May 2003 posts

Why does everyone hate Connor so much? -- lost_bracelet, 23:52:29 05/15/03 Thu

I thought he was a great character. I could relate to him almost as much as some of the other outcasts (Willow, Xander, Wesley). I loved the way he never quite fit in, and could never forgive his father. The final confrontation between him and Angel was devastatingly sad, as was Connor's faux remodeled life in the happy family at the end. Oh, so sad.

Why does everyone hate him so much? His relationship with Angel was a unique but solid representation of the almost universal conflict between parents and children: parents always f*ck up, and children can never forgive them for it.

[> Re: Why does everyone hate Connor so much? -- Mightor, 00:15:21 05/16/03 Fri

Personally I didn't hate him. I thought his story had strong mythical tones and I also thought that given his background, his actions and reactions were perfectly understandable psychologically. Not all charcters are there to be perfect allies. Some are there for conflict and drama.

[> [> Yes, good point about the mythic quality. -- lost_bracelet, 00:20:36 05/16/03 Fri

There was definitely an Oedipal thing going on. As Angelus quipped, "Someone should write a play...."

[> I don´t (spoilers Angel s4 above and below) -- grifter, 02:36:33 05/16/03 Fri

I generally never hate a character as long as the story being told through and about her/him is good. And Connor´s story was amazing, and very well played by VK (especially during Jasmine´s reign).

[> I take issue with your statement -- Mackenzie, 06:46:45 05/16/03 Fri

My parents f*cked up plenty but they have asked for forgiveness and I gave it too them, just like they have done for me over the years. I don't hate Conner, I just don't understand him. Angel asked for forgiveness over and over and Connor was too self centered to forgive Angel.

[> [> I think you really hit on something (spoiler home) -- lunasea, 08:10:38 05/16/03 Fri

My mother was a royal screw-up, though it wasn't her fault. She is mentally ill and was raised by someone even nuttier than she is. She never asked me for forgiveness and won't begin to acknowledge any of her mistakes, but I have forgiven her any way. As Giles says in IOHEFY "To forgive is an act of compassion, Buffy. It's, it's not done because people deserve it. It's done because they need it." They aren't the only ones that need it.

My mother to this day doesn't think she ever did anything wrong. She doesn't need forgiveness to get over her mistakes. What she needs is to have contact with her daughter and grand children. This wasn't possible as long as I was angry at her.

When we hold a grudge we become judgemental. We are saying that what someone did was wrong. That sort of karma makes us more and more judgemental and more and more bitter. Best to just let it all go. I draw lines and won't let my mother do certain things to my children, but I am not angry at her. It was amazing how good this has been for me and my children are learning how to show compassion to someone like my mother.

With Connor I think the writers wrote themselves into a serious corner. With Connor they were showing what happens when someone can't forgive, even if what happened really isn't your fault. I wanted to strangle Lilah when she blamed this on Angel. For me the key to forgiving my mother was realizing she really wasn't at fault. Her mental illness combined with how she was raised caused her behavior. If only Connor could have seen the same thing. He would have been the luckiest kid in the world. He was Angel's child. He would have been loved so much. We kept wanting Connor to forgive Angel and get on with his life, but that wasn't going to be in the cards.

I felt for what Connor had been through, but until they mentioned being tied to a tree, how many specifics about his childhood had we heard? He grew up in a hell dimension. Since they really didn't show this, it was just an explanation for his behavior rather than something I felt. We had seen Angel talk about his past, even back on BtVS. We had even seen parts of it. We experienced Angelus and saw where Angel's feelings came from. Quor-toth was just a convenient explanation. They could have handled this easily with nightmares and shown us rather than told us.

The other flaw with how Connor was used was I didn't love him. Every other character that I was supposed to love, ME showed me why. There was something about that character themselves and not just their relationship to another character. I loved Angel for the same reason that Buffy did, not because she did. With Connor it was because he was Angel's son, not because of Connor himself. There really wasn't a Connor, just a bundle of anger and hurt.

[> [> [> Wow- you made my day -- Mackenzie, 09:15:31 05/16/03 Fri

I am so honored that you think I was onto something! I love to read your posts because they are always so intellegent and well thought out.
It is also nice to hear I am not the only who grew up with a mentally ill mother. My mom was the youngest of twelve, all of whom has one form of mental illness or another. Her mother was the worst of all.(of course unfortunalty genetics was also not in my or my brothers favor, we both suffer from depression and OCD) Luckily my dad is a very patient, kind, and understanding man that helped us all understand what we were and helped us to get the help we all needed. To this day there are things that my mom feels she needs to apologize for but I remind her that we need to put the past behind us.
Forgiveness is the second greatest gift given to humanity, only second to free will(they are connected but that is a whole other thing).
If you think about it, all the buffyverse characters use both forgiveness and free will freely. The only one that hasn't or doesn't is Connor.
It would have been easier to understand Connor's issues if we had seen more of what his early childhood was like. No matter though, even if you grow up in hell everyone has the ability to forgive, he just wasn't willing too. And I agree with you, too bad for him. Angel would make a wonderful father, if he does that shanshu thing, maybe he will have a chance to.

[> [> [> [> Xander too(spoiler Empty Places) -- lunasea, 10:00:36 05/16/03 Fri

:-) And you made mine

If you think about it, all the buffyverse characters use both forgiveness and free will freely. The only one that hasn't or doesn't is Connor.

And Xander. I have been thinking a lot about Xander lately. (I tend to think about a lot of things simultaneously and then figure out what they all have in common) Xander is the every man. He is the one without the super powers. He is portrayed as the heart, the glue that keeps the Scoobies together, the carpenter that rebuilds the house.

His heart and gluing abilities are limited because he stays human. Let me see if I can explain this. In Primeval, Willow, Giles and Xander are given their traits. S5-7 has been Buffy surpassing each of them in that particular trait. Buffy surpassed the mudane/human and goes onto the divine. We aren't talking about her Slayer powers. It probably has more to do with why she was Chosen then what happens to her after she was chosen.

Each of us is made in the image of the divine. Xander chooses not to be this image. His heart is limited by this. He can't see Angel or Spike as anything but vampires. He says the cruelest things to Buffy throughout the series and is the second deepest cut in "Empty Places."

Xander cannot keep everything together when Buffy leaves. We see how chaotic everything is after she leaves. Xander isn't even trying to hold things together any more. Buffy comes back and puts everything back in order. Buffy is now the heart and glue that keeps everything together.

Xander is a perfect example of what happens when we can't forgive. With one line "kick his butt" Xander rips Buffy's support system from under her. Because of Xander's judgement, Buffy couldn't tell people about Spike last season.

Connor just takes this to the extreme.

[> [> [> [> [> The "lie" again and again and again -- lakrids, 11:57:26 05/16/03 Fri

I think I get the same feeling, when I here about the lie in becoming, as the spuffistas feel when they hear about Spikes rape attempt in seeing red.

I think Xander lied both out of a desire to keep Buffy focused, and out of anti-Angel spite, the way his attitude towards vampires has been shaped by both practicality/morality (Jesse) and jealousy. I don't understand the notion that it has to be one or the other. I honestly don't think that he could/should have said anything else, when stakes were so high. But I know. that I am now beating on a very dead and smelly horse ;).

On more personal note even if I love Angel, even with his gigantic pride. I feel that Vampires even with souls, is dead people and I would feel far less loss if Angel died, after his over 200 hundred year of existence, than for example over the death of Gunn.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Xander, vengeance and back to Connor (spoiler home) -- lunasea, 13:19:09 05/16/03 Fri

I used to be strongly in the "Xander lied to Buffy to keep her focused" camp. I also didn't think he tried to get Faith to kill Angel in "Revelations." I still don't think it was petty jealousy that motivated him. At this point, he has Cordelia and has moved beyond lusting after Buffy. Xander, as every man, has no special powers to protect him. I would want them dealt with also. Xander was almost killed by Angel. If Dru hadn't saved him, they would have been minus one Scooby.

