, it doesn't really matter how the creator hems and haws about it. Interpretation is about making an argument. The hammer and sickle are clearly there, and the point being made is clearly relevant to and enhanced by the symbol. If Joss thinks its an accident, well, that's his opinion.
Plus, if you want to get really detailed, the hammer and sickle do not emancipate the workers. Its words that do. Buffy's words to Chanterelle/Lily, "You can do this because I say you can."
And then you can't help thinking, its words that give Lily the identity that allows her to overcome her subjugation, even when the hammer and sickle of marxism can't. Very postmodern. Postmodernism being the opposition movement that has largely replaced Marxism since the failed revolutions of 1968.
I know, I know. I'll stop.
[> [> [>
Manwitch, A Request -- Dochawk, 10:30:04 03/02/03 Sun
Your posts are too good for me to only partially understand them, so I need 1 book, well written, preferably less than 200 pages on Post-Modernism to read to catch me up. Any suggestions?
[> [> [>
In a political sense? -- Solitude1056, 12:55:59 03/02/03 Sun
Postmodernism being the opposition movement that has largely replaced Marxism since the failed revolutions of 1968.
Modernism is usually classified as a scientific perspective(as in, objective), while postmodernism is artistic (or subjective/relativistic). I'm not sure about the application of postmodernism within the political arena, and I've certainly never heard it applied as a counter-argument to Marxism. Any chance you could explain this in 30 words or less?
You're allowed to go over the abitrary limit if you could also contrast/compare the political definitions of modernism/postmodernism with the more prevalently understood concepts of modernism/postmodernism (such as are found in architecture, sculpture, and fashion).
[> [> [> [>
I hesitate to jump in here, -- Sophist, 09:05:46 03/03/03 Mon
especially since manwitch can speak for himself much better than I can. That said....
I interpreted him to refer to the fact that in academia in the US and, to a lesser extent, in other arenas of intellectual culture, Marxism has lost credence as an opposition theory to the dominant worldview and has been replaced by postmodernism. Not that postmodernism is necessarily antithetical to Marxism (though it probably is or should be), but that Marxism has lost its attractions and no longer provides a framework for critical criticism (to bastardize a Marxist phrase).
Modernism is usually classified as a scientific perspective(as in, objective), while postmodernism is artistic (or subjective/relativistic)
I'd modify this slightly. Yes, postmodernism is relativistic, but it gets there by means of a radical skepticism that doubts the existence of objectivity. Because of this radical skepticism (a trait which it shares, to some degree, with science), postmodernism has early modern (Spinoza) and even classical roots.
Now manwitch can correct me. But he still only gets 30 words or less.
[> [> [>
Your last sentence... -- Caroline, 20:35:31 03/02/03 Sun
brought up a huge question mark for me. In what sense has postmodernism replaced marxism as an opposition movement? In an ontological political sense, if one looks at modern social democracies and their smaller political parties that are elected in countries that have proportional representation, there are still communist and marxist parties (I use these words separately advisedly). Not only that, but new opposition groups have sprung up that have branched out from marxim - the green movement being one of them. In Australia, where I grew up, the green movement really began in the 70s with marxist builder's unions placing 'green' bans on types of development that were culturally or evironmentally unsound. The whole reasoning behind this came from a marxist perspective about the importance of the social and environmental space for the worker and was carried out with that old marxist worker's solidarity.
In an intellectual sense, marxist thought certainly did not die out or lose momentum, it merely did a rather nifty shift in geography. In France, there was Pierre Jalee and Andre Gorz (the latter wrote the rather fabulour Critique of Economic Reason), In Italy - Paolo Garegnani, in Germany - Claus Offe (Disorganized Capitalism) and Elmar Altvater (The Future of the Market).
In England, there was much work on extensions of Marxism after the publication of Sraffa's Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities. Sraffa challenged Marx's labour theory of value (the transformation problem). Sraffa's work is actually a challenge to all marginalist theories of wages, prices and profits, and proves to be an even larger challenge to neo-classical economics, the latter being unable to define capital without circularity. Economists working within the neo-marxist tradition in England include Ian Steedman, Geoff Harcourt (probably more a post-Keynesian), Maurice Dobb, and Perry Anderson (actually, Anderson was the editor of the New Left Review in the US - oops).
What is interesting about the most recent academic work in the marxist tradition is that just as it looked as though it was losing steam in France, it's traditional home, in the 1970s, it started to spring up in an unlikely place - America. Erik Olin Wright is a professor at Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison and has written a great deal on class issues.
As someone who works in economic development at a large, international institution, I am aware of how much the recent movements against globalization and the Washington consensus model of economic development owes much of its intellectual rigour on marxian thought. I wouldn't pronounce marxism dead yet.
Caroline (who studied lots and lots of marxism and post-keynsianism at school but who has tried to not bore you senseless with the transformation problem and the Sraffian concept of the numeraire).
[> [> [> [>
What I'm really trying to say in a nutshell.. -- Caroline, 20:48:37 03/02/03 Sun
is that I don't think that the 'grand narratives' that postmodernism is reacting against have actually gone away from the political or intellectual sphere.
More epiphanies (Angel Odyssey 2.15-2.16) -- Tchaikovsky, 09:22:38 03/02/03 Sun
Three good reasons to post these next two now. Firstly, Rahael claimed she might try to catch me up today, and I don't want her to have it too easy. Secondly, I'm desperately attempting to divert my attention from the fact that we've just lost the cricket to Australia in the last over after getting them 8 down for 120, facing 205. Suffice it to say it was like a last second touchdown or a home run at the bottom of the ninth. Not fun. And finally, the episodes are as great as I've come to expect from Tim Minear. And then some.
2.15- 'Reprise'
Interesting title which I haven't quite got my head round. Are we supposed to think that this is Angel's reprise- resuming on his course of destruction to Wolfram and Hart after the diversions of 'Happy Anniversary' and 'The Thin Dead Line'? Is it a nod to the fact that writers seemed to have completely discarded Darla at a vital moment? I'm not quite sure. What I did find more certain is that virtually everything that happenned in this episode almost inevitably fitted into the theme outlined at the end. That theme being the evil inside people. An evil which can never be defeated because it is not even looking for victory, just influence on normal people. And an evil whcih is perpertrated routinely in every day life, not just at the hands of big scary demons. In this way, the episode deals with themes also very important to the First Evil arc in Season Seven of Buffy. It also does it very elegantly and without making the episode feel constricting.
