here about Margaret Atwood's experience watching her novel turned into an opera. Of course she mainly talks about politics and the inspiration for her book, all of which seemed vaguely related to this thread but definitely worth reading.
A sample:
It is an axiom of most dictatorships that they try to control sexuality, both male and female, and that they suppress most men, but all women...
and something that seemed relevant to Buffy's "you don't defeat evil by doing evil" argument with Giles:
Lenin was not alone in believing that the end justifies the means: lots of people believe it, or act as if they do. It takes bravery of a different sort to maintain that the means defines the end: risk it during a time of high group stress and you're likely to be called naive, or a traitor.
ponygirl (who finally read the FAQ on how to put in html codes!)
[> [>
Except I can't do a link... ah well -- ponygirl, 14:03:42 03/25/03 Tue
It's a miracle I got the italics to work. The article is here:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,918465,00.html
Maybe Because It's Not About You... ***spoilers for Orpheus*** -- Solitude1056, 15:06:54 03/24/03 Mon
By now, we've all had at least one chance to watch Orpheus - and some of us got a second chance thanks to the WB realizing that reality's intrusion was less than appreciated during the first showing. (For the record, the DC Metro's last 15 minutes were not interrupted. I presume the D.C. TV PTB figured around here we already knew since 99% of us work for the govt, anyway.)
Much of the conversation about the Faith/Angel-us hallucination sequence centers on these basic issues:
1. What exactly was Angelus' hell?
2. Why could Angel participate even before his soul was freed?
3. Why would ME show Angel and Angelus as two entirely separate beings and endanger their own canon?
4. How could Faith and Angel be operating in the same hallucination?
First off, the drug is called Orpheus. I've seen several ATPo discussions in the past few days about Orpheus, and the idea of music, and the trip into hell, etc, etc. But the point of the Orpheus cycle isn't that Orpheus just gets it into his head that a trip to hell would be lovely this time of year. He goes to hell to retrieve something: his greatest love, his wife, Eurydice. Furthermore, in every version of the story, Orpheus gains his wife, but then loses her by turning to see her before she's completely stepped out of Hade's shade as she exits the underworld. She fades back into death. Orpheus is inconsolable, and not long afterwards is brutally slaughtered, but the result is that he's able to head back to the underworld, rejoining his wife. In other words, the story ends happily - the two are reunited - but it's more of a 'and they died happily ever after.' In the less happy versions, Eurydice returns to the world with Orpheus, but he can never look at her again. A single glance from him and she would fade back to the underworld. (If I recall correctly, this is the version Cocteau chose in his retelling, Black Orpheus.)
Second, because Angelus is doing the majority of the talking, it seems many of us assumed that Faith is along for the ride and it's purely Angelus' idea of hell. Faith assumes that's what's going on, too, and I think it's easy to fall for the mislead:
ANGELUS
It annoyed the crap out of me the first time around. This
sucks. And why do you get to be Marley's ghost?
FAITH
'Cause I'm dying, dumb-ass.
ANGELUS
(chuckles)
Not soon enough.
FAITH
Way I figure, I got one last job. Babysit the psycho until
they shove a soul up your-
ANGELUS
Not gonna happen.
FAITH
Then I'm- whatever. Dust in the wind. Candle in the
wind. There'll be a general wind theme.
ANGELUS
I thought those suicidal tendencies got squashed in the big
enlightenment.
FAITH
(shrugs)
I rolled the dice. It paid even odds.
Faith is assuming that she's just along for the ride, but her conversation in this part reveals her fatalistic perspective on the situation. As far as she's concerned, she's done. She's saved the one person who was willing to keep believing in her, who never gave up on her chance at redemption. From here on out, as far as Faith is concerned, all she has to do is wait it out.
When we see Angel rescue the puppy, it appears that we're still in Angelus' hell. But are we? I'd rather argue that in fact, we're simply setting up Faith for the next discovery, when Angel drinks the robbery victim. Throughout Angelus' and Faith's conversation, Faith has implied - and, at times, outright stated - her understanding that Angelus and Angel are two separate people. Angelus confirms this, playing into this appearance in passages like the following:
ANGELUS
You know what that's like? Every time he gets close, I feel
it. Wanting to tear their flesh apart... the hunger. It's like a
blade in my gut!
FAITH
Only it's not your gut, princess. Angel's the one that
belongs on the outside. Not you.
ANGELUS
You think it's that cut and dry, don't you? That if Angel
gets his soul back-
FAITH
When he gets it back.
ANGELUS
-you'll just hang up your spurs and ride off into the
sunset, knowing you put the monster back in his cage.
But... I'm always here, Faithy. (pats his chest) Deep in.
We've got Angelus as a tour guide because it's Faith's idea of hell: Angelus is to Angel as Faith-the-Renegade-Slayer is to Faith-the-Reformed. And rather than see an episode of Faith dealing with herself full on, the circumstances are twisted in her brain to not only punch through a message to herself, but also to convey a message about what appears to be Faith's Eurydice. That is, Angel.
But before we get to the glaring hint about the Faith hallucination, I should mention that we've gotten subtle hints all along about Faith's connection to, and awareness of, the 'real world' outside her interior hell-trip. She calls Angelus "princess," only four or five lines after Lorne calls her "princess." Later, Lorne tells the unconcious Faith, "It's okay, Faith. It's okay. You just wait. They'll get Angel back and... it'll all be worth it." Angelus opens the next hell-trip scene with the comment, "It'll all be worth it. Is that what you try and tell yourself, Faithy?" And then, only a few lines later, Faith tells Angelus, "All the same, I hear this holler in the distance..." - and the camera cuts to Willow, incanting, then back to Faith - "...tells me you're about to get what's coming to you." To further drive the point home, Faith wakes up in that scene laying across garbage in a back alley. We can hear Angelus, but he doesn't appear immediately; when he does, he's laying in the same location as Faith lay, and in the same position. It's not Angelus we're dealing with. It's Faith's subsconcious, taking her awareness, her history, and her fears and creating her own hell. Angel/us is a convenient and subtle method, but similar to Eurydice, he's only Faith's/Orpheus' reason for entering the underworld. (Angelus is the catalyst for the situation, but unlike Eurydice, he also becomes the catalyst for the resolution, as well.)
Angel seizes the rat and bites into it, draining the squealing creature dry.
FAITH
Ugh... when is this?
ANGELUS
When isn't it? Twenty years after that stupid donut shop
and his fingers never smelled of anything but rat! "I'm so
sorry. I give up. I'm gonna live in a sewer."
FAITH
He's paying for what he did.
ANGELUS
He's hiding from what he is... which may be a big Psych
101 revelation for you, cupcake, but I already know this
crap so why do I have to go through it again?
ANGEL
Maybe because it's not about you... jackass.
It's about Faith.
Faith made it clear to Wesley that she wouldn't kill Angel. Like Buffy before her, she refuses to be pushed to the point of doing away with someone who meant so much to her, that made such a difference in her life when nothing else could. Where others see Angelus as a psycho vamp, Faith sees him as a psycho vamp who, once cured, will go back to being one of her few, true, friends. She's separated his Bad Side from his Good Side, casting one into a cage where it can't see the light of day. Faith's underworld visit isn't for Angel-as-Eurydice. And it's not even to rescue Faith-as-Eurydice. After all, Eurydice is the one who, by accident or design, gets left behind. If we're assuming that Faith is bringing something back that she considers positive - yet somehow fails to do retrieve - then neither Angel's soul nor Faith's disassociation really fits the bill. Faith's Eurydice isn't her ability to fight. Faith's Eurydice is her escape.
Lorne, outside the hallucination, called it "the barrens," where the person quietly mourns all that they're leaving behind. What is Faith leaving behind, if she stays in hell with her Eurydice? What is it that she'd give up - or more precisely, what would be worth her life to have? Faith rolled the dice, she confessed to the crime, she fought as long as she could, and these are the consequences: she treads water in jail for the next twenty years, she dies, and either way, the Slayer bit is over. Her redemption occurs because of her sacrifices, and the result is a state of limbo or nonexistence.
Peace.
ANGEL
Faith, listen to me. You saw me drink. It doesn't get much
lower than that... and I thought I could make up for it by
disappearing.
FAITH
I did... my time.
ANGEL
Our time is never up, Faith. We pay for everything.
[...]
ANGEL
(hard)
Get up. You have to get up now, Faith. You have to fight. I
need you to fight.
Faith's lowest point was abusing her power, her Slayership, by killing an innocent human being - and even more, not giving a damn about it afterwards. When she finally came back to humanity, it was necessary to face the consequences, and Faith accepted these, confessing to her crime and accepting society's judgement. Her jail time is her "way of paying," of suffering the consequences. Between several years in jail, followed by her acceptance of The Angelus Issue as her personal mission, she's paid in both time and physical suffering. Faith can hardly go back to society's jail at this point - who knows what excessive punishment they'd mete out for someone who left and then was caught (let alone returned!) later. Her payment period, like Eurydice's life in the original myth, was cut short and she wants it back.
For Faith/Orpheus, however, there is no getting back what was lost. It's gone. Part of the confusion here is that the language is ambiguous, using a single term ("paying") to cover several concepts. Angel reminds her, "We pay for everything," contradicting Faith's hope that by regaining her state of limbo, she could escape the continued fight. However, Faith's Eurydice, her limbo, is the state of peace after accepting/achieving redemption - it's the state of being in jail, "paying" for one's crime by curtailing one's freedom down to a limited existence. At the same time, Faith wishes to escape "paying" for her actions/crimes, arguing that her latest sacrifice cancels out any remaining debts, redeeming her finally of anything else left undone or done. Angel's rebuttal, in essence, is that redemption doesn't stop; disappearing into that good night does not equal redemption. One doesn't make the situation better by fading back into the underworld of prison, or death. One pays for, and is redeemed by, one's willingness to continue fighting.
Part of the reason I think Angel/us plays such a large role in Faith's Orphic cycle is because if it were Faith, revisiting where she's gone right or wrong, Faith would put little stock in saving herself. She has rarely (if ever) seen herself as worth saving; much of her effort towards that goal has been because Angel was willing to believe in her, no matter what. When Angelus seems to have the final upper hand over Angel, though, Faith rouses herself straight up and out of the hell-world, recognizing simultaneously that Angel is somehow in danger. It's possible Angel's soul is aware of the goings-on, thanks to floating somehow in the ether both in Faith's hell-world while also aware of Cordelia's machinations. It's also possible the PTB are pulling the strings and Angel is simply a convenient semi-aware puppet to slap Faith out of her sudden fatalistic embrace of her Eurydice. Either way, it seems Faith picks herself up only when it's clear that Angel needs her as desperately as she once needed him.