It made Willow that much more amazing. She was the first person whose life was in serious danger by Angel (the whore doesn't count. That was instinct, not revenge). She felt his hands around her and his breath on her neck as he came down to bite her. He had been in her room and killed her pets. She could still see beyond this to Buffy's feelings. I don't think that Willow ever fully trusts Angel until much later. Her concern isn't whether Angel is trustworthy. It is Buffy.

Xander is perspective-guy, but overall perspective guy. Even if he did it to keep Buffy focused, he isn't doing this to help her, but to help her do what she has to. Big diff. Vengeance is still driving his inability to see Angel as anything but a monster. That is what drives his actions.

What got me out of the trying to help Buffy focus camp is the flow of Becoming. When they discuss whether to resoul Angel, their motivations and perspectives are given. All are concerned about what Angel has done. Giles is willing to forgive him, even for Jenny's death, because it was her last wish. Xander isn't.

We see Angel cursed and then we see the discussion about recursing him. The gypsy man, who cannot get beyond what Angel has done and instead wants to punish him, is now played by Xander. It was a great way to show the curse, but Joss's writing exists on so many levels. The parallel nature of his story lines is amazing to diagram (takes multiple colors to keep them straight).

Xander asks "Who cares." Buffy says that she does and Xander doesn't care. This is Xander's attitude going to the mansion. He is pissed that Willow wants to recurse Angel. He isn't caring about the feelings of anyone. He just wants things taken care of the way he wants them taken care of. He wants Angel punished and is willing to be cruel to get this accomplished. Besides what we see on the screen, in the shooting script two important things were cut. Cordy: Wow. Even I know that was insensitive. Then Xander tries to stare Willow down: Am I wrong? Where they ended instead kept the focus on Buffy.

He is still representative of the every man. It takes someone truly extraordinary to see beyond Angel's actions. Willow can see to Buffy at least. Buffy can see to Angel's heart. Xander's character is limited by him being the everyman. He is the every heart, not the divine one that Buffy (or Angel) is.

He is in a similar boat that Spike is. They are representative of something specific and are limited by that. Being every man, his ability to forgive is limited. To forgive is a divine action. His character lies in dealing with his limitations, much like Spike.

In not being able to forgive, he cuts Buffy's support from under her. I love Angel's story because it talks to the destructive nature of vengeance. It is also about rising above that.

Back to Connor. When someone can't forgive us, what do we do? We have to move beyond that. That is what Angel did. He did the best he can for Connor, but he accepted that Connor can't forgive him. It wasn't giving up on him. It was accepting the situation. It's not easy to do. My family has had to have my mother committed a few times. It doesn't mean that we give up on her. It just means that we cannot give her the help she needs.

Angel had Connor committed.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Willow -- lakrids, 15:28:35 05/16/03 Fri

I am sorry to hear that about your mother. I hope she will get better with time.

Willow is one of my favourites characters, and one of the characters that has been developed most over the seasons. She is for me mixture of insecurities of good intentions and sweetness. But she is hardly a saint for example, did she dislike Faith right from the start and ended with hating her, for good reason, in season 4. And then there is also that little spell she would had cast on Oz and Veruca, she came pretty close of casting it, before she stopped her self.

The westcoast review has a interesting analyse of Willow in flooded.
Link http://thewestcoastreview.homestead.com/flooded.html

Flooded" was (pardon the expression) a wolf in sheep's clothing. It was camouflaged as a light, goofy episode, but it wasn't. It also appeared to be about mundane domestic concerns, but it wasn't. The goofiness came in the shapes of the Trio de la Geek, led by longtime resident of the Buffyverse, Jonathan. Their robbery-by-proxy of the bank, followed by an attempt on Buffy's life, was less than compelling. But these three weren't really the monster. That came in the form of Willow's hubris. Many have noted the scariness of Willow's threat against Giles in response to his criticism of her use of magic. But that wasn't the truly scary moment. That came a few seconds later, after she realized that she'd shown Giles a part of herself that no one had seen before - the rage, the fury, that she carries inside. Look at the sequence of shots here: she lets down her guard, we see that Giles recognizes something in her that he'd never known was there, we see that she knows what he's just figured out, and she feels a moment of panic because her secret is out. Then comes the truly scary moment: she tries to cover up what she's revealed by slipping back into her "Willow" guise - the stammering, the fluttery hand gestures, the darting eye movements, all meant to signal that she's nothing but a sweet, innocent thing who's just trying to get by. For me, that was maybe the scariest moment in the show's history. This wasn't a bug-eyed monster, who by nature is something we feel is at a remove from us. This was a character who's not only human, but who's shown herself to be heroic and decent in many ways over the years. When she shows that she has within her the capacity for rage and duplicity that she shows here, there's no distance between us and the character. .

And then did the writers blew, that story line with magick is bad mm.. ok?.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Willow -- lakrids, 15:37:32 05/16/03 Fri

I am sorry to hear that about your mother. I hope she will get better with time.

Willow is one of my favourites characters, and one of the characters that has been developed most over the seasons. She is for me mixture of insecurities of good intentions and sweetness. But she is hardly a saint for example, did she dislike Faith right from the start and ended with hating her, for good reason, in season 4. And then there is also that little spell she would had cast on Oz and Veruca, she came pretty close of casting it, before she stopped her self.

The westcoast review has a interesting analyse of Willow in flooded.
Link http://thewestcoastreview.homestead.com/flooded.html

Flooded" was (pardon the expression) a wolf in sheep's clothing. It was camouflaged as a light, goofy episode, but it wasn't. It also appeared to be about mundane domestic concerns, but it wasn't. The goofiness came in the shapes of the Trio de la Geek, led by longtime resident of the Buffyverse, Jonathan. Their robbery-by-proxy of the bank, followed by an attempt on Buffy's life, was less than compelling. But these three weren't really the monster. That came in the form of Willow's hubris. Many have noted the scariness of Willow's threat against Giles in response to his criticism of her use of magic. But that wasn't the truly scary moment. That came a few seconds later, after she realized that she'd shown Giles a part of herself that no one had seen before - the rage, the fury, that she carries inside. Look at the sequence of shots here: she lets down her guard, we see that Giles recognizes something in her that he'd never known was there, we see that she knows what he's just figured out, and she feels a moment of panic because her secret is out. Then comes the truly scary moment: she tries to cover up what she's revealed by slipping back into her "Willow" guise - the stammering, the fluttery hand gestures, the darting eye movements, all meant to signal that she's nothing but a sweet, innocent thing who's just trying to get by. For me, that was maybe the scariest moment in the show's history. This wasn't a bug-eyed monster, who by nature is something we feel is at a remove from us. This was a character who's not only human, but who's shown herself to be heroic and decent in many ways over the years. When she shows that she has within her the capacity for rage and duplicity that she shows here, there's no distance between us and the character. .

And then did the writers blew, that story line with magick is bad mm.. ok?.

[> [> [> [> [> I dispute this -- Shiraz, 13:01:59 05/16/03 Fri

I think your view here only holds up if you beleive that Xander's sole purpose in life is to be Buffy's support structure - to sing hosannas and lay down offerings at the feet of the goddess.

It is not. Xander (and Willow) CHOSE to follow Buffy out of love, friendship and a desire to do what's right. He is not bound by the bonds of family, Watcher's mission, or lover's pact. As such his goals and Buffy's goals are not necessarily the same, nor should they be.

So Buffy needs Spike, that's well and good, but that does not mean that Xander needs Spike.