Consider all the different characters in this episode. There are a lot of them, partly because Minear realised he had the luxury of spreading several of the plots out into the second part of his double-bill. In each case, they either commit evil or have evil committed against them. In some cases, it is little things; inconsiderate things which could have been made easier, or failures of heart. They don't all seem that significant until you see them through the perpective of Manners' revelation later on. Let me point out a few
-Angel goes back to the guy he asked for information fifty years ago about the Hyperion. The man has remoulded his life on the idea that a vampire could care about defenceless humans, and try to kill demons for them. In one indifferent, malicious stroke Angel reveals that the whole premise for his reformation was false- that Angel in fact allowed the residents of the Hyperion to die. He may well have destroyed the man's hope in old age, after unwittingly making him a better man 50 years ago. All for no real reason. Of course this is all largely irrelevant due to
-Darla. Still, despite her knock back by Angel- she kills the old harmless man for no reason, and plays Lindsey [who I misspelt repeatedly yesterday, sorry to pedants everywhere] completely.
-Cordelia gives absolutely no ground to Angel, even threatening to stake him instead of giving him the book he requires.
-The mother of the Third Eye Girl, despite being a rich friend of Virginia Bryce and having her daughter saved from a life-time of triocularity, refuses to give any money to Angel Investigations purely because of personal prejudice.
-Virginia, who has been happy to take Wesley's good will and have her life saved by him, breaks up with him for no other reason than a lack of trust in him. While perhaps the least evil in itself, this certainly has deeply negative effect on Wesley, who then is unable to communicate his despair to Cordelia.
-Finally, and most dramatically of all, we have the sacking of Kate Lockley. I do not argue that the police were wrong to sack her, based on the information that they had, but lines such as that final one 'I'm just glad your Father isn't alive to see this', are callous and insensitive to the point of evil.
Here are six examples of mundane, undramatic evil which lead virtually evey character in the series to complete hopelessness by the end of 'Reprise'. In truth, due to the trajectory of the plot, I believe this is possibly the darkest episode, (maybe even hour of television per se), that I've seen in a long, long time. Virtually everyone ends in despair- even the mostly evil lawyers whose mindless attempts at getting into the Senior Partners good books are scuppered by Angel's killing of its terrestrial manifestation. The only two people who at the end of the episode are satisfied are both dead- Manners and Darla.
Now, unlike virtually any other writer on the show, Minear balances his episodes almost perfectly. We have the theme I described above in this episode. We also have a final twist which is yet another one of those 'Gah!' moments. It's entirely psychologically believable that Angel would sleep with Darla, and the line 'I just want to feel something besides the cold' is extremely poignant after his meeting with Manners. But it's also one of those things that, if you are unspoiled, just stuns you. Then on top of that there are some intelligently written yet visceral character moments, and a tiny bit of black humour. Some more high points.
-The goats and David Fury. I really don't see any reason why not. Very funny. And also led to that immortal line 'I'm cutting back on the goats. We've had complaints', which I really didn't understand at the time.
-Kate and Angel are thoroughly paralleled again. Kate, in doing what she believes is right, has exiled herself from the organisation of which she used to be such an integral part. And it's impossible for her to imagine life outside the Police Department. Angel has isolated himself from AI, which used to be the epitomy of all that he stood for. And he's finding it extremely difficult to function on his own- in fact, W+H are driving him to that moment of despair at the end of the episode.
-The idea that Evil is on earth is beautifully done with the lift, supposedly going down. The abstract concept of a board of Partners that Angel can fight is alluring, even if Angel's mission is deliberately kamikaze as Manners suggests. But the problem with real life and ANgel's existence is that evil is temporary, mobile and intangiblr. It can't be defeated by defeating a 'Big Bad'. It in fact can't be defeated at all. The visual metaphor for this is stunning, and I was interested to read Minear putting:
"Here's how something like this happens. We all sit around scratching our heads, then Joss [Whedon] says something to the effect of, 'Can Holland come back all dead and take Angel on an elevator ride to hell, but end up right back where he started?' Then I just try to work out the details. The bush is burning, and its name is Joss."
Love Minear best of all Angel writers, but interesting that Joss came up with one of the abiding plot twists and metaphors for this season as a whole (so far, at least).
-Of course the end is the classic 'Will he lose his soul?' mislead, although I'm pretty sure I'd guessed that Angelus wasn't in for a comeback by the end of 'Reprise'. The moral of the story was all wrong. It wouldn't have made narrative or thematic sense for Angel to experience a moment of perfect happiness as he raises the white flag of surrender to evil and resigns himself merely to feeling anything, to turning his back on his mission. So I wasn't entirely tricked here, (which is rare for me, as I usually fall for these things).
Supreme episode. Extremely dark- but partly because we leave at the darkest moment, with the resolutions to the despair all happenning in
2.16- 'Epiphany'
If 'Reprise' was exquisite, 'Epiphany' was perhaps exquiste-er. I suppose it's rather like trying to compare the three other genuinely top-quality two-parters in Mutant Enemy history- Becoming, Graduation Day and Five by Five/Sanctuary. I don't think evaluating one against the other helps much. Perhaps the newest offering is somewhat more detached than the Season Finales. I don't know. However, both episodes are great, and if 'Reprise' is a slide towards despair, 'Epiphany' is a realistic attempt to let the characters start to climb out of the gutter.
I had real difficulties fitting all my notes for this episode on my little envelope, but jsut about managed it. This may seem a little disjointed, but I'm just going to concentrate on a few of the many things I especially liked.
-There's the very strong parallel of the teaser in 'Innocence'. This episode is actually not in an altogether dissimilar position in Angel to where 'Innocence' was in Buffy, just more than half way through the second Season. And again we see Angel standing and crawling with difficulty in the hammering rain of despair and coming evil. But this time we have the exact opposite scenario played out. In 'Innocence', Buffy, Angel's partner is hurt as Angel loses all his humanity, and slides into what seems like pure, artistic evil, in still the most difficult scene to watch in the run of the shows for me (Angel's morning-after scene with Buffy). In 'Epiphany', Darla, Angel's partner is hurt as Angel regains part of his humanity, and certainly doesn't lose his soul. And, amidst the slight relief of Angel seeming to come to her senses, the viewer cannot help but feel sorry for Darla fleetingly. The one thing that she had confidence that she was good at cannot get her lost lover back again. After 400 years, Darla views herself as no more than a failed prostitute. And, even as a vampire, a soulless being with no moral compass, she seems to feel a kind of despair. A despair that making love with Angel turned into no more than a night on the job. She got the ring, but nothing else. As she rather defensively cries 'I don't understand... Was I...
was it... not good?' we are reminded of Buffy, and of Darla's lost humanity, and of how tragic each phase of her life has been. Angel realises that Darla has accidentally saved him from his darkest impulses, but Darla cannot comprehend the story. She seems the weaker of the two characters, which is most unusual for a vampire.