The final note to Faith as Orpheus is the question of Orpheus' end. While I'd vote any day for a Faith sequel, I also wonder about the further mythical connotations of Faith-as-Orpheus. In most versions of the story, Orpheus loses his beloved Eurydice just as he's on the brink of bringing her back from the underworld. Lost and forlorn after seeing her fade back into a ghost, Orpheus wanders aimlessly, his music bringing tears to all who hear it. Eventually, either a group of brigands or a band of Bacchus' mad women (the Maenads) rip him to pieces. In most of the stories, Orpheus' head ends up floating down a river, setting on his harp, both giving out a last few refrains of beautiful song/music before being swallowed by the river. Meanwhile, Orpheus' soul heads down to the underworld where he is finally reunited, permanently, with Eurydice. I certainly hope Faith doesn't follow the same path, with an eventual horrendous death of being ripped apart at the hands of brigands or crazy women, but she wouldn't be the first Slayer to die outnumbered. And if she ended like that, it would continue the Orphic echo: Faith would be reunited with Peace, her state of no-doing after a redemptive sacrifice, and her voice/power would continue as it makes its way to the next Slayer.
Assuming, of course, that there is a next Slayer...
[>
as an aside. -- neaux, 15:19:36 03/24/03 Mon
I dont know if anyone else has mentioned this or had the same thought..
but the immediate jump in reference from Marley's Ghost to Puppy dogs in this episode really made me think of Spike's jolly do-goody speech about "Christmas and puppy dogs"
eh?
[>
KABOOM!!! Brilliant, Sol! Your post's been saved to my personal hard drive archive. ;o) -- Rob, 15:21:55 03/24/03 Mon
[>
Thank You -- will print and read again....and again.... -- ravenhair, 15:55:12 03/24/03 Mon
[>
Taking notes... -- Masq, 16:26:37 03/24/03 Mon
[>
Re: Maybe Because It's Not About You... ***spoilers for Orpheus*** -- Lot's Wife, 17:12:34 03/24/03 Mon
You are "the great and powerful Oz".
That is one of the most amazing and comprehensive analysis I have read in a long time. Simply fantastic.
Lot's Wife
[>
Some questions. ***spoilers for Orpheus*** -- lunasea, 17:13:13 03/24/03 Mon
Great to hear DC didn't get pre-empted either. Neither did military central down here in Southern Virginia. The roar of the jets overhead let us know what was going on. The docks have been empty for a while now. Seeing the Coast Guard Cutters being refitted a while ago was disconcerting to say the least.
I have a few questions. If this truly was Faith's hell, why didn't it end when she left? If Faith's unconscious is directing the whole thing, why does Angel say that he saw her in the brain trip at the end?
The arc is still about Angel. He has to be more than just a catalyst. How does the fight between Angel and Angelus factor into Faith's hell?
Orpheus looses Eurydice as he is almost to the surface. Faith is still in hell after the Barrens. The barrens isn't where they mourn what they are leaving everything behind. It is where "they're letting go of everything that meant something." In between the barrens and the alley, Faith lost what was important to her. What is so important to her that it leads to the Faith that is disappearing in the alley? She maintains what you consider her Eurydice in the alley.
I wonder if Faith does consider murder he lowest point. She seems pretty accepting of it at this point. "Are you a murderer? I am." She talks pretty easily about murder rehab. I think her lowest point is what she did to Buffy. She is going to have to deal with this in a week.
I wouldn't worry about Faith ending up like Orpheus. Since when does ME not put their own unique spin on things?
[> [>
Additional clarifications & comments... ***spoilers for Orpheus*** -- Solitude1056, 19:42:31 03/24/03 Mon
First, I suppose I should have made it clearer about the original Orphic cycle. It does not involve Hell. At least, not the "hell" of fire, sulpher, brimstone, and a bunch of lawyers. In the original myths, Orpheus descended into the Underworld, where every dead person just sort of hung about and didn't do much of anything. It's not a punishment, it's just a place where ghosts wander around in a dumbfounded state. Sometimes they "come up" to the waking world, either to deliver warnings or frighten people, but the Greco-Roman concept of the Underworld, as it shows up in the Orphic myths, has nothing to do with Hell.
I reference "hell-trip," although I use it quite loosely. Our subconcious, or unconcious, is where we usually trap a whole bunch of nasties that we wouldn't otherwise admit to. Taking a trip through one's primal instincts could definitely be a sort of hell; these include urges to bash a coworker in the head, cheat on a spouse, beat up an uncooperative maitre'd. It doesn't directly translate to Id, SuperEgo, and Ego (it's a different way of slicing the pie), but let it suffice to say that what's buried, our deepest, darkest secrets of Want-Take-Have, wrapped around anger, envy, and other destructive forces, would certainly be considered a Hell by most people's standards. That's why it's in the unconcious - it's too raw, it's too strong for a person to handle straight on.
If this truly was Faith's hell, why didn't it end when she left?
One might argue, for the same filmic reason Normal Again didn't end with Buffy taking the medicine, but with the long shot through the hospital window. However, Angel's comment about the brain-trip indicates that he was, to some extent, aware of (if not entirely in control of) the shared trip. That would indicate to me that the underworld continues because Angel/us isn't awake yet, and doesn't awake until Faith's nearly done spanking Connor.
If Faith's unconscious is directing the whole thing, why does Angel say that he saw her in the brain trip at the end?
See above. This one, as (I think) Scroll mentioned in an earlier post, has earmarks of Amends all over it, in the sense of something's playing with the cake mix.
The arc is still about Angel. He has to be more than just a catalyst.
Yes. The arc is still "about" Angel, but the individual episodes are not always All About Angel. This was the point (and the irony factor) in Angel telling Angelus that "maybe because it's not about you." Not every episode must include Angel's movement forwards or backwards; sometimes Angel fits the old adage of existing simply as an example.
How does the fight between Angel and Angelus factor into Faith's hell?
Think about it. Faith spends the majority of the underworld trip - right up to Angel drinking the victim - firm in her belief that Angelus does not equal Angel. She is there to keep Angelus out of trouble until he can be put back in a box. The Angel/us interaction is a not-so-subtle thesis that Faith's underworld is one where she has to recognize that she is The Slayer, she is A Murderer, she is Just A Girl, etc, and that these disparate parts aren't repressed or shoved into a box, they're around all the time. Faith's primary role model is Angel, and it's telling that she sees him as independent of his bad side. The fight, especially, in some ways is a visual of how difficult it can be - and how easy to lose - against your better or worse side... and that even heroes need help sometimes.
Orpheus looses Eurydice as he is almost to the surface. Faith is still in hell after the Barrens. The barrens isn't where they mourn what they are leaving everything behind. It is where "they're letting go of everything that meant something." In between the barrens and the alley, Faith lost what was important to her. What is so important to her that it leads to the Faith that is disappearing in the alley? She maintains what you consider her Eurydice in the alley.
I don't think the episode fits the original myth, word for word, and the metaphor does break down at various points. Part of the beauty of any myth is its flexibility, but anyway, it's important to remember the steps preceeding Lorne's comment.
1. Faith and Angelus discuss Manilow.
2. Faith sees Angel not-save a guy fast enough.
3. Faith watches as Angel drinks.
...and then the next scene is Lorne telling Connor, "She's in the barrens now. They cry for a while. Quiet mostly. Like they're letting go of everything that meant something."
It's clear to me that if Faith's letting go of anything that meant something to her, it's her concept of Angel equals Good Guy, and that Angelus equals Bad Guy, and the twain can't meet. Angel/us is hammering home, repeatedly, that he won't be in a box because he's part of Angel. Yes, Orpheus never doubted he would retrieve Eurydice and return to a happy life together - he didn't intend, at any point, or even consider, staying with his wife in the underworld. I'm not sure Faith's "letting go of what means something" indicates that she's willing to stay in the underworld. After all, her awareness of the Angel/us intricacies doesn't make her want to stay in the underworld at any point; it just disappoints and hurts her. She continues to seek her Eurydice, that is, her 'reward' of non-existence after her redemptive sacrifice of using a drug to capture Angelus.
I think, in some ways, one could argue that Angel/us is Orpheus, and he's going down to bring Eurydice/Faith back. Problem is, the entire Orpheus metaphor revolves around Orpheus losing Eurydice before her time, trying to get her back, and losing her again. Having an Orphic metaphor where Orpheus retrieves Eurydice and they live happily ever after would be like having a version of Pygmalion where he falls in love with his housemaid and not the statue. The whole point of the Orpheus myth is about losing the one thing you desire above all else. Orpheus is about loss.
In that sense, Faith can't be Eurydice, because Angel doesn't lose her, in the end. He may nearly lose her, but she bounces back. And Angel can't be Eurydice, because Faith, and AI, doesn't lose him, either. The question boils down to, what is lost that is a heart's desire? And the only thing that gets lost, that is someone's strongest, truest desire, is Faith's wish for a return to that non-existence, that non-fighting state of peace. She's out of prison, so her only other option is going to be death. Is this really a shock, given how badly Buffy longed for death - both before and after The Gift? Faith's deathwish isn't just a deathwish, it's a peace wish. And, like Orpheus, she lost it at the very last minute. Unlike Orpheus, she did so willingly, finally understanding that although she lost her peace before her sentence was up, that getting it back through the underworld/death just isn't an option for her.
[> [> [>
Another great post! -- ponygirl, 08:41:06 03/25/03 Tue
[> [> [>
Re: Additional clarifications & comments... ***spoilers for Orpheus*** -- lunasea, 09:18:54 03/25/03 Tue
First, I suppose I should have made it clearer about the original Orphic cycle. It does not involve Hell. At least, not the "hell" of fire, sulpher, brimstone, and a bunch of lawyers. In the original myths, Orpheus descended into the Underworld, where every dead person just sort of hung about and didn't do much of anything. It's not a punishment, it's just a place where ghosts wander around in a dumbfounded state. Sometimes they "come up" to the waking world, either to deliver warnings or frighten people, but the Greco-Roman concept of the Underworld, as it shows up in the Orphic myths, has nothing to do with Hell.
I mentioned something similar to this prior to the episode, in my predictions about what would happen based on the title. I am incredibly happy that they didn't really follow the myth. My error was in thinking they would follow the myth rather than put the feminist spin on it.