Xander most likely thinks, rightly in my opinion, that he has no obligation to like the man who tried to rape his best friend. Forgiveness doesn't really enter into it because (post season 4) Spike never really did anything to Xander that warranted forgiveness. Besides which, does Spike WANT Xander to see him as anything other than a Vampire? Because ever since 'Get it Done' Spike's been really building up his 'monster' image for everyone but Buffy.

As to 'Empty Places', I'd say Xander's remark was about the
least judgmental of those offered, and in any case it Buffy's plan was horrible and announced to the group at the worst possible time. Xander, and everyone else, was right to disagree with it. Moreover, Buffy could have averted the whole crisis just by being a little flexible on the matter!

But more to the point, it would have been supremely out of character for Xander to suddenly turn into a perky support-o-guy within MINUTES of being released from the hospital.

Loving someone shouldn't mean that you have to go along with every idiot plan they have.

And since when was it Xander's job to keep everything together?

As to the 'cruelest' things said to Buffy, It seems to me that Spike and Angelus share that award, but vamps are judged by different standards, aren't they? Xander - Buffy spats occurr no more than twice a season, and the're usually resolved with mutual forgiveness relatively quickly.

Also I put it to you that for every nasty thing Xander has said to Buffy, Willow has been thinking the very same thing, but been unable to say them; look to 'Two to Go' for proof.

Now onto the heart of matter; Xander's great tratorious lie! Let me first remind you that in the end, it did nothing to alter the events of 'Becoming II', Angelus started the Alcatha ritual about a minute before Buffy got to him; so even if she had known about the resouling, Buffy would still have had to sacrifice Angel.

How would Buffy's 'support structure' have held up then? Would she have been any better off thinking that she was just 'too slow' to save the man she loved?

But the main point is that there was more at stake here than just Buffy's happiness. We've seen that both Buffy and Giles have been willing to kill to save the world, well here Xander is willing to lie to save it, and from the look on his face lying to his best friend was not easy.

As for forgiveness, it looks to me that Xander has done plenty of that:

Xander was the first to forgive Willow.
Xander and Anya have forgiven each other.
Buffy and Xander forgave each other in 'Seeing Red'.
Xander seems to have forgiven Faith (although I'd have liked to seen something to this effect).
Xander seems to have forgiven Andrew (ditto).
Xander is even nice to Spike (probably just for Buffy's sake, but it still counts).

So it looks like the only one Xander hasn't forgiven is Angel, and I'll admit his feelings on the matter are very far from rational, but remember he is only human.

-Shiraz

[> [> [> [> [> [> With friends like these....... -- Sophist, 13:54:40 05/16/03 Fri

As to the 'cruelest' things said to Buffy, It seems to me that Spike and Angelus share that award

I doubt that Xander would consider it much of a defense that his cruelties to Buffy are comparable to those of demons. It doesn't make much sense to compare a human's statements with those of a vampire; the comparison might be to HyenaXander's comments to Willow in The Pack.

If you consider only what other human beings have said, I'd have to agree that Xander wins hands down for cruel statements to Buffy, both in number and in severity.

for every nasty thing Xander has said to Buffy, Willow has been thinking the very same thing, but been unable to say them

Even if this were true -- and I don't believe there is even a smidgen of truth in it -- it's not much of a defense. We all think bad thoughts at times. A big part of maturity is understanding that we shouldn't express them.

As for forgiveness, it looks to me that Xander has done plenty of that

Your examples are pretty favorable to Xander. You admit there is no evidence of forgiveness when it comes to Andrew and Faith, yet you include them anyway. The same is true of Spike; in fact, your post seems internally contradictory, since you said of Spike earlier that

Xander most likely thinks, rightly in my opinion, that he has no obligation to like the man who tried to rape his best friend. Forgiveness doesn't really enter into it because (post season 4) Spike never really did anything to Xander that warranted forgiveness.

Special pleading here.

I'm not sure what Buffy had done that needed Xander's forgiveness in SR. Buffy did forgive Xander; she forgives all of her friends. I thought the scene was pretty one-sided.

But the main point is that there was more at stake here than just Buffy's happiness

I think the dialogue in Selfless pretty well explodes this attempted justification. This point has been argued to death, but there just is no way to justify Xander's lie.

And since when was it Xander's job to keep everything together?

This mystifies me as a "defense". Xander doesn't fight. He has always had the role as the "heart" of the SG. He's been praised for it repeatedly. By questioning "Xander's job" in this way, you are undercutting the best point in his favor.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Willow -- Dochawk, 17:34:42 05/16/03 Fri

I agree with much that Sophist says in his response and he is much more literate than I. But, even if Buffy wouldn't have been able to do anything different in Becoming II without Xander's lie Buffy would have known that at least Willow believed in her enough to do her best even while recovering from Dru's attack. That may have been enough to keep Buffy in Sunnydale or at least keep some lines of communication going - aphone call from Buffy to Willow telling her that she was alive and ok.

And Willow may think some negative things about Buffy (don't all best friends?), but she knows that as best friends you don't articulate them. Xander obviously doesn't understand that. I also don't think that Willow possessed by Dark Magic is the best evidence of how Willow really feels about Buffy.

[> [> He's only 18. He hasn't had much time. -- lost_bracelet, 13:07:02 05/16/03 Fri

[> I love Connor -- Masq, 07:01:10 05/16/03 Fri

I always felt deeply for Connor. He was a character with such fascinating potential, but his character was written to fit the story line rather than the character being used to drive the storyline.

He was introduced to us as a teen as someone who had been raised to hate his real father but who was so in need of love and family. And that sort of character should have been a source of a lot of angsty story lines on a show in which family is such an important theme, and a show about a vampire who is trying to build a connection to humanity.

Connor was that connection, in flesh and blood, and Angel should have tried to reach out to him. But the Beast came, and the evil!Cordelia story filled our screens, and all the things they could have done with Connor became secondary to that.

So yes, I found myself every week yelling at the television for him to get over himself, or whatever. But it was always plain to me that Angel loved him, and so I loved him, too, and I wanted Connor to find something resembling peace and a life with his father. I wanted him to find a way to fight side-by-side with his dad the way Gunn or Wesley do. It wouldn't mean they would always get along, because, you know, fathers and sons...

Well. that makes me a big ol' Angel-Connor shipper, but I don't care.

Instead they isolated Connor from his father, from a support system that would help him work through his confusion, and Connor made some bad decisions. So then I wanted him to have a chance to redeem himself, find peace for himself as the person he was, whatever you want to call it, but ME and Angel took that away from him. I can't be bothered helping you deal with your demons, kid. I wipe my hands of you. New lie in a life of lies.

And now it's like he never existed at all.

I don't know how they're going to keep the momentum of the other characters up next season with their memories altered. Connor was integral to the events of Seasons 3 and 4, and to the changes the characters went through and how it effected their personalities.

How can Wesley possibly make sense of his dark period if he doesn't remember stealing baby Connor and getting his throat cut? How will Wesley make sense of the new confidence and beard stubble he gained as he fought his way out of that darkness?

If Cordelia returns, and I believe she will to give closure to her story line, how will she make sense of the fact that she was able to "hide in plain sight" in the Hyperion for months, pregnant, if she doesn't remember Connor playing guard for her? Who will they think fathered Jasmine, the Beast??

Anyway, I have issues about the way this story line went, and the way it's going.

But no matter how Connor acted, I tuned in every week hoping and waiting for ME to give him the chance they gave so many other characters--a chance to face his demons and grow. Like Angel, I couldn't stop loving him no matter what he did, because I saw the good in him.

[> I liked Conner -- Miss Edith, 07:10:06 05/16/03 Fri

I found Angel as a parent an intriguing idea. I wish it could have been explored more, the way it became a love triangle over Cordelia really didn't interest me all that much.