-Meanwhile, in a rather symmetrical way, Angel saves Kate. I did notice that Angel got into Kate's room without being invited, but assumed that he had been invited in before. More of that later.
-Lorne once again acts as the distant narrator, with lines like 'You've just turned a corner'. There's also the extremely sly metanarration when he says 'I think I speak for us all when I say- if all you're going to do is swicth back to brood mode- we'd rather have you evil' The audience love seeing Angelus, and I wouldn't be entirely surprised if a large section of the audience was deeply confused by the noir Angel storyline. Lorne sneakily addresses this issue, speaking once more as the writer and the audience, rather than just a character.
-Cordelia has a Vision of herself- which, as she tells the Powers That Be, doesn't help much as it comes too late. It seems obviously to be a reference to Angel's own epiphany though; a moment where you see yourself in a new light.
--Wesley and Angel's gradual reconciliation is very powerful to watch, and this is definitely the episode that engaged me the most emotionally of any Angel episode thusfar. Angel makes comments like 'You did a good thing', and we realise that after his revelation, that really isn't a platitude. There's also the fun of him noticing that, via 'Blood Money' and 'The Thin Dead Line', Wesley and Gunn have gone from being rather adversarial to being good friends while Angel has been away.
Of course, Lindsey is the old pre-epiphany Angel. He is still obsessed with Darla, and still willing to lash out in order to get his way. The idea of the out-of-control car neatly symbolises what Lindsey is feeling now, and how Angel was acting around the time of 'Redefnition'. And there's the tidy moment where Angel cuts off Lindsey's artificial hand, and claims that before he would have cut off the other one. His realisation has not made him soppy, just allowed him to re-focus.
-Then there are the stellar final two scenes. Kate's final scene with Kate is really wonderful. It comes back to the idea that I expressed in my post on epiphanies in November, before watching any Angel. Angel has realised that it needs to be good for good's sake at the end of 'In the Dark', 'I Will Remember You' and 'Judgement', but here realises it again a little deeper and with a little more recognition. It's not his first epiphany of this fact, but one of those multiple epiphanies lke Buffy has about keeping things secret, or Willow has about not controlling things she can't control. Here, however, Angel learns his lesson with a little more clarity than usual, and thus we get marvellous lines like 'The smallest act of kindness is the greatest gift in the world'. How powerfully truthful and uplifting. I sit on the fence slightly on the Divine Providence twist. It's clear that there are Higher Powers in Angel's Universe, (although oddly enough, there's little evidence that there is in Buffy's story), but how we are to take the moment of changing of the laws of the Universe is difficult. It could be a true goodness conquers restriction moment, or maybe the happenning symbolises another example of a character needing to be ready to see hope, (exactly like Angel at the end of 'Amends'). I'm sure it's not just a Christian or theistic message, but there does often seem to be a message of fate and 'Rightness' running through the storyline.
-And then the very final scene with Angel, Cordelia, Wesley and Gunn. Although the writing is a little less profound, I find this deeply moving, especially since it is the first time I found I really cared what happenned about these people in LA, and the first time I was close to tears, (didn't quite make it, but it will happen soon, I'm sure). Angel is big enough to say sorry, and to realise that it's not about returning to a position of leadership, but just helping to do good and alleviate suffering by helping. And Angel's harshest critic- Cordelia, the girl who was betrayed by everyone until Angel, and then felt betrayed again, is swayed by the most beautifully symbolic act of Angel supporting her through her vision. Wesley and Gunn earlier in the season let Cordelia fall to the floor. Cordelia realises, as we realise because of the parallel scenes, that she and the gang have missed Angel. Angel really will support Cordelia, because it's the right thing to do. And, through all the painful individuality and personal struggles and conflicts of interest, there's still just the faintest hope that those people who you know might be able to share with you something extremely special. The battle. And if the battle cannot be won, then just random acts of help and empathy. Which is what we call life.
TCH
[>
Some quick comments -- KdS, 09:59:39 03/02/03 Sun
Firstly, I think that the title of Reprise is a clear pun on Surprise, which also ended with a defeated Angel seeking solace in sex, albeit with the opposite result.
Secondly, I don't see Vriginia's split with Wes as being a lack of trust - I always understood it as simply that she felt she wasn't capable of surviving the stress of a relationship with someone who could get killed at any time.
I hope you get more out of Disharmony than you seem to have done last time.
[> [>
Yes, both of those work -- Tchaikovsky, 10:10:26 03/02/03 Sun
On the first point, that fits in with the parallel of the beginning of 'Innocence' and the beginning of 'Epiphany' that I mentioned above.
On the second point, you're quite right- I think I was trying to squeeze one too many things into my 'incidences of evil' list.
'Disharmony', 'Dead End' and 'Belonging' coming by Tuesday
TCH
[> [> [>
Re: Reprise as the title -- AngelVSAngelus, 14:29:06 03/02/03 Sun
I took the title as a commentary on the cyclical nature of things, how despite himself and his plan of change and action against Wolfram and Hart, Angel ended up right back at both square one and rock bottom.
There was recurring imagery that you've already discussed, a la Darla/Buffy wake up to Angel paralels. I also thought that it was a recurrence, when he killed the senior partner, a repetition of the events of his return by the Powers in the first place from S3 of Buffy.
A ring was placed on the ground, and he fell from the sky. Here, a ring beats him to the ground as both fall fifty stories from the Wolfram and Hart window.
His reunion with Denver from his past is a repetition.
The fact that once again his existence is revolving around an obsession with Darla is a repetition.