In the Greek myth a big part of it was not that Orpheus traveled to the underworld and just got Eurydice back for his troubles. He had to convince Hades/Persephone to let him have her. We don't have anything like that in "Orpheus."
The show says it takes you down to hell, so Hell the show shows. The myth is just about the unconscious or dream state. For me it symbolized those dreams we can't quite remember when we are fully conscious. We travel to the underworld and there convince Hades to allow us what we consider precious. As we awaken, we turn around to look at it and it disappears back to the unconscious.
Our subconcious, or unconcious, is where we usually trap a whole bunch of nasties that we wouldn't otherwise admit to. Taking a trip through one's primal instincts could definitely be a sort of hell; these include urges to bash a coworker in the head, cheat on a spouse, beat up an uncooperative maitre'd. It doesn't directly translate to Id, SuperEgo, and Ego (it's a different way of slicing the pie), but let it suffice to say that what's buried, our deepest, darkest secrets of Want-Take-Have, wrapped around anger, envy, and other destructive forces, would certainly be considered a Hell by most people's standards. That's why it's in the unconcious - it's too raw, it's too strong for a person to handle straight on.
Id-SuperEgo-Ego is too simple a model for me. It is tainted by Freud's inability to handle his own sexuality and to recognize the importance of the transcendent function/spirituality. As for those darkest secrets of want-take-have and all the rest, they are the forms that our instinct take. What really drives them in formless, which is why it is in the unconscious. It isn't too raw or strong for a person to handle straight on. It doesn't really exist at all, until it is given form.
One thing Jung admitted later in his career was that a lot of the confusion surrounding archetypes was because he used the term more than one way. It is defined as the psychic counterpart to instinct. He got tired of saying the forms that archetypes take, when talking about such things as the dark mother, that he took a short cut and just called them archetypes. I try to only use the term as he originally defined it and bring those archetypes back to the instincts that drive them. We know a lot more about this, than they did when Jung was alive.
It depends on your view of humans (and I would love to know ME's). Do you see anger, envy, desire, and other destructive forces to be something innate in humans or is it the result of what is innate interacting with our environment? Hopefully sometime today I will do a post that explores this with where the darkness in vampires comes from. It isn't a place I would have even thought of looking, until "Release."
One might argue, for the same filmic reason Normal Again didn't end with Buffy taking the medicine, but with the long shot through the hospital window. However, Angel's comment about the brain-trip indicates that he was, to some extent, aware of (if not entirely in control of) the shared trip. That would indicate to me that the underworld continues because Angel/us isn't awake yet, and doesn't awake until Faith's nearly done spanking Connor.
Then why didn't the Wishverse go away when Giles smashed Anya's power source? Reality seems to be one thing that ME likes to play with. These alternative realities, such as the Wishverse and the Asylumverse, do exist. Time isn't a when, it is a what.
I would say that the underworld continues without any of them there. Anya could get Willow to revisit the Wishverse in "Dopplegangerland," and perhaps there is a way to access the hellverse as well.
It isn't that important to interpreting the episode, unless we want to discuss the nature of reality.
Yes. The arc is still "about" Angel, but the individual episodes are not always All About Angel. This was the point (and the irony factor) in Angel telling Angelus that "maybe because it's not about you." Not every episode must include Angel's movement forwards or backwards; sometimes Angel fits the old adage of existing simply as an example.
Angel is much more than just an example. He learns something and we are shown something about him. Angel finally gets a chance to fight Angelus, something he has been waiting a long time for. What happens? He is more concerned with Faith. The flow of the fight is great. We also learn a bit about Angelus with this arc that I will elaborate on later today. Quite an interesting direction they took with him.
I said earlier that this episode is even more interesting in light of "Deep Down" and "Awakening." Those three really show us somethings about Angel, especially when taken together. The episode is about Angel because it isn't.
The fight, especially, in some ways is a visual of how difficult it can be - and how easy to lose - against your better or worse side... and that even heroes need help sometimes.
But why would that be hell? Orpheus the myth isn't about hell per se, but the drug takes you down to hell. Angel didn't loose to Angelus in most of the fight. Angel was constantly beating Angelus and able to talk to Faith. The flow of who is winning and what is being said is fascinating (and caused me to watch the scene a dozen times and transcribe it). It really shows what powers Angel/us.
I'm not sure Faith's "letting go of what means something" indicates that she's willing to stay in the underworld.
What does she have to motivate her? She continues to talk about "you for me," but her heart just isn't in it. It isn't the fire we saw in "Salvage," or even "Release." Faith has given up.
She still wants "to see this pervert get stuffed back into the deep crazy ground he came from," but that is the only time she really perks up during the whole thing. She wakes up completely disoriented in the alley and has to struggle to get up (I loved the prison bar shadows). Angelus appears in the exact same spot, but the way he got up was spin tingling. The balance of power has shifted and Faith has surrendered. She doesn't *want* anything any more.
"Rolled the bones, you for me." (great Rush song that fits wonderfully with the episode. One of the lines is even "Faith is cold as ice.") Faith is trying to find some comfort in this. She left it all behind in the Barrens. She gave it all up for someone she no longer feels is worth it. Now she clings to "I did my time." She has nothing. All she is left with is the pain.
Her realization of what Angel is isn't what hurts. She no longer has her image of him (and his path) to cushion the hurt. What hurts? Life sucks. It isn't even what she has done so much as that she can never be free of it. "Our time is never up, Faith. We pay for everything."
I think, in some ways, one could argue that Angel/us is Orpheus, and he's going down to bring Eurydice/Faith back. Problem is, the entire Orpheus metaphor revolves around Orpheus losing Eurydice before her time, trying to get her back, and losing her again. Having an Orphic metaphor where Orpheus retrieves Eurydice and they live happily ever after would be like having a version of Pygmalion where he falls in love with his housemaid and not the statue. The whole point of the Orpheus myth is about losing the one thing you desire above all else. Orpheus is about loss.
Which is why ME's spin is so brilliant. They took the myth most associated with loss and made it about empowerment. Orpheus went down to hell to tell Eurydice to get her ass back to the surface herself. Then Eurydice saves Orpheus. Truly the feminist spin to this myth. Since when does ME not put their unique spin on things?
And the only thing that gets lost, that is someone's strongest, truest desire, is Faith's wish for a return to that non-existence, that non-fighting state of peace. She's out of prison, so her only other option is going to be death. Is this really a shock, given how badly Buffy longed for death - both before and after The Gift? Faith's deathwish isn't just a deathwish, it's a peace wish.
But that is exactly what both women do gain, peace. They loose what keeps them from that, Faith's false ideas about redemption and Buffy not believing she can love. Neither loose things. They gain them.
[>
Quoteage quota satisfied -- cougar, 17:26:09 03/24/03 Mon
I have just been reading Robert A Johnson's "Inner Work" and enjoying his eplainations of the archetypal patterns that our energies flow thorough. I found parts so moving that I have been writing quotes all afternoon.
Then I sat down here and let your words flow over what I had just learned. Very exciting! I was especially moved by your line "paying for ones crimes by curtailing ones freedom down to a limited existance". Can you think of a single door that doesn't hide similarily curtailed souls?
Johnson says "If we have the courage to look with open minds at some of the instincts and energy systems within that we have been so ashamed of, we almost always find that they can also be positive strenghts- and that they are merely normal parts of a total human character"
Both Faith and Angel have been possesed by values and needs that shattered the "artificial unity" that most people posess if they simply surpress their inner conflicts (demons). It is only after someone faces down those aspects of themselves, beyond their illusion of ego control, that they can approach a more solid and lasting unity. Their trip to hell was also a flow of energy between conscious and hidden aspects of their characters.
Thanks for sharing your analytical energies Sol, My emotions and intellect both were nourished and I have a couple of new quotes in todays net!
[> [>
Re: Quoteage quota satisfied -- lunasea, 18:00:10 03/24/03 Mon
Johnson says "If we have the courage to look with open minds at some of the instincts and energy systems within that we have been so ashamed of, we almost always find that they can also be positive strenghts- and that they are merely normal parts of a total human character"
Thank you so much for sharing this. The archetypes are goddess, god, mother, father, water, circle, etc. They are not dark mother or angry god or deadly water. When we get to that level, we aren't talking archetypes. We are talking the form they take.
If we have the courage to see what drives these forms we can understand what drives us and how we can channel that to amazing strengths. It isn't the form that matters. It is the energy/instincts that the form comes from and the understanding that we can attain from the form.
It is only after someone faces down those aspects of themselves, beyond their illusion of ego control, that they can approach a more solid and lasting unity. Their trip to hell was also a flow of energy between conscious and hidden aspects of their characters.
But I can tell you it ain't easy and talk about massive tears. I can also say that is it worth it.
I loved the imagery of the flow of energy. Libido is great. It is something that is often overlooked in discussions about archetypes.
I used to keep my own Angelus locked up in a cage (I called her the Bitch). She was from a place of such rage that it was hard to even look at her. When she got out, shit happened. She made me pay for ignoring her for all those years. Then we started talking and dealing with the rage that shaped her. Now she is just as strong and powerful, but she isn't shaped by that rage. She maintained her energy (or rather mine, since I am no longer dissociative).
I thought it was interesting that Angelus' primary characteristic in Orpheus was he hated being ignored. Angel can still get the energy of Angelus without the dark prince. At least I hope ME feel that way. Many don't and think that the darkness is necessary. We will have to see what they do.
Great post.
[> [> [>
the tasks of Psyche -- cougar, 19:21:12 03/24/03 Mon
A lot to think about there, weather evil counterparts are archetypes. I'm still trying to sort out these two more Johnson passages I read today.
" The Greeks concieved the Gods as FORCES that interacted with individual human lives."
"Archetypes are not forces, but rather pre existing PATTERNS that give TYPICAL SHAPE to the forces."
So Archetypes are what the Gods and Demons flow thorough as they play with us.
The Archetype of Hades can be seen as hell or as a place of "underground" riches. In some versions of the myth of Psyche she goes to great pains to go there and retrieves a single pomengranet seed, a symbol of the underground riches one can reach for after doing the work of sorting the millet from the poppy seeds (dark from light). This myth is one that closely parallels the work of Active Imagination.
If I remember correctly the synbolic meaning of Psyches tasks they were:
1) work like an ant (sorting)- Faith made a tremendous effort to face down Angelus and then she and Angelus "sorted things out"
2) then do nothing- she was comatose, with no ego driven efforts to achieve anything in the outer realm.
3) Ask for help- It was Angel that asked for help, that freed Faiths to wake up. She didn't ask herself, but she recieved very humane tenderness, especially from Lorne, who sang to her to soothe her journey. Comfort and support and warmth.