I don't like the way they choose to get rid of him at all (i.e Angel mindwarping Conner, and all his friends). I'm hoping his story arc has not yet finished. I would love a reconciliation for Angel and Conner, I thought the two actors played well off each other.

[> [> Re: I liked Conner -- Dariel, 10:06:30 05/16/03 Fri

I never cared for the love triangle either. Squicky, for one thing. But I also never understand why, if Connor was so messed up and unable to trust, did he decide to trust Cordy so blindly? Was this supposed to be a case of 18-year old hormones over-riding all common sense, or was he that determined to hurt Angel?

[> [> [> I think it was both hormones and intent to hurt, plus a desperate need to trust SOMEONE. -- Rhys who is not Rhys-Michael, 11:32:40 05/16/03 Fri

[> [> [> Re: I liked Conner -- Miss Edith., 16:13:12 05/16/03 Fri

I do think he had doubts at some points. But once he knew Cordy was pregnant she was able to manipulate him beautifully because of his twisted childhood, and his determination to be a good father

[> I don't... -- Kate, 08:19:37 05/16/03 Fri

I just hated some of the decisions he made but that's what made his arc and his character fascinating. To watch his progressive downward spiral week after week as he slipped farther and farther away from the people who could have given him the love and family he so desperately wanted/needed was fantastic television. Connor had some of the most amazing moments this season. But that didn't keep me from wanting to smack him sometimes...to yell at him to just open his eyes for a moment instead of wallowing in his emotional pain. Still, he was a great character and a really great antagonist for Angel. Having Connor in his life really allowed Angel to develop and grow as a character himself and that was also a fascinating journey to watch, especially this year with the teenage Connor.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I love how S4 ended. Sure there are moral and ethical questions to Angel's decision, not just towards Connor but the rest of Team Angel as well...but again, good television. I can't wait to see where they take this next and how these changes - the loss of Connor and his memory - affect the plot and the characters in season five.

[> Because he combines the worst elements of S6 Dawn and S7 Kennedy? -- Sophist channeling the FE, 08:54:28 05/16/03 Fri

[> [> LOL Sophist- totally disagree! -- Tchaikovsky, 10:22:32 05/16/03 Fri

I know you are disinterested with Angel with a fiery passion, and I'm absolutely fascinated by it, but I love the way you snark with such grace.

Connor is a brilliant example of a teenager whose identity is not merely confused but mysterious to everyone. Working through those issues metpahorically, a wonderful foil to Angel and Angelus (only spoiled to 4.12).

Are we losing you from the board after next Tuesday? Cos that would be sad.

TCH

[> [> [> Re: LOL Sophist- totally disagree! -- Sophist, 11:02:24 05/16/03 Fri

I hope everyone tolerates my snarkasm as much as you do TCH.

I don't intend to go galloping off into the sunset. I'm sure we'll have lots to analyze after 7.22, I'm hopeful that the "back to the beginning" threads work, and there will be Rob's annotations to do. But the Board seems to be making a fairly rapid transition to an AtS Board rather than a Buffy Board, and I haven't had (and don't expect to have) much to contribute on that score. Except my occasional pot-shots.

[> Flights of Angels sing thee to thy rest (spoilers AtS to end S4, speculation) -- fresne, 10:20:40 05/16/03 Fri

Connor was one of my favorite characters this last year. Since, I'm fighting past firey Voynak which denies my posts, he must be.

He was just such a poor lost woobie. And I consider at each step where he is himself misled.

We fixate on the father, but the mother is the longing that in the end grabs my attention.

Last season, yes, yes, Holtz was pushing him, but there was Justine with that last push for vengeance. Remember, with Justine at his side how Connor disposed of Holtz' body?

In the end, Fred had a limit to her love. Ropes and tazers, pain grasped gratefully for its familiarity.

Earth mother Cordelia, well, her love was all to bring sweet Jasmine into the world. A lie.

And Jasmine. Mother. Daughter. Heart's desire. I'm not quite sure that Connor never felt her influence. Just that like a sugar high, it faded, and in the end left him worse off than before.

I'm in the midst of reading Komarr by Lois McMaster Bujold and there's this bit about a character who has been swimming in pain like a mermaid for so very long. How wonderful when for a moment it is gone. How much worse it will be when it returns.

Not that I accept the excuse that his childhood was an utter and complete horror or that he was manipulated by far more worldly people for any of his mistakes. It's just poor lost lamb. Poor wounded wolf cub.

I ponder the tragedy that it was already too late by the time Willow and Faith showed up for him to head off to Sunnydale. Switch soap operas for awhile to get some perspective.

I wonder where Connor was supposed to learn to trust love? When all you've known is pain, how to even recognize love.

Love kills itself while you are aborning. Love is mixed in with the death of the man who raised you. Love requires sacrifice. Love is leaving. And that speech over sleeping princess Cordelia. How he keeps fighting and fighting to get to the bit where there's peace.

It is a warrior's dilemma. That final gasp. That look of peace. Where does it go? Where does it lead us?

Undiscovered countries. Bare bodkins. Explosives. The desire for an utter annihilation of self.

The end of this season didn't really bother me. Not like last season, when as Cordelia ascended into the heavens as a higher life form, my housemate turned to me and said, "How can we possibly watch this show again."

But we did and if I may say, that supremely bur in my craw plotline smoothed into something that was pure evil. And suffering. And glowing shiny grief.

I consider that as Connor embarks on this new life, it is his third. The first in Quortoth, another name even. Then this strange middle life as Connor. Angel's son. I love you. Go away. I love you. Go away. Now this new life. A mother and a father and siblings. Probably a dog and a cat and a hamster and Saturday morning cartoons.

So, yeah, Connor has a new life and memories. My hope would be that he would at some future point remember himself, and yet always have that memory of that third life to ground him. Like Clark Kent discovering, "No son, you're not from around here. Could you open this jar of apple butter for mom? Thanks."

If not in the fifth, well, I can hope for a sixth season. So, the barb of that twist can be well and truly set.

[> [> Connor, the Miss Kitty Fantastico of AI -- Archilochian, 11:58:56 05/16/03 Fri

Connor, the Miss Kitty Fantastico of AI

A bedraggled stray taken in, knowing no love then suddenly showered with it.

First wary, then gradually coaxed out from under the bed into loving arms.

A sense of belonging slowly growing - stray begins to tame.

A sudden series of betrayals.

Cruelly used for anothers plan.

Deep pain from all sides.

Something sharp.

Life ends.

Suddenly.

At the hands of one who professed love for it.

Sacrificed by the choice of another.

Peace finally ascends.

Miss Kitty Fantastico - 9
Connor - 3

Six more new lives ahead for Connor.
Catnip-scented heaven for Miss Kitty.

[> Re: Why does everyone hate Connor so much? -- leslie, 12:29:56 05/16/03 Fri

I don't know about hating him, but within the last 4 or 5 episodes it finally struck me that, unlike every other character in the Jossverse, he has absolutely no sense of humor. I mean, None At All. In a way, that was one of the nice things about seeing him in his alternate universe incarnation: he was making jokes and laughing. But his resolute refusal to find humor in anything or anyone was what made me feel that the character really would never change, really couldn't go any further in his development.

[> [> Good point! -- matching mole, 12:47:50 05/16/03 Fri

I hadn't realized that either but I can't think of another character even approaching Connor's importance in the Jossverse that takes everything so deadly seriously. Even Holtz had his moments of dark humour. That's what seemed so odd to me (I now realize thanks to Leslie) about that final scene. It wasn't that Connor was happy and well adjusted but that he was telling jokes.