[> [> [> [>
Good points- often miss those visual parallels -- Tchaikovsky, 01:01:18 03/03/03 Mon
[> [> [> [>
On the title: see 'Everything You Know is Wrong,' above -- cjl, 07:51:13 03/03/03 Mon
[>
Re: More epiphanies (Angel Odyssey 2.15-2.16) -- Rahael, 10:01:29 03/02/03 Sun
Firstly, Rahael claimed she might try to catch me up today, and I don't want her to have it too easy
Hehehe. I haven't caught up with you, but I shall watch these eps after I have posted this.
I had my first teary eyed moment when I was watching The Trial. When we realise that Angel is prepared to die for Darla.
Then I had several "Gah!" moments. Because first, the ep sets up that old old resonance of someone paying the price for a sinful human, without any guarantee that the human might reform and lead a better life. A second chance. Angel, with tortured chest and outstretched arms.
(and the echo, for me of "God doesn't want you, but I still do)
But then, this is subverted by the fact that all Angel can offer Darla is mortal life. It is Drusilla who gives Darla eternal life.
And finally, we have the knowledge that Darla is prepared to leave life as she first should have, before a cloaked priest turned up to offer her salvation and eternal life.
I had a second teary eyed moment as Angel holds Darla in the motel room, both now finally prepared to let go of her life.
Goodness me. This second viewing of AtS S2 is proving quite the revelation.
[> [>
To muddy the waters further -- Tchaikovsky, 10:17:32 03/02/03 Sun
Because first, the ep sets up that old old resonance of someone paying the price for a sinful human, without any guarantee that the human might reform and lead a better life. A second chance. Angel, with tortured chest and outstretched arms.
Indeed, very messianic. Except, of course, that by sacrificing himself for Darla alone, Angel is denying his help to all the other people he might save if he chose himself over the morally ambiguous Darla. The beauty of the Christian story is that Jesus saves one individual and the whole of the human race. Angel, in his powerful act of 'attempted matyrdom', is denying the lives of the many for the life of the one. Yet another subversion. Angel, in sacrificing is both allowing the one to live but denying the whole of LA's society continued safeguarded life by being their Protector.
And great point on the mortal/eternal life.
TCH
[> [> [>
Re: To muddy the waters further -- lunasea, 12:46:48 03/03/03 Mon
Except, of course, that by sacrificing himself for Darla alone, Angel is denying his help to all the other people he might save if he chose himself over the morally ambiguous Darla.
Buffy did the same thing in "The Gift." She didn't die to save the world. It happened to do that, but she died to save Dawn. Sunnydale was almost destroyed because of her sacrifice. The other Slayer was locked up in jail. Who would fight against the forces of darkness?
Both these sacrifices aren't viewed from the perspective of "denying the whole of LA's [or Sunnydale's] society continued safeguarded life by being their Protector." They are viewed from the purety of the moment. It wasn't even about doing the "right" thing. It was the hearts of the characters bared to the audience.
When Buffy was on top of the platform she learned what she was capable of. When Angel didn't loose his soul, he did the same thing. The Trials were echoed in what led Angel to his Epiphany and instead of saving Darla, they saved Angel. I love how that episode plays out in Angel's dark night which culminates in his Epiphany. When Angel is ready to loose his soul it is like when he was ready to be staked and give up his existence.
In totally surrendering to Darla, Angel learns what is left. Why couldn't he loose his soul? Why couldn't he take comfort in Darla? What was important to Angel? Why couldn't he go back?
[> [>
Teary-eyed moments -- Masq, 14:51:43 03/02/03 Sun
Are you telling me you didn't bawl your head off when Doyle sacrificed himself in "Hero"? Or later in the ep, when Cordelia and Angel replayed Doyle's advertisement tape and considered what he said in a whole new light? I still tear up during that episode!
[> [> [>
For some reason, I don't -- Rahael, 15:18:30 03/03/03 Mon
I don't know why, Hero just doesn't get to me that way. But The Trial didn't get to me that way when I first saw it. Maybe if I went back.......
[> [>
Crazy theory about Conner -- Tess, 18:31:05 03/02/03 Sun
""Then I had several "Gah!" moments. Because first, the ep sets up that old old resonance of someone paying the price for a sinful human, without any guarantee that the human might reform and lead a better life. A second chance. Angel, with tortured chest and outstretched arms.""
Until ME tells me otherwise my current theory on Conner's conception is that he is the life Angel earned but they were unable to give Darla.
Geez, I missed this board. Who would have thought the flu and a disconnected computer (been painting the computer room) would make three days seem like thirty.
[> [> [>
Season 3 spoilers above -- Masq, 20:09:35 03/02/03 Sun
Just in case ; )
[> [> [>
Re: ?/spec/spoiler AtS S4 up to Calvary -- aliera, 20:15:58 03/02/03 Sun
I wondered where you were...can I compare painting war stories? Nah...I just wanna forget. I like your theory. Would the beast qualify as the balancing factor? Or the gift with purchase? Or are you thinking he's related to Cordy's return? (If in fact she did yet ;-)
[> [> [> [>
Re: ?/spec/spoiler AtS S4 up to Calvary -- Tess, 21:57:34 03/02/03 Sun
""I wondered where you were...can I compare painting war stories?""
Nice to know I was missed, and go ahead and tell me yours cause mine isn't finished yet...just done enough that I could hook the computer back up again for a while. The worst part was my teenage son decided that certain parts of my computer would work best on his computer so took the down time to commandeer speakers/mouse/and even tried to take my monitor. Errr, kids.
As for The Beast, my guess (and that's all any of this is is a guess cause I'm living spoiler free these days) is that he's connected to whatever has been masquarading as Cordy for the last season and a half.
Not that this has anything to do with this thread, but is there any word out there on when Charisma's baby is due? I wonder how they are going to work her maternity leave into the show. For that matter I wonder what contingency plans they had devised if she'd had to do the complete bed rest thing before delivery. It's actually surprising that ME has made it seven years without having to deal with an actress' real life pregnancy.
[> [> [> [> [>
rufus...dub? Question re: Charisma Carpenter above? -- aliera, 05:14:48 03/03/03 Mon
Spring 2003...some sites have listed March as the due date. Rufus or dub or others may know more about future spec and how Charisma is worked into it. I'm also trying to give this year a chance without reading spoilers. (Sorry guys just an experiment.)
Further OT portion...
I'll spare you mine! Basically I'm shifting the downstairs of my house from white to varying shades of cream. The house cracks me up. It was built around 1900 so it no longer has any straight lines or right angles...I could make a metaphor off of this but I'll spare you that also. It also has some nifty features I wasn't aware of when I bought it. Like when I removed the harvest gold wall paper from my son's bedroom walls, I discovered a nice 1x2' hole!