4) Go all the way to Hades to retrieve a single seed of riches, bring it back up and hold it above ground (within consciousness)- The nature of the seed she returned with will be interesting to track now, weather Faith brought back the right seed.
So in her work with the the inner forces that were made visible by her trip to hell, Faith's Orphic cycle was the myth she found within her Psyche.
A humblr word of advice to Sol, Like a persian Rug, you should live a single flaw in your weaving next time, as it is hard to respond more directly to your masterwork beyond gushing Wow! and spinning off from there :o)
Johnson also says that Soul is an archetype, a universal symbol and an objective entity and that this entity is "invisible yet active" which seems to describe Angelus within Angel.
[> [> [> [>
There are always readers who delight in... -- Solitude1056, 20:02:13 03/24/03 Mon
...finding typographical errors. For those readers, I work hard to include a few scattered through my essays.
Glad you enjoyed.
Not sure where Psyche comes into play, but there are plenty of stories where various folks took a hike down into the underworld. However, I'm pretty sure that Psyche and Eros is a later Roman mythic cycle (possibly from Ovid), and post-dates the Orphic cycle by at least a few centuries. I'm not entirely convinced we can always mix our myths a la Campbell and still respect the individual coherence of each mythic series.
Besides, ME did their level best to slap us upside our collective heads with the Orphic metaphor, so I figure that's good enough for spitting distance. Maybe we'll do Psyche next week...
[> [> [> [> [>
concentric ripples -- cougar, 20:47:39 03/24/03 Mon
Since I was reading about Active Imagination, my mind just naturaly made the connection. My point was that the PROCESS that Faith went through reminded me of Psyche, and the mythical CONTENT she found there and PARTICIPATED in was Orpheus, as you illustrated. (really my idea was just personal metanaration and sorting out that I, for once, posted on a wave of enthusiasm fed by your post).
We all have to find our way down there and discover what myths are at play. It seems to me that the steps of Psyche were at least alluded to. If we don't follow certain steps (like Psyche), we may never see the invisible forces that drive us (Orpheus). As I considered your post I also was reminded of Psyche when I pictured Lorne singing, the fact that she recieved such Love from him.
Since all myths represent elements of the unconscious, fragments of the same unity, I can picture them as being connected or embedded within one another, perhaps at varying levels in different individuals, making each soul's makeup a unique mixture of the ideal forms.
And I thought I was the only one who humbly salted my lines with typo's!
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Another great post and Thanks -- lunasea, 10:16:00 03/25/03 Tue
Speaking of Psyche, one of my favorite adpatation is CS Lewis' "Until We Have Faces." Psyche was my favorite myth when I was a child. Lewis takes it to amazing places. I think it plays out very well in Spike this year.
That is what I like, taking these "elements of the unconscious, fragments of the same unity" that were put into a particular form by a particular society and rearranging them so that they fit *my* society. "Orpheus" did this wonderfully. So did Lewis.
I have to tell you that what you have posted was the missing piece of something I have been trying to figure out. It has been a while since I really delved into Jung and even though once upon a time I really lived and breathed this stuff, you helped remind me of something key. Thank you.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Book Me -- cougar, 11:52:33 03/25/03 Tue
Well lunesea, Im glad our paths crossed. I have a strong urge to read Lewis and explore Psyche, so I will on the library website next. Thanks for the tip.
I read more of "Inner Work" last night, slowly, taking notes, and it is really gelling some of the theoretical for me and illuminating the personal as well. It was recomended to me by Dr. Leland Roloff after his awesome seminar.
In case this helps, he also recomended of the top of his head
"Active Imagination" by Verena Kast (haven't seen it yet)
also Janet Dallet's essay in Murray P Steins "Jungian Analysis". Which is waiting at the library as I type.
Then a lady I met who's doing an AI thesis added:
The Living Psyche, A Jungian analysys in Pictures. E. Edingar
Encounters with the Soul. B. Hannah
The Black Madonna Within. T, Mato
The Old Wise Woman. R. Weaver
Encountering Jung. Jung on Active Imagination. J. Chodorow
None of those have been in my hot little hands yet,
Dr. Roloff used a picture book as a metephor for the emergence of consciousness, "The Teapot Opera" by the photographer Arthur Tress. Something for the Image-ination!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Book Me -- lunasea, 12:28:45 03/25/03 Tue
If you want something amazing to read, though it is extremely hard to find, "Jung's Challenge to Contemporary Religion" edited by Murray Stein and Robert L. Moore.
It is a collection of the papers delivered at the Jung Institute in Chicago in October of 1985. I got it in an occult bookstore in Georgetown when I was in college. I picked it up after I read "Jung and Tarot" by Sallie Nichols. That was my introduction to the archetypes. I was hooked. I devoured the entire Collected Works that summer. By the time I got to psych classes Sophmore year (and it was hell, since Ab Psych was taught by a Freudian) I was quoting Jung.
I love reading stuff by Jungians. They write like I think. (not really sure if I am Jungian any more. I have gotten into too many "fights" with modern ones. Dr. Jung was quoted as saying he was grateful he wasn't a Jungian. I can understand that) It was best described in the preface to "Man and His Symbols" as a bird circling a tree. It is a "consequence" of spending so much time in the unconscious. When you write it is to the unconscious perhaps more than it is to the conscious.
Anything Murray Stein does is great. His essay "Jung's Green Christ: A Healing Symbol for Christianity" really helped me make peace with the faith I was raised with and understand why it wasn't for me any more.
Active Imagination is great to read about, but if you really want to get to the unconscious, practice it. It keeps me balanced as much as meditation does. As amazing as Jung's theories are to read about, to actually put them into practice is mind blowing.
After you read Lewis, let me know. I have been dying to discuss what is going on with Spike with regards to that book. It is a pretty quick read, but like anything Lewis wrote takes weeks to think about.
Thanks for the suggestions.
I love Tress' work. Sometimes you just want to know how some people think. If you could just do that, it feels like you would know the secrets of the universe. They are not only geniuses, but the alpha-omega. Joss is like that. So is Jung. When you are in a presence like that, it is amazing and empowering. I have been fortunate to meet several like that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Sex, lies and Jungians -- cougar, 14:34:46 03/25/03 Tue
Actually, no sex, but it probably got some people to look.
I have only been exploring Jung for about two years. I was led to it from a reading by Nick Bantock. I had a burning desire to know how he unlocked his creativity to bring forth "Griffin and Sabine" and he said he studied and involved himself with Jung for a year. At that moment I knew my life was about to change.
I'm not really a Jungian either, I just find it the best fitting route to approach the mysteries of our existance. I alternate that with other facets to the puzzle, like say evolutionary biology. I'm wary of ever believing that one person or belief system has complete truth. Yet I feel very at home with it just now.
I have done a lot of dreamwork and now see the origins of metaphor and culture within myself. How could I have been so blind to the Cinema of the mind?! ( and I love it when Spike, or Buffy or Xander show up too!) I have done AI. too but wasn't sure if I knew enough about it, to get a deeper experience.
Meditation, dreamwork and AI are growing into natural behaviors for me ever since a dream where a choruses of voices within suddenly yelled "STOP LYING TO US NOW!". Believe me I sat up and listened, they wanted more than theory or lip service.
I can't find the work by Lewis. Is it perhaps an essay in a book by another title? I will ask my librarian friend to help me do a more detailed search.
"When you write it is to the unconscious perhaps more than it is to the conscious." - is going in my quote book. That certainly applies to painting as well and your phrase perfectly encapsulates what I was struggling with in my studio journal for several pages. I have an Artist's group meeting here tomorow and I would love to use that idea as a launching point for discussion.
It reminds me of the very first phrase I jotted into that book. It is from my personal Alpha-Omega Wizard, Nick Bantock
"I crave an art that passionately trancends the mundane, instead of being a device for self-deception" (as in "stop lying to us!")
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Sex, lies and Jungians -- lunasea, 16:15:52 03/25/03 Tue
Loved the subject. Sex, lies and Freudians would probably make a great title for a study of Freud.
Got my copy of the CS Lewis book right here. I have been looking for a particular passage, but I keep getting sidetracked by what I am working on about Angelus. The title is "Till We have Faces: A myth retold." (I was a bit off. I stick at remembering names) It is 313 pages, but they go quick.
Thanks for adding me to your quote book. Anything I say is public domain as far as I am concerned. It actually isn't my idea. If you haven't read "Man and His Symbols," stop reading anything Jungian and read it. This is from the Intro. I give it so often at this point I have it copied to a file and I just paste it rather than type in the whole thing every time.
In "Memories, Dreams and Reflections" John Freeman explains in the Introduction the way that Dr. Jung writes thusly:
"The second point I wish to make is about a particular characteristic of argumentative method that is common to all the writers of this book -- perhaps to all Jungians. Those who have limited themselves to living entirely in the world of the conscious and who reject communication with the unconscious bind themselves by the laws of conscious, formal life. With the infallible (but often meaningless) logic of the algebraic equation, they argue from assumed premises to incontestably deduced conclusions. Jung and his colleagues seem to me (whether they know it or not) to reject the limitations of this method of argument. It is not that they ignore logic, but they appear all the time to be arguing to the unconscious as well as to the conscious. Their dialectical method is itself symbolic and often devious. They convince not by means of the narrowly focused spotlight of the syllogism, but by skirting, by repetition, by presenting a recurring view of the same subject each time from a slightly different angle -- until suddenly the reader who has never been aware of a single, conclusive moment of proof finds that he has unknowingly embraced and taken into himself some wider truth.
"Jung's arguments (and those of his colleagues) spiral upward over his subject like a bird circling a tree. At first, near the ground, it only sees a confusion of leaves and branches. Gradually, as it circles higher and higher, the recurring aspects of the tree form a wholeness and relate to their surroundings. Some readers may find this "spiraling" method of argument obscure of even confusing for a few pages -- but not, I think, for long. It is characteristic of Jung's method, and very soon the reader will find it carrying him with it on a persuasive and profoundly absorbing journey."
As an artist, you may especially enjoy what Aneila Jaffe says in her section "Symbolism in the Visual Arts." I found it to be the most interesting and well writen section.
My writing tends to fall into 2 categories (at least the stuff worth reading is). The First is my unconscious to other people's unconscious. That stuff tends to be pretty hard to read, but people feel something they can't quite explain when they read it. Visual art tends to fall in this category more than writing. I am also a photographer.