I certainly don't hate Connor. I think he was/is an interesting and well conceived character. Intellectually I can sympathize with his problems. But his behaviour pushes my buttons in a big way. I was a pretty atypical teenager and the behaviour of my peers was pretty baffling to me. Adults made a lot more sense and I was pretty happy to become one. My parents and teachers made a lot more sense to me than most of my classmates. So it is very difficult for me to really empathize with the character at a gut level.

[> [> And from where would he have learned humor? -- lost_bracelet, 13:27:23 05/16/03 Fri

[> [> [> Re: And that really was precisely the problem--nowhere -- leslie, 15:12:38 05/16/03 Fri

I'm not saying it was his fault (actually, I think I am saying it was Holtz's fault), merely saying that the lack of even an understanding of humor was one of the reasons the character seemed to be doomed to a dead end. I think one of the most gruesome scenes this season was when Connor explained that he was such a good tracker because Holtz used to tie him up and hide and make him find him. You have to wonder--did Holtz treat his own kids like that? Or was he actually visiting the sins of the father upon the son, which completely blows away any possible claim to moral rectitude he may have had, in my mind.

I do think that the lack of humor problem was a pretty significant statement on the part of the writers about what it is that makes us human, though. It was his lack of humor that made Connor incapable of caring for people, of taking a step back and seeing things in perspective for the absurdities they are, and I think even worse, his inability to understand humor made him misinterpret the actions of other people when they were being sarcastic or making jokes. He took it all at the same emotional level, and because of that, he couldn't understand the nuances of social interaction. And the way it was presented, it seemed that he was by this time incapable of ever understanding the nuances of social interaction; he was doomed to be like this forever, which really seems like a good definition of hell.

[> [> [> [> Good points. I definitely saw him as emotionally stunted. -- lost_bracelet, 15:20:48 05/16/03 Fri

But, again, he was only 18 years old, and hadn't been back "home" for very long. And on top of that, the "home" he came back to wasn't exactly stable. They were always busy putting out fires of one sort or another, so they didn't have much time to bond with Connor or find out what his life had been like or what he needed. Who knows how he could have turned out if he'd had more time, and his father wasn't so busy fighting demons and saving the world all the time. Maybe he could have caught up in school, made some real friends, etc. We just don't know. That's why the end was so sad.

But I do think the point of no return was when he killed the young woman for Cordelia's sacrifice (just before she gave birth to Jasmine). I didn't see how he could return to the land of the souled after that.

Buffy and Angel's Tai Chi style? -- lost_bracelet, 00:27:20 05/16/03 Fri

Someone below mentioned that Buffy and Angel were doing T'ai Chi, and it was very erotic despite that they didn't even kiss. (I remember that scene and admired the slow, smooth martial arts moves.)

I've been taking a T'ai Chi class in the Sun style, which is one of the more obscure styles. The standard style, which you can see in the movie The Safety of Objects, is the Yang style.

Does anyone here know T'ai Chi well enough to recognize the style Buffy and Angel were performing?

[> Re: Buffy and Angel's Tai Chi style? -- beekeepr, 01:33:29 05/16/03 Fri

Do not-repeat-do NOT get Slayrunt started on the state of Tai Chi in the Buffyverse. There is a reason no one recognizes the style-the key word here being "performed".

[> [> Slayrunt, do you know? (It could be a mixture of several styles.) -- lost_bracelet, 12:57:59 05/16/03 Fri

[> Which episode? -- mamcu, 08:11:51 05/16/03 Fri

[> [> 3 or 4 episodes after his return from hell in season 3 -- Vash the Stampede, 11:55:46 05/16/03 Fri

DB - Small screen, big talent -- yabyumpan, 00:28:11 05/16/03 Fri

USA Today has article entitled Small Screen, Big Talents, a list of the 10 most underated actors on TV this year. David Boreanez is on the list
Quote
Boreanaz has made Angel into one of TV's most complicated saviors, a redeemer who only barely understands his own search for redemption.

It lists Orpheus as a show case for his talents

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2003-05-15-tv-stars_x.htm

[> I would tend to agree with that. -- lost_bracelet, 00:30:46 05/16/03 Fri

I'd love to see him on the big screen. I'd love to see Nicholas Brendan, as well, even though his style of acting is very different (more comedic). Also, Amber Benson. Really, they're all very talented.

[> Finally, DB gets his due! -- Scroll, 01:38:50 05/16/03 Fri

Seriously, David Boreanaz has been awesome this season. From the very first scene in "Deep Down" where his happiness slowly turns to frustration and despair, to his "Sit. Down." and "I love you, Connor. Now get out of my house." to his understated and sincere condolences to Wes for Lilah's death, to his blissed out expression during the Jasmine arc, to his sorrowful, desperate "I really do love you, Connor." in "Home", DB has hit every note just perfectly.

DB and VK have amazing chemistry together, something we all noticed immediately in "A New World". I actually wouldn't use "Orpheus" as my example of terrific DB acting. "Orpheus" was really good, and DB was really good in it, switching from one persona to the other... But I think "Deep Down", "Spin the Bottle", "Souless", and everything from "Inside Out" to "Home" was simply brilliant.

[> [> But we shall see how well he acts in the new Crow movie! -- neaux, 05:56:39 05/16/03 Fri

Ha! well I do agree that DB is da' man. but his film choices are not that good. At least in the new CROW movie he is playing a villian.

[> [> [> Hmmmm...Angelus and Gothed-Out Eddie Furlong!! *swoons* -- Mystery, 09:11:36 05/16/03 Fri

[> [> I'm with Lucy -- MaeveRigan, 14:56:13 05/16/03 Fri

Am I the only person who's seen DB in this little indy romantic comedy? It's out now on DVD.

It's not earth-shattering and won't win any prizes, but DB's performance should erase the memory of that hideous mistake Valentine. His role is significant, and the rest of the cast, though not superstars, include some known names--John Hannah (Four Weddings & a Funeral), Anthony LaPaglia (currently in Without a Trace on US TV), Henry Thomas (ET, all growed up now), Harold Ramis & Julie Christie as "Lucy's" parents.

Give it a try.

[> What a wonderful Birthday present for him -- lunasea, 07:36:54 05/16/03 Fri

[> So true... -- Kate, 08:00:54 05/16/03 Fri

Recognition for his talent and what he's done with the character of Angel really has been under the radar. So nice to see him winning praise like that.

[> Re: DB - Small screen, big talent -- Rina, 09:42:12 05/16/03 Fri

You're kidding! Right? One of the most underrated actors?? Granted, David Boreanez is a competent actor, but he's not that good.

[> [> Um, have you actually *watched* "Angel" this season? -- Scroll, 10:17:18 05/16/03 Fri

DB has been simply brilliant this year. He's been brilliant for a good while now. Please don't base your assessment of his acting skills on Buffy Seasons 1-3. Things have changed in the past 4 years, y'know, DB's acting skills being one of them. Not all acting styles are the same, but I can tell you, DB has incredible range and a lot of depth. He does angst and sorrow so perfectly, and his joyful grin makes me (and many others) simply beam with joy with him.

This, of course, is my own humble opinion but there are many others who agree with me. Many others who, lately, are afraid to post anything negative about Buffy and wary about posting anything positive about Angel for fear of being shot down. We've been mostly avoiding the board.

[> [> [> *sigh* Sorry, Rina. Please ignore my above post -- Scroll, 10:25:12 05/16/03 Fri

I do apologise, Rina, I shouldn't have written that post while feeling defensive and reactive. Yes, DB is a brilliant actor. IMHO. Clearly he's not that amazing in your eyes, which is your opinion and I shouldn't have got so mad over it.

So please ignore the majority of my post. Though I do stand by my belief that to accurately judge DB's acting, you (a generic "you") need to see his latest work. He's grown a lot in the past four years.