In terms of the computer, I share your pain; Ben covets my memory chips. Wait 'til your son gets beyond the peripherals!
[> [> [> [> [> [>
March 10...one week from today -- lurker dub ;o), 12:09:30 03/03/03 Mon
[> [>
Re: More epiphanies (Angel Odyssey 2.15-2.16) -- lunasea, 12:13:00 03/03/03 Mon
But then, this is subverted by the fact that all Angel can offer Darla is mortal life. It is Drusilla who gives Darla eternal life.
In the Buffyverse isn't a mortal like the ultimate prize or goal? It is what Angel is working for. Anya got it this season. Buffy will probably loose her slayer powers at the end of this season. Spike messed up by getting a soul instead of becoming human. Mortality isn't "all that someone can offer." It is the big thing. Eternal life is no prize.
[> [> [>
I agree with you! -- Rahael, 15:14:13 03/03/03 Mon
I thought that was implicit in the comparison.
[>
And one footnote... -- Tchaikovsky, 10:03:31 03/02/03 Sun
Did you equally cursed and blessed people have 'The Body' and 'Epiphany' on the same day? They are both Episode 16. If so, what a night that must have been.
TCH
[>
If this gets archived as quickly as others, can it be brought back? -- Rahael, 10:07:41 03/02/03 Sun
The non fiction thread seems to have got it, as did TCH's earlier Odyssey thread. Once the big thread at the bottom of the board leaves, maybe some of the other prematurely archived ones could be brought back/
[> [>
Rah, it's back.... -- Masq, 14:14:35 03/02/03 Sun
[> [> [>
Down below v -- Masq, 14:37:24 03/02/03 Sun
I had to archive Shadowkat's very successful disgruntlement-with-Storyteller, and bring back the poor threads it displaced.
[> [> [>
Many thanks, Masq!! -- Rahael, 14:44:10 03/02/03 Sun
[>
Blowing my own trumpet -- KdS, 10:15:47 03/02/03 Sun
TCH, my first extended esssay on the board was an attempt to interpret Angel's noir period in the context of the tradition of the sadistic avenging "hero" in US pulp fiction and superhero comics:
http://www.atpobtvs.com/existentialscoobies/archives/aug02_p02.html#5
I'd be interested to hear what you think.
[> [>
Fascinating -- Tchaikovsky, 14:34:30 03/02/03 Sun
I don't really know anything about the genres you consider, but was very interested in the history of the Dark Avenger archetype that you wove together so intriguingly.
A couple of thoughts:
Is it true that throughout his 'war' from 'Reunion' through to 'Blood Money', Angel really thinks he's doing a great thing by his noir-ness? There's that line in 'Redefinition': 'You fight the good fight. Someone's got to fight the War'. I would personally claim that under the surface, Angel knows what he's doing is wrong, and that his confession to Lorne marks his first opportunity to really confide in someone, rather than his first thought that his Dark Avenger persona is wrong. However, Angel attempts to wallow in his own propaganda. The whole interior monologue in 'Redefinition' seemed like he was trying to convince himself (and we the audience were almost acting as his conscience), and the militaristic music suggested a slight lack in his real belief on the morality of his actions. For this reason, when Angel quickly shuffles out of the Dark Avenger stereotype in 'Happy Anniversary', it is not a contrived plot twist.
However, you are right to say that Angel has almost become an Angelus type character but with a soul, and that Mutant Enemy shows his assumed role to be morally reprehensible, even more so since it claims to be fighting for good in a way other people cannot, but is instead glorying in violence, personal vendettas [vendetti?] and sadistic torture.
Ultimately, our everymen, Xander and Cordelia (from what I've seen), always pull the erring superheroes, (Angel/Willow/Buffy etc) back from situations in which they consider that it is a requirement and a privilege to fight evil with evil and to claim ordinary people do not have the requisite 'darkness'. For this reason, I come to the same conclusion as you do- namely that both Season Six of Buffy and the Noir Angel arc ultimately decline the idea of an iconic, heroic Dark Avenger archetype.
Thanks for the link. These archives really are a goldmine.
TCH
[> [> [>
Re: Fascinating -- KdS, 15:24:23 03/02/03 Sun
I would personally claim that under the surface, Angel knows what he's doing is wrong
Absolutely, and I suspect that that was a deliberate early clue to how things would turn out. Since I wrote the essay, I've been reading Spillane in a little more depth, and it's possible to see a similar tendency in Hammer's narrations (although I still doubt that it was deliberately put there by Spillane).
Ultimately, our everymen, Xander and Cordelia (from what I've seen), always pull the erring superheroes, (Angel/Willow/Buffy etc) back from situations in which they consider that it is a requirement and a privilege to fight evil with evil and to claim ordinary people do not have the requisite 'darkness'. For this reason, I come to the same conclusion as you do- namely that both Season Six of Buffy and the Noir Angel arc ultimately decline the idea of an iconic, heroic Dark Avenger archetype.
I really hope that S7 will decline it in the same way ;-)
[>
Just how big is this 'envelope'? -- Masq, 14:48:48 03/02/03 Sun
You have wonderfully detailed analyses, so I'm just wondering...
[> [>
5'x3' -- Tchaikovsky, 00:44:59 03/03/03 Mon
[> [> [>
Lol! How small is your writing??? -- Masq, 09:19:29 03/03/03 Mon
[> [> [> [>
Actually... -- Tchaikovsky, 11:45:38 03/03/03 Mon
Just for you, Masq, I went home and measured my envelopes. They are five and a half inches by three and a half, and according to the packet are 'Duke' size, if that helps.
I usually only write a word like 'Cordelia's hair' or 'Keats' urn' to prompt me when I write, rather than going through all the thoughts while I'm watching, because otherwise I'd both miss [even more] things in the episode, and not have the same freedom when I actually wrote.
TCH
[>
Tim Minear's thoughts on them (Angel Odyssey 2.15-2.16) -- s'kat, 16:09:20 03/02/03 Sun
More of what Tim Minear says as taken from his interview on all the episodes on Ats Season 2 in SFX VAMPIRE SPECIAL EDITION 2002.