The other is stuff my unconscious is trying to relay to my conscious. That is when I start with one topic and my fingers have a mind of their own. It just comes pouring out. When I go back I am amazed at some of the stuff and can't believe that I wrote it. It was stuff that I had to get out of my system. It eats at me until I do. I tend to wake up from a nap and start writing. That is most of my stuff.
The stuff I consciously write tends to be analytically ok, but it is more mental masturbation than it is anything insightful.
When we try to understand something, we tend to pick it apart, make it into smaller pieces that are easier to understand. We loose the forest for the trees this way. What I crave and even try to do is put this back together. I want my art and my writing to exhibit a wholeness that is what the spiritual is really about.
Another great writer for this is M. Scott Peck. His book "Standing Stones" though not as famous as "The Road Less Traveled" and its sequels (which are all excellent and helped me immensely) is great at showing this wholeness. His book "Different Drum" is the prescription for world peace.
Another great field, especially if you were interested in evolutionary biology is cognitive neuroscience. The way I look at it, mind-body-spirit are just three different perspectives or langauges for the same thing. Jung figured out the translation from mind to spirit. Cognitive Neuroscience is the translation from body to mind. From there we might get a body-spirit with investigation into such things as the "God-spot."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Connected -- cougar, 18:14:45 03/25/03 Tue
OK, now I found the Lewis book. I have already read "Man and His Symbols" and "Standing Stones" and loved both.
Again you pointed a finger to something important. That Jung translated mind to spirit. My education and upbringing were all about mind. Body and spirit severely under-represeted and I suffered for it. I'm a little dense, I just realized that I have now learned to begin using mind, spirit and body as different, honourable entrances to the labyrinth of self.
I used to just use several ideas in the mind to see things from "a different approach". But that wasn't really a "different aproach", just more of the same. Seeing things differently really means more that that. That type of thinking really is a form of self deception. As would be soley thinking with body or spirit. I was recently wondering exactly why I feel changed, but couldn't articulate it. Again with the thanks.
In fact watching Buffy does something for my spirit, emotions,values etc. in a symbolic, visual and feeling way and then I come to this board to enter into that from the mind as well. My mind has stretched in many of directions from things suggested here, but it never would have happened without the story that aroused feelings. (and the others who experience the same). Just as it took books that mixed image and word to unlock my need to find another route in.
All roads lead to the center. A meaning of the Mandala.
Well I am one of the lucky who see Buffy and Angel tonight, soon I'm off to be aroused ;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Connected -- lunasea, 18:48:42 03/25/03 Tue
Again you pointed a finger to something important. That Jung translated mind to spirit. My education and upbringing were all about mind. Body and spirit severely under-represeted and I suffered for it. I'm a little dense, I just realized that I have now learned to begin using mind, spirit and body as different, honourable entrances to the labyrinth of self.
That is perspective is pretty much what set me on a path to wholeness. The way I look at it is there is a valley. In that valley is a town. Each perspective of mind, body and spirit are a different mountain to look at the village from. You can't get a complete picture of the town from any one mountain.
Another way to look at it is that mind, body, spirit are like seperate languages (mind - German, Body - Latin, Spirit - Sanskrit) There are structural differences in these languages as well as words that don't have equivalents in the others. It takes all three to really understand things.
You're Welcome. Sometimes we look at these things so hard and long that a fresh perspective can find something we missed (why Fred called Willow). You have helped me figure out some things as well. Thanks
[>
Dead brilliant. Very nice and clearly written. -- Calvin, 18:14:46 03/24/03 Mon
[> [>
Yeah, well, Calvin's just saying that because it's true ;-) -- OnM, 20:31:04 03/24/03 Mon
[>
Very good post. Some thoughts...and urls (Spoilers Orpheus) -- s'kat, 19:16:12 03/24/03 Mon
You have the honor of writing the post that pulled me out of my malaise long enough to write a somewhat coherent reply. kudos. (At least I hope it's coherent. Experiencing the worst writer's block.)
For what it's worth - I wholeheartedly agree with Sol's analysis, it fills many gaps, solves some pov problems and pulls the episode together in my own head.
Here is a list of urls for those who want more on Black Orpheus by Camus and Black Orphee by Cocteau. Both deal with a modernized version of the myth where a Portuguese Minstral during The Day of the Dead falls in love with a country girl named Eurydice. She is killed by an electric tram wire and he goes down a spiral staircase in the Bureau of Missing Persons to find her, using drugs and voodoo ritual to commune with her spirit.
http://www.roogulator.esmartweb.com/fantasy/blackorpheus.htm
http://www.nrg.com.au/~devouia/orphee.html
This url is to provide more information on opiates which are not hallucinatory drugs so much as drugs that bring about a peaceful, quiet state, overdoes lead to coma and death. Opiates unlike hallucinagentics are considered escape drugs. To take one into death so to speak or deathlike state - become zombie like.
http://www.sayno.com/opiates.html
Now my own thoughts on the topic - having finally seen the episode in full just last night. Some may parallel or echo Sol's, some may not.:
We forget in watching Orpheus, that it's not Angelus who willingly injects the drug. It is Faith. And it is Faith who is the one who gets the full dosage, taking Angelus literally with her on her trip. Lorn asks Wes if Faith knew what she was getting herself into, knew the true risks. Wes doesn't really answer him, except to say it was her choice. From the information we're given, I'd assume Faith knew as much as Orpheus does as he descends into the hellish morgue of missing persons looking for his beloved. Faith too, like Sol states above, is hunting her beloved - friend. Angel is the one person who showed "faith" in her ability to be good. He alone saw past her wickedness. Even when all her other friends rejected her, even when she tried to kill him, he still saw good in her. Angel is the reason she breaks out of prison. He's the reason she trusts Wes, a man she'd tortured, to help her save him. And he is the reason she injects herself with the drug. (Ironic - considering Faith injects Angel with a fatal drug in Graduation Day Part I and Buffy tries to get Faith to give Angel her blood to save him, instead Buffy puts Faith into a coma and gives him her own. Now we literally have Faith do all three or four things she sort of did or came close to in S3 Btvs in one episode: poison Angel, deal with Angelus, and get bitten by Angel - talk about mega-metanarration. I think Faith re-experienced Graduation Day to the tenth degree, just as Willow re-experienced Becoming Part II - both re-experienced their own failures or twists of fate from the back-end and through Angel's pov. Very nice.) Back to Orpheus: When Faith injects the drug, he's just accused her of being like him. She injects the drug in order to go deep inside him when he bites her, in the hopes that instead of Angelus' bite turning her, it will in fact turn him. Instead of Angelus infecting Faith with his blood, she infects him with hers. Instead of Angelus taking Faith into hell, she takes him into hell. The mislead is it's all about Angelus, which we buy because it is after all Angel's show, but the truth is it's about who took the drug, Faith. And the one who helps Faith, who brings Angel back his soul, and calls from beyond, is not the wicked Baccha who threaten to rip her to shreds, although she may believe that, but the witch who she hated once. Faith is in a sense helped in retrieving by the two people she hurt - Willow in Choices (Btvs S3) and Wes in Five by Five (S1 Ats).
Faith is the one who rises out of the gutter at the end, who fights Connor and herself and Angelus and succeeds in coming to some sort of terms with who she is. In a sense this episode may be Faith's version of Amends. In it Angel manages to convey to Faith, what he has learned, and in passing on that information, is in a way, himself, reborn into the world, not completely integrated, perhaps, but far closer than before - since he has managed to convey to Faith and in a sense himself, through her, that light and dark, good and evil, aren't so easily separated - they are part and parcel of us. We fight them every day and we don't get to separate them from us and hide or escape. We don't get to take an opiate that makes everything feel better. (Shame, there are times, like today, I wish we could...) Instead we are asked day in and day out to find our own way and to somehow fight to make the world a little better. I think in a way that was what Orpheus was meant to symbolize, that continuous struggle within Faith and to a degree everyone else.
Again great post Sol.
SK
[> [>
Thanks, and some responses ***spoilers for Orpheus*** -- Solitude1056, 19:54:27 03/24/03 Mon
We forget in watching Orpheus, that it's not Angelus who willingly injects the drug. It is Faith. And it is Faith who is the one who gets the full dosage, taking Angelus literally with her on her trip. ... Faith too, like Sol states above, is hunting her beloved - friend.
Yes and no. I suggested that as Angel/Eurydice, but it didn't take long to disprove this notion. (See also my response to lunasea.) Just thought I'd point this out - Faith didn't go into the underworld seeking Angel; her sole intention was to capture Angelus long enough for AI to somehow resoul him. If she couldn't best him with strength, she could do it with her "extremely simple ruse." The trip into the underworld seems to surprise Faith more than Angel/us, who probably had more awareness of the drug's potency.
Furthermore, once Faith is in the underworld, she, like Orpheus, is completely convinced she'll achieve her goal, and never once doubts the certainty of her path. The fact that Angel/us is now under lock and key in the AI basement is part of Faith's reason to feel she has earned the right to find/retrieve her heart's desire. At no point does she really express any fear that Angel won't return; as a matter of fact, she's pretty amiable with Angelus, convinced that he'll be squished back into a box soon enough. Angel's return is Faith's guarantee that her redemptive sacrifice ("you for me") is big enough to trade for a cheerful jaunt into that good night, finally reunited with some type of peaceful non-Slayer existence.
[>
Great post! But a few caveats.... -- Masq, 22:15:53 03/24/03 Mon
From your eloquent argument, I'll buy that it was primarily Faith's journey, and that its purpose was to help Faith make the right choice about her understanding of herself, her redemption, and her future. But it was also about Angel confronting Angelus.
I do think it was really Angelus down there with her, not a symbolic construct playing Angelus, and I do think it was really Angel, not a construct of Angel. My primary reason for this is that both Angel and Angelus remained in the hell landscape after Faith woke up and disappeared. And when the soul was restored, it had an immediate effect on Angel and Angelus in that hell-scape. Plus, Angelus-in-the-coffeeshop was aware of when Cordelia tried to contact him to pull him out of his coma. He sensed it as an annoying buzzing that Faith showed no awareness of--because Cordelia's transmitter goes directly into her target's mind and is only perceived by them.
Not to mention the fact that Faith and Angel talk about their experience in the hell-scape out on the balcony when it is all over.
This trip to hell was perhaps primarily for Faith's benefit, but Angel and Angelus played a real role in it. At one point, Angelus says to Angel, "You're the one behind this whole true Hollywood sob story?", which at least implies that perhaps Angel orchestrated the whole thing--feeding images to Angelus and to Faith, mostly for Faith's benefit, as you say, but for Angelus' as well.