While I did find your posts to me in my previous thread a little accusatory, I'm sure you had no intention of being hostile. If I have offended in my above post, please try to understand that Angel, while top dog on his TV show, is pretty much a kicked stray (most times, though not always) on most posting boards. And DB hardly ever gets his due. So I posted reactively, to no credit to myself or this board.

[> [> [> [> Re: *sigh* Sorry, Rina. Please ignore my above post -- Rina, 10:36:45 05/16/03 Fri

I have seen a few episodes of ANGEL, including "Orpheus" that so many were discussing. And I still stand by my opinion that he is a competent, though unexciting actor. By the way, I consider "Passion" from BtVS my favorite performance by DB.

[> [> [> [> [> "Passion" is good, but still his beginner's work, I think -- Scroll, 11:12:02 05/16/03 Fri

DB was pretty good in "Passion", and I think it's one of his better episodes for Buffy. He has improved a great deal since then, however.

Actually, I don't think "Orpheus" is the best representative of his really excellent work in Season 4; "Orpheus" had some rather clunky writing, though the dialogue was snarky enough. I'd rather go with "Soulless" (which Tchaikovsky has posted on above) or "Deep Down" or "Home" to see some of DB's truly brilliant performances. "Soulless" has DB standing still in a locked cage for the entire episode, yet you can feel his menace and danger in a way you haven't since "Passion". Very Hannibal Lector :)

[> [> [> [> Not much Angel-kicking on this board, methinks. -- Dariel, 11:12:02 05/16/03 Fri

At least not more than any other characters/actors on AtS and BtVS.

I've taken a long time to warm up to DB and AtS, but S4 finally pulled me in. Perhaps DB has improved, or maybe you just have to watch him a lot to appreciate his craft.

[> [> [> [> [> He's improved tremendously. -- Arethusa, 13:57:34 05/16/03 Fri

He's becoming a subtle and effective actor. His work in the last half of this year has been especially good.

[> [> [> [> [> You're probably right : ) -- Scroll, 13:59:48 05/16/03 Fri

I don't frequent other boards, though I do lurk in people's LJs. More and more people are starting to recognise Angel as being an excellent show in its own right, and not merely the younger sibling of the Buffy phenomenon.

Glad you enjoyed Season 4 -- I personally feel it is the best Joss season except maybe Season 3 of Buffy. I think it's great that DB is finally getting some recognition, but yeah, you probably do need to see more than one or two eps to be able to pick up on his style. He's not like a stage actor. It's more like (so I've heard it described, I'm not great at telling acting styles) that DB becomes Angel, takes on his identity and feels what Angel feels, reacts as Angel would react. So not exactly method acting. (If I've got this wrong, somebody correct me please!)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Acting styles -- s'kat, 07:46:14 05/17/03 Sat

He's not like a stage actor. It's more like (so I've heard it described, I'm not great at telling acting styles) that DB becomes Angel, takes on his identity and feels what Angel feels, reacts as Angel would react. So not exactly method acting. (If I've got this wrong, somebody correct me please!)

There numerous styles of acting. Method isn't stage acting necessarily. The METHOD is when you do become the character in a way - what happens is you dig deep inside yourself and look for things in your own life that relate to the character's life. Say for instance that you are playing a character whose mother died? But yours is still alive and you have to cry - you would hunt for a similar tragedy in your own life - dredge that pain up and harness it. The other thing you do is you create a world in your head for the character and you populate that world with the things that character feels that correspond to your own experience.
MEthod acting can be a gut wrenching process. I learned method acting - believe it or not - in High School - I had a really good theater teacher for a while. Here is an example - we did improve with a group - I an intense reaction to it and wanted to get off the stage - my prof said, use that feeling and create the character from it - he also made us build back stories etc for the character, so in a sense the line between us and the character was blurred.

The only actor I'm aware of on the two shows that did the MEthod - according to interviews is James Marsters. (Now I only mention him b/c he goes into depth in his interviews on the style of acting he uses and discusses the process, so he's a great example. The guy loves to talk about making art and the process of creating art.) And he stopped doing the Method in Beneath You, because it was too gut-renching. Apparently they did the first take - he nailed it, but Joss didn't like it, re-wrote it and they had to do it again and Marsters felt like a wet rag - he'd just raked himself over the coals and now he had to do it again. That's because he used METHOD - which was created by stage actors such as Meryl Streep and Robert Deniro and Marlon Brando for the screen. But they didn't consider what it would be like for a TV actor to submerge that long - 6 months for a movie is one thing - seven years for a tv show?
Whole other ball-game.

Now that's just one style. While some actors will argue that's the best it's not. But it is the style where you literally become the character. The other styles? You don't become the character - the line isn't blurred.

So you are wrong in your assumption that David Boreanze's acting style is to "become" Angel, that's not what he does exactly. That's what Marsters used to do. Nor is it what ASH does.

David Boreanze has talked about his style and no it's not method. It's actually probably a lot closer to Laurence Olivier's style - which is old school mixed with a little new school...it's been awhile so can't remember the names.
This style - is where the actor does have a back story and does use his own experiences in some way - but he lets the words pull him through the scene. His development of the character is far more external than internal. These actors do not stay in character the whole time they are on set.
They'll break out. Some use a prop to help them find the character - ASH who plays Giles often will hunt a prop that gives him a focus on what his character is doing. Sort of - okay I'm sitting here talking - what am I doing with my hands or body? ASH is a very physical actor.

Boreanze also has a bit of that style. He knows how to communicate to the camera and is subtle about it. He's not trained though like ASH, AD, and JM - who were all trained.
JM went to school with KEvin Spacey - and was trained in styles. And I believe AD (Denisof) - was trained in London.
Hence the accents - which comes partly with training.
For an non-traditionally trained actor - Boreanze is very very good. Since he isn't trained - I don't think he knows which style he's using and says well, I just play it by putting myself in Angel's shoes - which is why you interpret it as Boreanze becoming Angel. But believe me if that was the case? Boreanze might be going a tad crazy dredging up all his guilt every episode. No, what he's doing is playing himself as Angel - which works. It's in a way like Harrison Ford, Tom Cruise, and other types - they research a role and imagine what it would be like if they were in this situation. Now don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying they are playing themselves, I'm saying this is a style - a way of building the character. The method actor
from what I remember - and if I'm completely off, someone correct me - builds the character from inside/out - he'll change his appearance, he'll look for experiences that relate to the characters pain and build it. He doesn't play the character as - okay what if I Scroll were a vampire what would I do. He plays it as what pain and torment in my life fits with this character? What experiences can I dredge up? What can I change about myself to find it? So that I become this character who isn't me. The MEthod actor submerges into the character - taking his/her own pain and experiences and making it the characters - embleshing on them. The other style wears the character like a costume that he/she can take off. Says okay, this is my chance to get rid of my anger at my wife or kids - I'll take that and meld it. He doesn't submerge.

Both styles work. One just is a bit more taxing on the actor than the other.