REPRISE
"A tricky episode, " elaborates Minear. "I remember when we were shooting, 'Blood Money' Joss came down to the set and I was there supervising. We were talking about what episode 15 would be. I had an idea that since Angel slept with Buffy and it turned him evil, and since he was dark in this point of the series and we wanted to bring him back into some of the light, maybe if he slept with Darla it would turn him good. So it was the opposite of Buffy. The idea was that it would echo [the Buffy episode] "Surprise" -hence the name Reprise. 'Reprise' would basically end the same way that 'Surprise' did. When he work up it would echo 'Innocence' [the following episode of Buffy] except that he would have turned good instead of evil."
"I guess there are different ways to interpre the elevator ride [to Hell], but I will interpret it the way I intended it, which is that Angel knows that a Senior Partner will be arriving for this meeting. He has a few pices of information and he is assuming, since one of the pieces of information is the term 'Home Office', that the Senior Partner will be coming from the home office. In fact that is not what is happening. The Senior PArtner is coming to the home office. What we discover when the elevator ends up where it started is that this world is the source of all their power. So the very thing that Angel is trying to save is also the thing he has to fight. Which descends very much into esoterica and existential despair, but that's a place I like to go with the show. The idea here was to sink everybody as deep as I could get them, hence that montage at the end. Everybody has had something taken away from them. And Angel in an act of despair turns to Darla and does her."
EPIPHANY
"We always knew Epiphany would be a lighter episode, " says Minear. "When it goes that dark, you can't really sustain that tone."
(Interview: Epiphany aired on the same night as Buffy's The Body, which dealt with the aftermath of Joyce Summer's death. Joss Whedon had apparently told the staff that Angel had to be lighter to counterblanace the grimness of Buffy. )
"We knew that he would be coming out of his despair in Epiphany and we knew that the Body was airing that night, so it seemed like a good fit. However I believe this is what should have happened on Angel no matter what. The fact that it was paired with The Body was a happy pairing, but I know that we've been accused of forcing the show in a certain direction in order to complement Buffy. That really hasn't happened. Certainly not to the degree that people might think. You do want them to complement each other, and I also know that some people don't watch both shows, because they can't take two hours of it." [Odd, I could do six or seven with no problem...people are wierd ;-) ]
"I can give you an example of something I did have to adjust because of Joss' brillant, Emmy-ignored 'The Body," Minear adds. "In Epiphany, when we were going to show Kate puking her guts out. I had to lose that from the episode because Buffy was puking on Buffy that night. Joss felt, and rightly so, that it was way too much puking for two hours."
"I stole a couple of lines from 'Innocence'," says Minear, "when Buffy says to Angel, "Was I no good?', I had Darla say the same thing to Angel. On Buffy your heart is getting torn out, but on Angel it's more or less comedy where she's upset he didn't turn evil and is fearful she's not very good in bed. Most people knew it was bullshit, that he wouldn't lose his soul because he was with Darla. Sex can turn him evil, if it's perfect happiness. It doesn't mean it will. Basically he can have sex with people he doesn't like. I just think it's funny that we're almost saying, "Sex with someone you don't love can only lead to pain. Sex with someone you don't really like can actually turn out to be good for you.""
(Interview: The battle between Angel and Lindsey is particularly brutal; fans, predictably, loved it. "It's the most violent thing we've ever done," laughs Minear. "David Greenwalt wanted me to tone it down a little bit. He left it up to me, but he said,' I feel like this is too violent.' I felt it wasn't and he was like, ' Okay.' It's so funny, we didn't get a note from the network about that. The note I did get was about the end of Reprise when Angel drops the ring and says, 'Do you want this?' and Darla grabs for it. We filmed an extra slap which had to be cut. It's all about context, because he's about to take her and it does start to look a little bit like rape. The funny thing is, they didn't give me a note on his throwing her through the doors. He throws her through the doors and she lands on her hands and elbows on a pile of broken glass. They didn't give me a note on that, but the little face slap they insisted on cutting. Then with the Lindsey/Angel thing I didn't get a note at all, and that was incredibly violent."
[Weird censors.]
"Christian Kane was doing all his own stuff in that scene. He was really into it. The fun thing is that Christian for a year and a half complained about the suits and ties. Hates them, doesn't want to wear them and I have to be very explicit and say, 'He's got his tie on in this scene, it's very important because later he's going to pull off his tie and it's going to mean something. Therefore he needs to have his tie on.'"
pp. 57-58 of SFX Vampire Special edition, Angel season 2 Overview.
Hope this was interesting and added something to the great reviews above.
SK
[> [>
Very helpful s'kat -- Scroll, 16:24:53 03/02/03 Sun
"In Epiphany, when we were going to show Kate puking her guts out. I had to lose that from the episode because Buffy was puking on Buffy that night. Joss felt, and rightly so, that it was way too much puking for two hours."
So it's good to know the writers had planned for Kate puking but had to cut it because the grossness quotient of the evening had been used up already. Because lots of people complain that it was too easy for Angel to revive an overdosed Kate just with a shower. But if we knew she woke up in the shower, puked her guts out, then kicked Angel out of her apartment, then it makes a lot more sense. Sorta...
Ah well. Like math, Joss (and his writers) sucks at emergency medical situations.
[> [>
S'kat, can you send me the full text of this article? -- Masq, 20:12:49 03/02/03 Sun
It seems like Minear has quotes on just about every episode that's aired, and Noxon on Buffy. I'd like to have copies of that.
[> [> [>
Re: S'kat, can you send me the full text of this article? -- s'kat, 21:48:08 03/02/03 Sun
A...well I could transcribe most of it. I've been copying-typing from the page the episode commentary Minear has.
(Just like Rah does from DVD commentary). The reason didn't type everything is it takes time. What I can do is email
you as much as possible or I can just post most of it to the board and people can grab what they can.
(I'm trying be careful here, since if I include too much - I really infringe on copyright laws.)
So here's what I can type up or options:
Post or just email to you and let you decide what to do with it:
1. the rest of Minear's quotage on Season 2 Overview.
(only posted part of it...the article is 48-60 (10-15pages))
2. Some of the relevant bits from Joss Whedon on evolution of Angel and Buffy Cast and Buffy Movie and films he's done (haven't posted)
3. I already posted all of Marti N's and Tim's Minear's thoughts on Season's 3 Ats and Season 6 Btvs - in archive 1 or 2 I think. (There's another article that discusses what they were thinking at beginning of Season 6 Btvs - article published mid-season if you want that one, haven't posted it.)