Which also explains why Angel says to Faith in the alley, very puzzled, "Why are you still here?" He expected her to have woken up already, so he could take on Angelus alone. He realizes he has a lot more work to do with her and he does it. Then she leaves, and he is left to deal with Angelus while they await the return of the soul that will give what is Angel in Liam the upperhand in the non-coma world.
I'm off to add your Faith thoughts to my episode analysis.
[> [>
Re: Great post! But a few caveats.... -- Solitude1056, 08:12:47 03/25/03 Tue
See my response to Lunasea. I disagree about the "two separate characters" - if Angel is Angelus + soul, then how could you have one person fighting against himself except through the use of some mighty constructs adding to the game plan? One couldn't be sentient without the other being fully aware of the goings-on... wasn't that the whole point of Angelus' demonstration to Faith, that he's not "in a box," he's there, all the time, present at every moment? I think the PTB had their fingers deep in the action, manipulating the action as needed to get Faith to straighten up and fly outta there. After all, without something's intervention, just how could Angel-with-soul participate in the hallucination while his soul was still trapped in a bottle and separate from the body that was actually drugged?
[> [> [>
Because Angel ISN'T Angelus + soul -- Masq, 09:01:54 03/25/03 Tue
Angel and Angelus are two different parts of Liam's psyche, his better nature and his worst nature. Neither of them is the "demon", neither of them is the "soul". And neither "disappears" with the absence of the soul. They are both still present. Angel is "deep in" Angelus as Angelus is "deep in" Angel.
The "demon" is the vampire physiology that Liam acquired when Darla turned him. It is blood-lust, physical strength, pointy fangs. It brings out the worst of Liam's personality traits--his sadism, bitterness, Daddy issues. The soul is a spiritual tool which brings out Liam's better nature--his empathy, his courage, his ability to love.
Remember when Darla was infused with Connor's soul? She didn't "become Connor", nor was she "possessed" by Connor. She was still Darla. The presence of a soul helped her tap into the better part of her own nature--the ability to love, to care about something. And it didn't need to be her soul.
When Spike got his soul back, he didn't get "reunited" with William--William was always there inside him, both William's better nature and his worst nature, part of unsouled Spike. Spike sought out a soul in part because he believed it would help him become the better man he wanted to be, to get a handle on the better nature that was already inside him but that he coldn't keep in the forefront. He wanted to be able to do the right thing because it was the right thing to do, not because it's what Buffy wanted him to do. And the only way, as he saw it, to be able to chose right for the sake of right was to get that little handy tool known as a soul.
Souls are like hearts, kidneys, or livers--interchangeable parts. Some are healthier than others, but they are still parts, "guiding stars", not the people themselves.
[> [> [> [>
But that just proves my point -- Solitude1056, 09:31:09 03/25/03 Tue
How would one person/awareness manage the dual-image in a hallucination?*
* Unless you're aiming for the MPD argument (one I get but don't necessarily care for on some sort of gut level), because even then it's a matter of "that's another personality, not mine." MPD, in the totally non-clinical, socially-understood sense, seems to imply a strong dose of "that's not really my personality," as though The Other Half could remain unmerged, and once merged, would be subsumed in the dominant, presenting personality. Angelus' point to Faith, though, is that he's present in every single action, already. That knocks MPD right out of the picture, because the Angelus-side does have an active role, in as much as the Angel-side has an equally active role in overriding the former's primal urges.
Anyway, I find it unlikely and difficult to comprehend that anyone, in Angel's place, could effectively manage presenting two separate personalities continuously, in separate pseudo-physical bodies. If Angel and Angelus are essentially the same person (and since that's what your response seems to say, I'll add I agree completely), then it's extra difficult to comprehend splitting one's own personality to present two separate images. The idea that Angelus is 'surprised' at something Angel says doesn't work, because Angelus is Angel; the awareness can't be divided up. That means, no Angelus without Angel and vice-versa, which is why I think it's a good heaping of Angel/us trying to wake up Faith with damaged-hero reality (of non-divided awareness, sans internal boxes).
I suspect this task was helped along (and possibly set up by) the PTB, but I see no reason Angel wouldn't take advantage of the message/situation and use it to get Faith to kick off the effects of an overdose while teaching her a valuable lesson at the same time.
[> [> [> [> [>
My viewpoint does not negate your basic argument -- Masq ; ), 10:14:47 03/25/03 Tue
Let me just put it this way, Sol. Your argument entirely convinced me that the visit to hell is all about Faith, not Angelus. I'm remembering the fight scene between Angel and Angelus in the alleyway where Angel is paying more attention to Faith and his encouraging words to her than to Angelus. Angelus gets miffed. "Um, did you happen to notice a fight here with your alter-ego!?"
Whether it is "really" Angel in the alleyway or "really" Angelus accompanying Faith from scene to scene is immaterial to your point. It doesn't negate the soundness of your argument that the journey is about Faith.
I do, however, believe it was the real Angel encouraging Faith in that alley, not a construct of Angel put there by the PTB's or whomever. For more clarification of this view, you can read my episode analysis of Orpheus (with a few revisions added this morning). You'll see that your viewpoint on the journey to hell being Faith's journey and my viewpoint on the real Angel being her guide are perfectly compatible.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Actually, that's what I was trying to say... -- Solitude1056, 11:06:25 03/25/03 Tue
Guess it wasn't clear - I meant that Angelus would be a construct, if there's anyone that's a representative puppet on the part of the PTB. Either that, or Angel was replaying his history and mimicking Angelus (and he's fooled Faith before with that act, so it's not out of the question). The problem I have is that such a position breaks down once you get to both Angel and Angelus interacting. Other than that, I agree with you completely about Angel being the active/aware/dominant aspect in the alleyway (as opposed to Angelus being aware and Angel being the construct).
PS: After a year's hiatus, I finally got quoted again. Woo, and may I add, hoo!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Actually, that's what I was trying to say... -- lunasea, 11:23:46 03/25/03 Tue
When you fracture a personality, you don't have a real one and a construct. They are all fractured. Angel is no more whole than Angelus. Angel admits that there were things he did with a soul that he isn't proud of. He doesn't realize that these things were done by the part of himself that is the same as the unsouled vampire.
it is still blame it on the demon.
In the hell-trip, both these fractured personas can have form.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Well, I pretty much think that's the real Angelus, too. -- Masq, 11:36:13 03/25/03 Tue
He gets dragged along for the ride in Faith's hell and assumes It's All About Him, since they are being forced to watch Angel's past.
There is evidence to suggest it really is Angelus, one of the primary ones being that when Cordelia attempts to send him one of her telepathic messages as she did before, Angelus experiences it as a "buzzing" in his mind that Faith is unaware of.
And the fact that Angelus remains behind in hell after Faith leaves, and when Angel' soul is restored, is shown merging with Angel in the alleyway.
[> [> [> [> [>
Not as hard as it sounds -- lunasea, 11:17:53 03/25/03 Tue
MPD is now known as DID, Dissociative Identity Disorder. Rarely is the condition so severe that the components are completely isolated from each other. There hasn't been a single instance where at least one persona wasn't aware of everything with the others. The various personas all jockey for position, asserting when they can.
That is what I got Angelus as saying. Even when he is back in the deep crazy ground, he just needs an opportunity, like he had at the donut shop.
This actually brings up an interesting point. Angel still sees Angelus as someone seperate from him. He says that with a soul he did things he wish he didn't. He accepts responsibility for the donut shop. But that wasn't Angel. That was Angelus asserting himself. Angelus knows this. Angel fights unsouled Angelus, saying this is something he has been waiting for a long time. He has been fighting Angelus for quite some time. Angel has dissociated based on the soul, but he doesn't carry this over to himself once he is souled. It is selective dissociation.
It really isn't that hard to manage two distinct personalities. When we start getting in the double digits, then it gets hard.
[> [> [> [> [>
The Dreamscape -- Darby, 07:32:08 03/26/03 Wed
As pointed out in this week's Six Feet Under, "someone said once that everyone in your dreams is you." I only see this as true in that folks in dreams are limited by your perceptions of them, and as such are essentially "constructs." Faith, pulled in as she was, is the exception here (maybe), but Angel and Angelus are the angel and devil on the shoulders - there is no compelling reason why they couldn't manifest as separate, interacting entities in what is essentially a dream, and represent those aspects of Angel that he acknowledges are integrated but can't help feeling are separate.
[> [> [> [>
That's part of the problem -- lunasea, 11:04:25 03/25/03 Tue
Angel and Angelus are two different parts of Liam's psyche, his better nature and his worst nature
Angel sees Angelus as his "worst" nature and him as his "better" nature. He has dissociated to the point where he now sees them as two seperate entities.
The energy that drives us doesn't divide into better/worse or good/evil. That energy actually wants to be whole. It is fractured by trauma. Angelus the vampire is representative of a specific trauma. In not dealing with that trauma, Angel makes Angelus stronger. Off to do a post about what that trauma was.
BTW did you hear about 4.17? Fury was talking about it at the Bronze yesterday, so it really wasn't a spoiler. Oh HAPPY HAPPY DAYS. There is a cast spoiler about it out there though, an amazing fabulous spectacular one (and not just the one about a certain cast member from another ME show). I thought Orpheus was amazing. We ain't seen nothing yet.
How is BtVS gonna top this? We will have to see. All I keep thinking about is what DB said in an interview "the changes within each of us." YUMMMM!!!!
Fan girl won't stay asleep today. I will tranq her for my thread.
[>
Re: Maybe Because It's Not About You...it's about paying ***spoilers for Orpheus*** -- Rufus, 23:29:43 03/24/03 Mon
Faith's lowest point was abusing her power, her Slayership, by killing an innocent human being - and even more, not giving a damn about it afterwards. When she finally came back to humanity, it was necessary to face the consequences, and Faith accepted these, confessing to her crime and accepting society's judgement. Her jail time is her "way of paying," of suffering the consequences. Between several years in jail, followed by her acceptance of The Angelus Issue as her personal mission, she's paid in both time and physical suffering. Faith can hardly go back to society's jail at this point - who knows what excessive punishment they'd mete out for someone who left and then was caught (let alone returned!) later. Her payment period, like Eurydice's life in the original myth, was cut short and she wants it back.
Faith has been hiding, which is different than paying for what she has done. By giving up her Slayer identity she was in a hell of a sort, one of her own choosing, where she got three squares and nothing more. She disappeared just like Angel did for a time. She became just as soulless as Angel by taking herself out of the game. Paying never ends for either character, because what they have both done is so extreme that they will continue to pay as long as they are in this world.