Also the differences between stage and screen acting? On stage the actor is in complete control - it's his gig, the show basically lives or dies based on him. Screen? It's the director/producer's gig - the actor is just a cog in the wheel - an important cog, but the one to focus on is the director/producer on film and writer/producer/director on television. The other difference is - stage acting must be projected to the back of the theater as well as make sense to the people in the front row, while film acting just has to work for the camera. A film actor can be lousey on stage but brillant on film - partly because he/she's a cog in the wheel and much of the magic takes place in the editing room, and also depending on if the camera loves you. Stage actors may not translate to film - because the camera doesn't love them. Film - cares about looks also the camera doesn't love everyone, some people just have chemistry with the camera, others who look wonderful in person look horrid on film. Also in stage acting - you tend to project more, no close-ups. To see the difference in the styles - re-watch School Hard and Fool for Love. Or compare Marsters acting in S2 on film to S5/6 on film. School HArd was amongst his first appearances ever on film, he'd done maybe two small parts on Northern Exposure prior to that. He says it's a horrible performance because he used stage style. Compare his style to Head - who contains it more. Then look at later episodes say - Beneath You or even more recent ones - far more contained. Which works for the character - Whedon decided to take Marsters learning process and build it into Spike - as Bravado. Very bright. Now Boreanze has never done stage. He's only done film according to his interviews. So I have no clue what stage would be like for him - I'd love to see him on stage to see. Stage is tough, because you make a mistake? It's live. No re-takes. You miss a line? There it is. Also you have a live audience in front of you -which means instant rejection or validation.
Instead of communing with film you are communing with the audience. I've acted in front of huge audiences in my life - it can be magical - it can also be traumatic. One thing goes wrong? You got to deal. The stage actor is when they are on stage the actor, director, writer, of the piece.
Even though the piece is directed and written by others - it can change when it goes live - the actor could forget their lines or steps or a light could fall or a prop fail.
On film - this happens? No problem - that's what re-takes are for. See? Complicated, but fascinating.

I tend to admire stage actors more than film - because I believe it's a harder path and far less money or rewards in it. Some of the best actors in our country - you've never seen. Laurence Olivier - considered the stage his arena, film a job. OTOH - film acting is a tough gig. Most of the time you sit around waiting for someone, either your other actors or the director or the lights...everything must be right for the camera and you have no clue how well you did, no applause - you aren't acting for a person but a camera.
The hours are longer - when my brother worked on a film, he said they literally were working 24/7. The stage actor isn't working 24/7. And most of the time - you're just sitting around waiting. Also when you do your lines - the other actor might not even be there - it could be a script girl - because in films closeups don't require the other actor present. Or you have a stunt double - so you do the scene - jump out - the stunt guy comes in and redoes it - you jump in again. While on stage you do it all.

See? Two incredibly different things. Comparing stage acting and film acting after a while becomes like comparing an apple to an orange, if you'll excuse the analogy.

Hope that made sense. And apologize for any errors...I'm not currently an actor, so lots of this is based on memory.

sk

[> [> [> Re: Um, have you actually *watched* "Angel" this season? -- Gellis, 11:35:48 05/16/03 Fri

Thank you Scroll for giving voice to my own feelings about DB, Angel and posting.

Gellis (nervously leaving the kingdom of Lurk to add support)

[> [> [> [> Thanks for your support, and please post more! -- Scroll, 13:23:28 05/16/03 Fri

I'll admit that we can get heated at times, especially when it comes to certain, ahem, souled vampires. But generally we're very pleasant and friendly posters, and we do try to be fair to all the characters/actors and the writers. We like to meet new people too, so I hope you keep posting here. Always glad to have another Angel-lover on board : )

[> [> [> Scroll, if you hadn't posted, I was going to :o) -- yabyumpan, 11:47:52 05/16/03 Fri

The reason I posted the link was because DB so rarely gets the acclaim, from critics and fans that, IMO, he richly deserves. The fact that he has improved so much from his early days on BtVS just increases my admiration for him. Someone pointed out on another board that from next season, DB is going to be the only person from the very first episode of BtVS still a regular on an ME show (the ONLY ME show!), I love the irony of that. Who'd have thunk it back in the day? :o)

[> [> [> [> Oh wow, you're right! -- Scroll, 13:30:29 05/16/03 Fri

I hadn't even thought of it that way. Since Cordelia isn't going to be a regular, Angel is the only character left from the "old days". Wow, that is ironic. And kind of... disheartening, actually. As much as I've felt disappointed with some of Buffy's direction this season, there's going to be this huge void come September when I'm sitting down in front of my TV, and suddenly realising I can't watch Buffy anymore. Oh well, I'm just glad to have Angel around for Season 5!

[> [> [> Now wait a minute here..... -- Rufus, 21:31:08 05/16/03 Fri

This, of course, is my own humble opinion but there are many others who agree with me. Many others who, lately, are afraid to post anything negative about Buffy and wary about posting anything positive about Angel for fear of being shot down. We've been mostly avoiding the board.

The only time I'll shoot anyone down for posting in a posative way about Angel is if they do it while saying Buffy sux or something similar. I love both shows. On Buffy, the main character is my favorite (sorry Spike), but on Angel it is Wesley who I have to say is the best thing (for me)about the series. As for Boreanaz, I feel for him. I noticed when he has done anything different from looking like a hunky, broody, menace...he was slimed for it. He has managed to do something for the character, even with the restrictions placed upon him. Angel is the perpetual straight man reacting to the whirlwind around him. He has definately improved as an actor from season one Buffy, but he hasn't been allowed to drift far from the fans preference for a certain character type.

[> [> [> [> I admit to... -- Cactus Watcher, 07:10:04 05/17/03 Sat

having said some pretty nasty things about Angel this year. But, particularly after I decided once and for all the season was a loss for me, I tried to keep my mouth shut about what I didn't like about most episodes I did see, and tried to contribute to the discussion when I could, without pushing my feelings. I hope I didn't make anyone here think I would attack them personally if they supported Angel. The fact is that while I couldn't stand the show this year I did enjoy reading the discussion of the episodes by Masquerade, Rufus and the rest of you. So I guess I'm proof that a discussion among knowledgeable friends about a work of art can be even better than experiencing the art firsthand.

[> Hmmm agreement...DB as Angel on Btvs and ats -- s'kat, 10:58:17 05/16/03 Fri

After thinking about it for a moment...I do agree, he is underrated as an actor. But to appreciate his work you have to look at it over a whole range of seasons, both Btvs and Ats and also acknowledge how difficult his role really was.

First his action on Btvs
David Boreanze's role in Btvs was actually easier than it was in Ats, because he was the supporting player and didn't have to carry the weight of the show on his shoulders.
But that said, he did do an amazing job with the role.
As Angel - he was able to express a range of emotions and do so very subtly. See his acting in Prophecy Girl - where he exhibits an almost "jerkiness" "wussiness" with Xander, and changes to a sense of wanting to help, but not sure how.
Or much later in the episode What's MY Line where he torments Spike while Dru is torturing him. He has to pretend he's in pain. And then of course the Surprise/Innocence change - DB managed to subtly play an absolute jerk. Joss Whedon mentions how malevolent David was in the Angelus arc that he even scared Whedon. Think about it? How often does Angelus come up as everyone's favorite villain? That twinkle in his eye, the teasing grin, the ability to taunt. It's no surprise that he's played villains in the few movie roles he's gotten.

S3 - was a hard year for him, since he was basically asked to play tortured and remorseful but not too tortured and remorseful..try pulling that off, sort of like being asked to look like your about to cry 24/7. The best acting though was in Enemies - where he had to mislead us into believing he was Angelus, yet leave enough of a question mark so that when we learned it was a ruse...it left us with an uncertain feeling much like Buffy's. I've seen lesser actors attempt this and not come close. It's not an easy thing to pull off.

ATS

David Boreanze had his first lead role. And the responsibility to carry it. IF it failed - people would probably blame him. And he did a marvelous job. The acting in Eternity - made the episode - where he once again flips between the two. OR the way he does that horrible dance in the one episode? Can't remember the name. Now that takes guts to make a fool of yourself on screen.

In S2 - he really started to shine, with the ability to expose his horrible singing on screen, unleashing the evil while still Angel and making it distinctive from Angelus in Redefinition - Reprise. Generating chemistry with KAte and Darla.