That's all I have. Which do you want? And How do you want me to do it? Post? Email? Let me know.
[> [> [> [>
Re: S'kat, can you send me the full text of this article? -- Masq, 09:36:06 03/03/03 Mon
email as much of it as you can reasonably type up. And thanks!
[> [> [> [> [>
Masq - You have email -- sk, 11:43:18 03/03/03 Mon
I only typed the remainder of Season 2 Angel Overview - most relevant and interesting.
One note - can't remember where I read it - but I know I did, the reason they did Pylea was ALL their guest-star negotiations fell through and they had to come up with another idea. Joss Whedon suggested the Pylea arc and the introduction of Fred.
[> [>
Thanks for posting these Shadowkat -- Tchaikovsky, 01:00:00 03/03/03 Mon
I'm pleased with myself for picking the 'Was I not good?' parallel line from 'Innocence', and a couple of other things chimed for me. Glad to know that my little bubble of personal perception isn't entirely crazy.
TCH
[>
Recommending an HonorH fanfic -- Scroll, 16:44:01 03/02/03 Sun
"Reprise/Epiphany" are two of my favourite Angel episodes. "Reprise" is so good, it hurts. That's actually kind of why I prefer "Epiphany" -- the lighter tone makes it easier to watch, I find.
Kate's quiet conversation with Angel is one of those Angel scenes that really crystalises the underlying concept of the show. I really enjoy the dynamics between these two characters. I hope she doesn't mind, but allow me recommend one of HonorH's fanfics, "Rebuilding". It's pretty much just an expansion of the garden scene. You can find it at Fanfiction.net. (I would link directly to the story, but my computer doesn't seem to like Fanfiction.net at the moment.)
Personally, I don't think this is her best story (just because there are many others much better!) but I love what it says about the Angel/Kate friendship. A very mature, realistic look at an adult relationship
[> [>
Her profile page -- Scroll, 17:07:02 03/02/03 Sun
Okay, below is HonorH's profile page at Fanfiction.net. My favourites include "That's Life", "Dawn and the Dead", and "One Lucky Guy". I also adore her hilarious "'Ships" parodies.
http://www.fanfiction.net/profile.php?userid=29024
[> [>
Had we but world enough... -- Tchaikovsky, 05:59:50 03/03/03 Mon
When I feel really self-indulgent and have oodles of time, (which is relatively rare), I plunge into HonorH's fiction, although I haven't had time ot read the longer Dawn-centric ones, but I'm desperate to do so some time. This is a really interesting expansion, and the voices are dead-on.
TCH
[>
Re: More epiphanies (Angel Odyssey 2.15-2.16) -- yabyumpan, 17:12:05 03/02/03 Sun
Great reviews as usual TCH.There was some interesting stuff in the shooting script of the elevator scene from 'Reprise' which was left out of the final cut...
HOLLAND
Well, this is exciting, isn't it?
Going straight to the source.
Angel keeps his eyes forward.
HOLLAND
For a man who's turned his back on
his mission, you're awfully scrappy.
I do so admire that. No messy moral
philosophy, no guiding principles to
muddle things. Just that pure,
unpolluted human drive to win.
(then)
You would have made an excellent
attorney.
Angel tugs at the glove, flexes his fingers. Getting ready for battle with whatever lies below. Holland observes this with delight.
.........
HOLLAND
Now, I don't think that's true. Be
honest. You've got just the tiniest
bit of "give a crap" left, otherwise
you wouldn't be going on this
kamikaze mission.
(recalling)
Now, let me see... there was something
in a sacred prophecy if I recall... Some
oblique reference to you. Shanshu.
Yes. That was it. The promise of
the gift of humanity.
(then)
Now won't that be a prize!
Holland lets that hang there, grinning. Continues.
HOLLAND
And all you have to do, if memory
servers, is prevent some event from
taking place... what was that?
Holland faux muses. Eventually:
ANGEL
The Apocalypse.
HOLLAND
Yes, of course. The "Apocalypse."
(after a beat)
Another one of those...
(then)
It's true, we do have one scheduled.
And I imagine if you were to prevent
it, you'd save a great many people.
Well, you should do that, then.
Absolutely. I wasn't thinking.
A beat. The elevator HUMS along. MUZAK continues to play. Holland's musing to himself for a moment, then --
HOLLAND
Of course... all those people you
save from the Apocalypse would
then have the next one to look
forward to...
(then)
Well, it's always something, isn't it?
Save them, don't save them. These
things tend to work themselves
out in the end. You do what you can.
ANGEL
You're not gonna win.
HOLLAND
Well... no, of course we aren't. We
have no intention of doing anything
so prosaic as "winning."
Angel reacts to that, looks to the chipper Holland. Finally --
ANGEL
Then why?
HOLLAND
I'm sorry, "why" what?
ANGEL
Why fight?
HOLLAND
That's really a question you should
be asking yourself, isn't it? For us,
there is no fight. Which is why
"winning" doesn't enter into it. We
go on, no matter what. Our firm has
always been here in one form or
another. The Inquisition, the Khmer
Rouge -- we were here the first time
a caveman clubbed his neighbor and
watched in fascination as his brains
oozed out in the dirt. We're in the
hearts and minds of every living
human being and that, friend, is
what's making things so difficult for
you. The senior partners are evil and
powerful beyond imagination, and
you can try to fight them, but the
source of their power... that's beyond
all of us. The world doesn't work in
spite of evil, Angel. It works with us.
It works because of us.
The doors slide open... revealing:
THE STREET IN FRONT OF WOLFRAM AND HART
The exact spot where Angel got on. FOOT TRAFFIC. CARS. PEOPLE. Angel takes this in.
ANGEL
This isn't...
HOLLAND
You know it is.
ANGEL'S POV
Of the people. ANGRY MOTORISTS, FAT BUSINESS MEN passing by FILTHY BUMS. A pissed off MOTHER yanking on the arm of a CRYING CHILD. Like that. Angel takes in the faces, sees them as though for the first time. And they are ugly.
Holland leans in to Angel's ear.