Angel: Faith! Wake up!
Faith: I've rolled the bones. You for me.
Angel: I used to think that. That there would be a point when I'd paid my dues.
Angelus: Anyone notice a battle with your alter-ego going on here?
Angel: Faith, listen to me. You saw me drink. It doesn't get much lower than that...and I thought I could make up for it by disappearing.
Faith: I did my time.
Angel: Our time is never up, Faith. We pay for everything.
Faith: It hurts.....
Angel: I know...I know
Angel: Get up. You have to get up now, Faith. You have to fight. I need you to fight.
Angel: You understand what I'm saying?
Angelus: And what won't I miss?
Angelus: The moralizing. Soul's already in the ether, boy-o. I can smell it. How about I send it off to that big puppy rescue in the sky?
Faith: Arf Arf....psycho.
Angelus: Faith.....getting back into the game?
Faith: I guess I am.
Faith took the Orpheus thinking that she wasn't coming back that it would be a debt paid in full, her for Angel....but as Angel points out it isn't that simple. For her to even begin to pay back what she took she has to get back in the game, a game that will never be over til she dies. Angel couldn't hide from that fact and either can Faith. Faith thought that she was like Orpheus, going to the underworld to bring back her friend, a friend who cared for her. What happened was both characters had their souls returned...Angel by a little magical help and support from some friends, and Faith by deciding to come out of hiding and get back into this impossible game.
[> [>
Paying, paying, and then there's paying. -- Solitude1056, 07:26:36 03/25/03 Tue
Which is why I pointed out the difficulty of the expression "paying." As far as society is concerned, giving up your freedom and rotting in prison is a way of paying, atoning, for one's crime. And I've no doubt, based on the few Faith guest spots over the past two years (when Angel would visit her once or twice in prison) that she did regret her crime and saw her time in prison as a proper way to atone. But you're right, she's also hiding from her real work - of recognizing/acknowledging the monster inside her and actually dealing with it (as opposed to just talking about it, knowing it's In A Box and not something she'll deal with nightly as she does Slayer rounds).
Frankly, I don't believe the modern penal system (in any country) really helps criminals deal with their crime in the sense of learning how to not do it again. Oh, there are a few, but they're the rare cases. And Faith, in some ways, is an excellent example of someone who preferred the protected life in prison over continuing to struggle with the daily existence. At least, that's the conclusion I drew by her willingness to throw in the towel rather than fight against the drug. No surprise if she was looking for that "one good thing that will wipe out all the bad you've ever done," which may be some element of why Faith takes the offer from Wesley in the first place.
[> [> [>
Slightly OT: regarding penal systems -- s'kat, 07:59:33 03/25/03 Tue
Frankly, I don't believe the modern penal system (in any country) really helps criminals deal with their crime in the sense of learning how to not do it again. Oh, there are a few, but they're the rare cases. And Faith, in some ways, is an excellent example of someone who preferred the protected life in prison over continuing to struggle with the daily existence.
I agree. It doesn't really rehabilitate anyone, some people it just makes more hardened and worse than when they went in. Others? Makes better or at least gives the appearence of doing so.
I remember discussing this with a man I was trying to get off on parole in 1992 from Leavenworth Penitentiary. Leavenworth btw is a lot nicer looking than the prisons we see in films. First off - when visitors come and meet with prisoners - you do it in what can best be described as a small airport lounge complete with vending machines - no plexiglass between you and the prisoner.
Also the cells? Don't have bars - they are tiny rooms about the size of a small walk-in closet with a steel door and a tiny window in the top - looks a bit like the doors you'd see in psychiatric hospital. The prison has a movie theater/tv room, different workshops, classrooms, offers rehabilitation courses. The prisoners that aren't in solitary - work. You're usually in solitary for one of three reasons - you are a danger to other prisoners, they are a danger to you, or plain misbehavior.
The guy I was with, and we were discussing this during a lock-down (which is when everyone is confined to quarters due to a violent incident - in this case, a couple of prisoners had started a knife fight and injured a guard, so the prison was locked down except for the pre-scheduled parole hearings) - at any rate, this guy told me: Prison isn't about rehabilitation - it's about punishment. And the punishment isn't being confined - it's who you are confined with. It's the other prisoners that are the punishement. And with the possible exception of the horrors in solitary, those prisoners are worse than you and some want to do horrid things to you. He said, even in prison, there are people most criminals can't stand. Also the lack of freedom.
It was an interesting conversation - one I've never forgotten.
With Faith - I think you are right, she could hide in prison, for her - prison was not much different than Angel's gutter or Spike's basement - a horrible place, but a place one can hide from others if not from oneself. Yet no peace could be had there. Not really. Because no matter what you do, you can't hide from yourself. Angel couldn't hide from Angelus after all. Which I guess was the point Angel was trying to get across to Faith. Faith also was unlike other prisoners - she had no reason to fear those she was with - she could take them on easily. They were actually less dangerous to her than the demons outside those walls.
Interesting metaphor that - in some cases, prisoners feel much the same way in our society - especially the ones who've been in there a lonnng time - it's the outside demons they fear. I know my parolee lived in fear of his own outside demons.
Punishment has never been an easy concept for our society.
We don't seem to know how to do it. I think prisons by and large are less about punishing people and more about keeping the rest of us safe from those who want to harm us.
It's society's way of protecting itself.
[>
Just brilliant. And some great responses too. -- Arethusa, 06:32:39 03/25/03 Tue
[>
Awww, shucks, y'll. It's just nice to know I've not lost my touch. ;-) -- Solitude1056, 08:52:26 03/25/03 Tue
Andromeda-Response to Doug -- Meritaten, 00:08:46 03/25/03 Tue
I didn't watch Andromeda from the start - Hunt reminded me too much of Hercules. I started watching it one day when when I wanted to do anything but study, and decided it wasn't bad. Watched it more and more after that. Still, it is a show that I enjoy, but tape and watch when I have time. I don't know the names of episodes or what season the different episodes are from. I found that the show lost something once the Commonwealth was reestablished. It doesn't have the same focus or drive, and the plots seem weaker. I guess it has to do with Hunt being just a Captain again, not the lone crusader for civilization. It stikes me as poor writing that he disobeys the orders of his Commonwealth superiors so soon after having established their authority. He still does whatever he likes, which makes him seem a bit hypocritical.
I think Tyr is my favorite character. In one epsiode he said that Dylan was trying to reshape the universe according to his own image. Tyr further said that for some reason he couldn't understand he was starting to prefer that image. I like the fact that you never know what Tyr is going to do next. I like the vacillation between selfishness and loyalty (although this word doesn't seem quite right!) to Dylan's cause.
I was sad when Rev Bem left the show, but found that I didn't miss him. Still not sure what to think of the new, older Trance. I'd like to learn more about her past. Harper is annoying, but his character fits. I like Becka. Dylan also, once I got past the preconception of "Hercules in Space".
[>
Re: Andromeda-Response to Doug -- frisby, 03:37:19 03/25/03 Tue
I watch it to see what they will do with the Nietzschean mythos. It's interesting the way they have matched the Nietzscheans and the Christians. In western history, the Christians brought an end to the Roman Empire, but then in turn prevented the northern barbarians from destroying what was left of Rome entirely. In Andromeda, the Nietzscheans bring an end to the Commonwealth, but then, before the Magog can destroy it entirely, the Nietzscheans prevent them. The emphasis on marriage and children, and loyalty too for that matter, is in my opinion true to Nietsche. As is the emphasis on health, strength, and nobility. I'd like to know where the writers and producers get their consultations with regard to their notion of the Nietzschans. As for the outrageous notion of the Nietzscheans playing such a huge role in the future, well, that rings true to my ears too. But then, I read Buffy as a kind of Nietzschean superman too, so ---
[> [>
Have you read the 'Ancestor's Breath' essays? -- Doug, 06:49:42 03/25/03 Tue
There are these essays written by Keith Hamilton Cobb, the actor who plays Tyr, and there is some great stuff on Nietzschean culture in them. They are accesible through the actor's website (which for some reason I can't access right now.) Strongly recommended reading.
I used to get into all kinds of debates on Nietzschean culture on the old SlipstreamBBS. Parrelels between the Commonwealth and the Roman Empire were always fun to discuss. The analysis of Matriarchal and Patriarchal elements of Nietzschean Society was another good topic.
Wish I could start those debates up again, but this is off-topic enough as it is, plus we are about to get the wash of new threads this evening with the new episodes.
[>
Thanks for responding -- Doug, 06:10:45 03/25/03 Tue
I started Watching almost at the start of the show, second episode. It was pretty much something I watched because I was bored until Episodes 1.5 (Double Helix) and 1.6 (Angel Dark, Demon Bright) came out, then I was hooked.
You seem to have the same favorite characters I do: Tyr, Rev, Beka.
And I agree with you entirely about Dylan in the 3rd season, after the Commonwealth was re-established.
Nice to know there are others who watched Andromeda on the Board.
thoughts on 7.17, tonight's UPN ep (spoilers) -- Clen, 07:55:57 03/25/03 Tue
Well, I liked it. That's my overall impression.
On the other hand, it was all just a little too neat. Yeah, Spike has problems with women because of his mum, makes sense. TOO much sense. They could have done a lot more with it. Yes, I know it's not like he's done having problems with women, just that he's (apparently) done with the trigger. But it still has the feeling of being rushed. I guess it just had to be this way, they only have so many episodes left in which to wrap up the loose threads, so Spike should be happy he got the ep all to himself (though sharing it, in a sense with Wood). So, as a compromise, constrained by time and budget, I can't fault them for what they put out. I just wish they weren't so constrained.
As for the First and Spike, it DOES seem as if the First gave up on Spike. I mean, all that Spike needs to do to overcome the trigger is to have a mental breakthrough, not exactly a Herculean feat. And yet, FE claims that Spike still has a purpose. So, some possibilities:
a. FE was lying, Andrew is not worth discussin plans with, or the FE doesn't like admitting a minor defeat.
b. FE was still planning on using the trigger, but got stumped, just like with the Seal.
c. FE didn't actually mention the trigger in its convo with Andrew (see 7.14). It just mentioned that Spike's time hadn't come yet. So maybe the FE had already given up on the trigger and has something else in mind.
d. as c., but that FE was banking on the clash between Wood and Spike to be the "plan" the element that would disrupt the SG, in which case it is also stumped, at least for now.
Personally, I wish Spike HAD killed Wood. I was impressed when they cut to commercial with that, only to be let down when I found out Wood lived. What was all that stuff about sacrificing aspects that get in the way of the mission? Buffy knows that Wood is a liability now, and Wood made no claim that he wouldn't have a go at Spike again, perhaps in a sneakier way. So, shouldn't mission-focused Buffy have taken him out? I can understand why Spike didn't, but Buffy? It's an awful big leap of faith to think Wood won't try and kill Spike. It's undeniable that he'll help try and save the world, so is that what Buffy thought? She should only take him out if she thought he woulnd't chip in on the mission? Maybe that Spike and Wood's squabbling is only worth dealing with when it obstructs the mission?
Or is it just that she feels Wood is not threat to Spike? Since we know she has a superiority complex, and it appears that her "general" role is helping her get over her inferiority complex about her superiority complex (see 7.7), as evidenced by how she has dealt with Spike, Andrew and the SiTs (see 7.15, 7.16, also 7.5). Maybe since Slayers are the chosen ones, and Spike has killed two, that she IS starting to consider him "on her level". In which case, she sees him as an equal, thereby freeing him up as an appropriate romantic prospect, and Wood, since he "can't" take Spike in a fight, is therefore inferior, and not a prospect for her, though he seems to flirt well.
But Wood's flirting is Oedipal, whereas Spike's prostrations were not. Buffy might just like his attention. I mean, how many girls get turned on by finding out you remind them of their mum? Even Spike didn't try that with Drusilla, despite being obsessed with Mum's welfare.
And yet, Buffy feels no threat from Spike in a fight, so she also considers him inferior. So, there is a paradox there, she considers him superior yet inferior. Maybe Buffy has subtle gradations of inferiority, it would be interesting to work on a hierarchy of how useful she considers everyone else to be. As an initial offering, I would suggest in this order: Spike, Giles, Willow, Xander, Dawn, Anya. The SiTs don't factor in because they are her pupils, and bound to replace her, whereas the others are her allies. The SiTs have the potential to be superior, so they don't factor in to the inferiority scale. It would be interesting for people to offer their own ideas, and elaborate on them. It will also be interesting to see how she treats Faith, who is ALSO in the superior class, and also technically Buffy's equal.
I would also be interesting to compare Buffy-General to the General of the Knights of Byzantium from S5. Now that we know that she would sacrifice Dawn if she did it again (why? everything worked out, Buffy even went on a summer vacation to Heaven. does that mean Buffy would sacrifice Dawn so as to avoid her own suffering in S6? not very Buddha-like, if you ask me), it would be interesting to see in what other ways Buffy compares to and differs from the General.
Buffy ranks her friends (minor spoils from 7.5, 7.7, 7.15, 7.16) -- Clen, 11:58:36 03/25/03 Tue
(This is parsed and tinkered with from my previous post)
We know Buffy has a superiority complex, and it appears that her "general" role is helping her get over her inferiority complex about her superiority complex (see 7.7), as evidenced by how she has dealt with Spike, Andrew and the SiTs (see 7.15, 7.16, also 7.5). Maybe since Slayers are the chosen ones, and Spike has killed two, that she IS starting to consider him "on her level". In which case she sees him as an equal, thereby freeing him up as an appropriate romantic prospect.
And yet, Buffy feels no threat from Spike in a fight, so she also considers him inferior. So, there is a paradox there, she considers him superior yet inferior. Maybe Buffy has subtle gradations of inferiority, it would be interesting to work on a hierarchy of how useful she considers everyone else to be. If she is really becoming completely focused on the needs of completing the mission, perhaps we can begin by looking at who she most often turns to for aid, whether in the immediate save-me sense, or in the longer-term planning stage and as source of comfort.
As an initial offering, I would suggest, in this order: Spike, Giles, Wood, Willow, Xander, Dawn, Anya. The SiTs don't factor in because they are her pupils, and bound to replace her, whereas the others are her allies. The SiTs have the potential to be superior, so they don't factor in to the inferiority scale. It would be interesting for people to offer their own ideas, and elaborate on them. It will also be interesting to see how she treats Faith, who is ALSO in the superior class, and also technically Buffy's equal.
[>
Re: Buffy ranks her friends (minor spoils from 7.5, 7.7, 7.15, 7.16) -- Flo, 14:09:47 03/25/03 Tue
This is a really interesting way to track the changes in Buffy's relationships with her allies. Ranking her friends by their usefulness to her incorporates both her perspective of their individual powers, and also her ability to trust them.
I think Buffy would rank her allies as:
Spike: It's clear she needs him both for fighting and for emotional support, I agree with you that she sees him as being equal to her and therefore a better ally than the others.
Willow: She turns to her often and acknowledges her power, or at least the potential for her power. The fact that she gets frustrated by Willow's tentative approach these days reinforces the fact that Buffy really needs Willow. Also, when Buffy went into the portal in Get It Done, she directed her comment that they would find a way to get her out toward Willow.
Faith: I think that Buffy will be suspicious of Faith, but hugely relieved to have another slayer around.
Wood: She knows he's a good fighter and that he understands something about slayers. I also think she places more trust in him than he has earned because she's crushed out on him -- not a promising position for him given the state of her previous crushes.
Giles: I think he has moved farther down on the list steadily since he left Sunnydale. And wasn't that his intention in the first place? This season we rarely see Buffy ask for information or advice from Giles. In fact, we rarely see her talking with him at all.
Xander: She's ignoring him more than ever these days, but there is a deep trust there that she knows she can rely on. The fact that he doesn't have mystical or physical powers is making him invisible to her for now.
Dawn: Buffy is relying more and more on her for information.
Anya: I think Buffy would have placed more faith in Anya in the past. Now she sees her as someone who is scared and is just there to be protected and, of course, to provide much needed sarcasm.
[> [>
Re: Buffy ranks her friends (minor spoils from 7.5, 7.7, 7.15, 7.16) -- Clen, 17:09:20 03/25/03 Tue
I was thinking though that:
a. Buffy's superiority ties into being Chosen (the Slayer fights alone, the Slayer makes the hard decisions), so I was deliberately keeping other Slayers off her inferiority list. The SiTs can be dismissed because they aren't superior like her yet, but how does Buffy resolve the identical superiority yet seeming moral inferiority that Faith represents? How will this impact Buffy's confidence as "General"? Will her superiority complex win out, elevating Faith to fellow General; or will the inferiority complex win out, constraining her reliance on Faith as a tool in this ever-looming war. I guess I see Buffy's superiority complex as a function of her Slayer side, and her inferiority complex as a function of her reliance on her friends.
b. I think she relies on Giles a lot, he is her main source of information and recruiting. Giles brings back word from "the Coven", brings back SiTs, and still has a lot of momentum back from when he was her Watcher. Willow has thus far proven no more effective than say Dawn at getting info on the FE's movements, plus Willow's magic and computer skills have proven unreliable, compared to Giles' rocklike reliability.
c. Willow is powerful, but not reliable. Willow will not only go off the deep end if she does too much, but also is scared of pushing it. An unreliable and powerful weapon can be less useful than a predictable and minor weapon. But it's a toughie to figure out -- how far will Buffy trust Willow? Willow is the most powerful, As Kennedy pointed out, but Buffy didn't agree because Willow is not the most useful in the fight against the FE, and it is "all about the mission". Willow's wild cardness lowers her rating for Buffy, I think.
It should be good to come back to this ranking after every episode (what few are left) and see how it has shifted, if at all. I think shifting is more than likely, as people prove themselves relevant to Buffy or not by their potential role in saving the world. I forgot to include Andrew! After Storyteller, I would put him above Anya, but barely. Now that the Seal is gone, that gap might narrow, but I would still keep Andrew above Anya, who merely seems to be a concilliatory gift to Xander, at least for now.
General Buffy (spoils from 7.5, minor spoils from 7.15, 7.16, and S5) -- Clen, 12:11:52 03/25/03 Tue
(this is parsed and tinkered with from another post of mine)
We can see over the past few episodes that Buffy is slipping gradually into her role as commander of the troops, General Buffy, complete with speeches and chastisements (see 7.15 and 7.16).
It would be interesting to compare Buffy-General to the General of the Knights of Byzantium from S5. It seems more than likely that Buffy would now sacrifice Dawn if she went through it all over again, as can be drawn from her commitment to kill Anya in 7.5, and her overall callousness to death and heartache in 7.15 and 7.16. To save the world, Slayers must ALWAYS make "hard decisions".
This brings her a little closer to the Byzantium General if she is willing to do "what it takes" (a phrase that is in actuality an absolvement of responsibility by those looking for merely the most expedient or obvious route to their goal).
It would be interesting to see in what other ways Buffy compares to and differs from the General.
Holden -- Rochefort, 17:09:44 03/25/03 Tue
I know you've all discussed this before, but I was still struck seeing Holden recently with the questions of what makes a vampire more than a vampire. Clearly Holden had, what would we call it? Potential? So much of his human personality was still present! (more so than even say Evil Willow). It's more in line, say, with the change we see from not souled Spike to souled Spike. Still pretty much the same guy.
I wonder how much of this might in our imaginations have to do with their introspectiveness? Holden was an "in touch" guy before he got vamped. And he stays in touch. How many vamps would think to stop and say "Yeah I'm feeling this blood lust, stuff." Or "I feel really connected to this great evil." How many NOT vamped guys would say that? or how many vamps look up their friends or think about how much they have to learn or decide AGAINST vampifying their girlfriend because it's not like he wants to spend all eternity with her. Or could help someone while being aware that they're also enjoying the pain. It seems to me what Spike and Holden share is that as humans they had an incredible amount of insightfulness into their own emotions. Unlike most guys in American society, a familiarity with the emotional spectrum and an ability to read their own. And to *gasp* feel. Does this put them more in touch with their humanity, even when they're vampified? Does that somehow give them... with risk of sounding like a Buffy-fan cliche, more potential to be redeamed?
Rochefort
[>
Re: Holden (Spoilers for Lies My Parents Told Me) -- AngelVSAngelus, 18:04:30 03/25/03 Tue
Holden did have much more charismatic charm and expressiveness than most vampires we see (with the exception of tonight's Richard for the reason I'm getting to in a sec), but that's because we hardly ever get the opportunity to see into the being of most vamps. They're normally not given any time to make conversation, we're not normally able to monitor their living spaces or everyday activities.
To me, the thing that makes Holden and the others vamps we DO get insight into, is the dichotomy of their being. They can be at once so mundane or normal, and in a heart beat plotting to kill you or suck the world into hell.
Current board
| More March 2003