HOLLAND
You know it better than anyone. The
things you've seen. The things you've,
well, done. When you locked those
cellar doors and left me to die, you
reached your Shanshu. In that
moment. With that one act --
you were as close to your own
humanity as you'll ever be. If
there wasn't evil in every single
one of them out there, why, they
wouldn't be people. They'd all
be angels.
from psyche's site
The part I find most interesting is:
When you locked those cellar doors and left me to die, you reached your Shanshu. In that moment. With that one act -- you were as close to your own humanity as you'll ever be
I know a lot of people saw Angel's 'noir' period as getting in touch with Angelus, but for me I always felt that he was reacting in a very 'human' way. His downward spiral was marked with anger, frustration and despair, Angelus is all about pleasure and power and control. (I think this applies to trying to smother Wesley in 'Forgiving' as well). His darkness reminded me somewhat of war veterans, broken by what they'd seen and done or of someone who had violently lost a loved one and can't see beyond revenge. I saw his decline in S2 as someone who'd been brought to the limit of his endurance and had finally cracked. 'Noir' Angel to me was like watching someone go through a breakdown, which is probably why I'm inclined to be more sympathetic to him than a lot of people.
It's also why I'm inclined to be less sympathetic to the rest of AI than a lot of people. They had seen how W&H had brought Darla back to torment him and make him go dark, to take him out of the game. He came back from Holland Manners house in 'Reunion', told them what had happened (he didn't have to) and sat there while they judged him. They knew that W&H had been trying to make him crazy and when they succeed all they seem to care about is that he hurt them by firing them. It also bothered me that someone who had met Angelus personally and an ex-watcher, weren't more concerned about what he might do. They didn't appear to be keeping tabs on him.
I realise that in terms of the story and his eventual 'epiphany' it needed to go like that but I would have liked to have had some indication that they were concerned about more than just their own personal hurt.
[> [>
None of that was cut from the NA version -- Scroll, 18:32:31 03/02/03 Sun
Maybe the UK version cuts more stuff because none of the stuff you bolded got cut from the North America version I saw. It had everything you've copied from the shooting script.
But ITA on Angel's "noir" period as him getting in touch with his human side. Especially in light of what Darla says in "Redefinition" after he toasts her and Dru: "That wasn't Angel. It wasn't Angelus either. Who was that?"
As for the Fang Gang's inability to understand Angel, I think they did kinda fail to understand. Which, IMHO, was kind of the point. Angel was feeling very much alone, having lost the one person he thought could ever really be like him (Darla). So while I wanted to kick Angel's butt for acting like an ass for half a season, I was also disgrunted with C/W/G for not really understanding Angel's POV. Yeah, it was messy all around.
Of course, now that Spike has a soul, we really should get at least a scene (or at least a reaction shot?) of Angel finding out that there's now somebody out there who really gets him, who's in the same boat. It would be cool for a crossover :)
[> [> [>
Pretty sure that was cut from the UK version -- Tchaikovsky, 00:53:13 03/03/03 Mon
If there really is a difference, then I personally don't think that theshorter version misses much. Manners speech is a little rambly in the longer version, while the shorter version leaves a lot to the viewer's own insight or even imagination. The couple of Shanshu lines are interesting though.
I'm a little on the fence with Angel going through a nervous breakdown/Angel channelling Angelus. I would agree that his emotional turmoil is actually very human- he is reacting to being tormented by finding it difficult to act rationally. But I also think that in doing so, he attempts to toughen himself into a kind of character who he doesn't really believe himself to be. In a few of the mid Season-Two episodes, he acts out this 'means to an end' archetype which, despite all his emotional trauma, is morally reprehensible. And he largely does it by isolating himself from the rest of AI. They were attempting to be supportive, (albeit in a very flawed, human way) but if you're told that you've been sacked, then there's very little you can do.
TCH
[> [> [> [>
Re: Pretty sure that was cut from the UK version -- yabyumpan, 17:30:24 03/03/03 Mon
They were attempting to be supportive, (albeit in a very flawed, human way) but if you're told that you've been sacked, then there's very little you can do.
Maybe from a 'normal' job, but when the person who sacked you has just confessed to locking a bunch of people in a room with 2 Vampires, well, the words 'tranquilizer gun' and 'chains' come to mind. As I said, I do understand within the context of the story being told why they couldn't actually go there, but I would have like some indication that W/C/G were at least worried about what he might do and maybe discussed options. Wesley and Cordy had both at that point said that they would stake Angel if need be, how could they know that it was necessary if they didn't keep tabs on him? Especially as, if Angel did turn totally evil, they would probably be first on the list. Their focusing just on their own feelings of betrayal just didn't make sense to me when they knew what could happen if he really did loose it.
[> [>
Re: More epiphanies (Angel Odyssey 2.15-2.16) -- lunasea, 14:32:14 03/03/03 Mon
I loved what you said and agreed with everything you said. People are too quick to label anything not angelic that Angel does as Angelus. I have a feeling we are going to learn this season how much of Angelus isn't the demon at all.
Angel himself is scared of anything that is remotely Angelus-like. He is scared if he takes one drink that he will not only fall off the wagon, but push the other passengers into the mud and run them over with the wagon as well. The show has done a great job with this.
Now we have Uber-Champion Angel that is as far removed from his humanity as he was season 1, just in the other direction. I love how the show has taken us full circle with this.
[>
echo of another line (w/multiple quotes) -- anom, 22:18:01 03/02/03 Sun
"It's entirely psychologically believable that Angel would sleep with Darla, and the line 'I just want to feel something besides the cold' is extremely poignant after his meeting with Manners."
I also like the way it echoes the dialogue yabyumpan quoted in your other thread:
"Host: 'You kind of left them [the rest of AI] in the cold.'
Angel: 'It's a lot colder in here.'"
I don't think there was any chance he could have felt complete happiness from having sex with Darla.
And KdS said, "Firstly, I think that the title of Reprise is a clear pun on Surprise, which also ended with a defeated Angel seeking solace in sex, albeit with the opposite result."
Nice point, KdS. I'd say also w/the opposite motivation: instead of having sex because of the intensity of his emotions (even though he doesn't want to feel them: "I try not to"), this time Angel has sex because he's unable to feel anything & does want to.
[> [>
Re: echo of another line (w/multiple quotes) -- lunseas, 15:22:37 03/03/03 Mon
this time Angel has sex because he's unable to feel anything & does want to.
Same thing as Buffy with Spike. Don't you love when they do that? If Angel and Buffy were any more similar, Willow could date Angel(ina) or Xander could gay it up with Biff :-)
Current board
| More March 2003