But my favorite DB moment was Soulless. This episode more than any other I think showed how well he could act. IF he didn't have the chops? It would have showed. By the way, if you had close-captioning - you might have noticed that many of the lines didn't match. Why? Boreanze ad-libbed the part to throw off his colleagues and increase the tension. The ability to ad-lib that effectively requires a deep understanding of your own character, the script and the other characters. It's not easy. But he made it look easy.
If you doubt this man has the chops? Re-watch Soulless not Orpheus. Soulless - was a tour de force and proved to me, that he is an excellent actor.

For the record - I define a good actor as someone who can bring out excellent performances in other actors and enrich the story and pull you in.

My favorite male actors in Buffyverse are: DB, JM, AD, ASH

[> [> Very much agree, s'kat -- Scroll, 11:31:57 05/16/03 Fri

I think DB has grown so much as an actor on Angel that I forget that he was excellent on Buffy as well. He's still my favourite Buffy villain, with the Mayor a close second, simply because he had so much fun being evil. He really is a rebel without a cause, bucking authority wherever he can, spreading pain and misery for the sheer enjoyment of it. "Enemies" is one of my favourite S3 eps not only for Faith's downward spiral but for DB's incredible performance. It had to be tricky for DB to play a good guy (who's really a bad guy, deep down) pretending to be a bad guy pretending to be good. It's a delicate balance between the two, which isn't helped by the fact that Angel himself probably took a wee bit of delight in punching out Xander :)

In S2 - he really started to shine, with the ability to expose his horrible singing on screen, unleashing the evil while still Angel and making it distinctive from Angelus in Redefinition - Reprise. Generating chemistry with KAte and Darla.

Yes, very much yes! It takes talent (and no fear of looking like a fool) to sing that badly on purpose! I loved Angel's downward spiral in S2, how he wasn't quite Anglus, but certainly wasn't that "champion" everybody expected him to be.

And "Soulless" is one of my new favourite Angel eps for the gleeful menace in Angelus' eyes. I didn't know DB had ad-libbed some of his lines. That's really quite impressive.

My favorite male actors in Buffyverse are: DB, JM, AD, ASH

Very much agree, though I think all the ME actors are wonderful, and terribly underrated in general. They don't get enough credit for their work simply because they're in genre television.

[> There was one moment that did it for me -- dub ;o), 11:41:59 05/16/03 Fri

I liked Angel on Buffy but saw DB as basically a fairly amateur actor. I based that opinion on 30 years of casting and directing community theatre.

Early on in AtS, possibly even the first episode, he pulled of something fairly small that amazed me...he was standing in a crowd scene, wearing a loud shirt and a porkpie hat, fairly goofy, said a line or two...and I didn't realize it was him.

May not sound like much, but in my personal experience that's the highest compliment on acting I can give. I hate to be able to see people acting, and usually the only way to avoid that is to play fairly close to yourself. Someone who can convincingly play completely other to the extent that they're unrecognizable is a major talent in my book.

;o)

[> [> Re: There was one moment that did it for me -- Rina, 12:50:31 05/16/03 Fri

So, that was DB's one moment of really good acting? Interesting. Personally, I thought it was the episode, "Passions". But as you're probably aware, there are many who disagree.

Like I had stated before, DB is a good actor, but I wouldn't consider him exceptional. But I'm sure that his career will survive. At least he's competent, which is more than I can say for a good number of actors and actresses on TV, today.

[> [> [> There's been more than one-lots more. -- Arethusa, 14:07:12 05/16/03 Fri

I remember that scene dub mentioned-I think it's in Hero, when Angel's at the docks. He's still young so it may be too early to call him exceptional, but he's better than many, many big movie stars I've seen. He has the charisma and he truly reacts to the other actor. Watch his face when Cordy tells him she could never love him because of his actions as Angelus. The guy who plyed Holtz, Keith (mumble) said he was very good, and he's a very fine and experienced actor himself.

[> [> Re: There was one moment that did it for me -- yabyumpan, 15:37:29 05/16/03 Fri

Early on in AtS, possibly even the first episode, he pulled of something fairly small that amazed me...he was standing in a crowd scene, wearing a loud shirt and a porkpie hat, fairly goofy, said a line or two...and I didn't realize it was him.

I think that was 'Herb Saunders,Baltimore' from "Sense and Sensitivity"

May not sound like much, but in my personal experience that's the highest compliment on acting I can give. I hate to be able to see people acting, and usually the only way to avoid that is to play fairly close to yourself. Someone who can convincingly play completely other to the extent that they're unrecognizable is a major talent in my book.
and from scroll's post further up
He's not like a stage actor. It's more like (so I've heard it described, I'm not great at telling acting styles) that DB becomes Angel, takes on his identity and feels what Angel feels, reacts as Angel would react. So not exactly method acting.

I totally agree with both these statements. It's why I love his acting. Tamara Gorski who played Rebecca Lowell in "Eternity" said at a recent Convention in Blackpool that in the scene where they're sitting on the sofa, after she's drugged him and he's pretty out of it; he was so into character that the tears that roll down his cheek in the scene were totally undirected and just came from DB being so into the role. (I wasn't actually at the Con sadly but I've read a pretty comprehensive report of it).
That scene is one of my favorite DB acting moments. He really made feel the depth of Angel's aloneness/loneliness.
Other favorite moments -
The elevator ride in 'Reprise' where he plays so well going from being determined to bring down the senior partners to having his whole world view crumble in a matter of minuets.
'Forgiving' when he stops Fred from calling Cordelia, that scene breaks me up every time. Also the end scene with Wesley. Looking at the scene is extrordinary enough, seeing his absolute rage, but if you close your eyes during that scene what you hear (what I hear) is the despair.
Also small moments, like in 'DorN', when he's saying to Cordy that he thought Connor was going to be left handed, he holds a couple of fingers of his left hand with his right hand, as if he's hold Connor's.

Ok, stopping now as I can see I'm starting to gush :o), it's just so good to be able to discuss what a great actor he is. I'm so happy for him that he got that accolade.

To finish, I've just remebered an interview with VK at the end of S3 (sorry I haven't got a link and I can't remember the exact quote). VK said he was a bit un-nerved when he first started working with him because DB would be joking around on set and as soon as the director said action, went totally into role, as if he'd been inhabited by another person. That seems to me what he does, he Becomes Angel and makes me totally believe.

[> [> [> That's pretty interesting -- Scroll, 23:40:18 05/16/03 Fri

I can't really remember where I'd read that thing about DB's acting style, so I wasn't sure if I'd just hallucinated it! I don't really know method acting from any other kind, so thanks for explaining further.

From the snippets of interviews I've seen posted about DB's acting lately, it seems he does a lot of improv. I never realised directors would let actors get away with ad-libbing lines like that. I always thought they were required to follow the script, for the most part.

Very interesting what VK said about DB snapping into the Angel persona. So could we say that Angel is really four people in one? Angel/Angelus/Liam/David Boreanaz? ; )

A Poem for Miss Kitty Fantastico (Spoilers) -- Michael, 05:15:21 05/16/03 Fri

Herewith is offered a brief poem inspired by a comment from End of Days.

"For Miss Kitty"

Fumbling fingers
cancel the
nine lives of
the purring familiar,
ensuring she will
never again
face an uncertain dawn.

[> Bravo! -- dub ;o), 09:13:01 05/16/03 Fri

I really liked that...brief and poignant.

;o)

[> Ooh, very good! -- Scroll, 11:00:44 05/16/03 Fri

I especially like the "uncertain dawn". Very clever work!

[> Meow! -- cougar, 11:15:48 05/16/03 Fri

It's Literary References Bingo! (Angel Odyssey 4.11) -- Tchaikovsky, 07:17:30 05/16/03 Fri

No, your eyes don't deceive you. Prepare to be very excited. But first a quick and shameless plug for my Once More, With Feeling transcript, currently sliding down the archives despite gallant and appreciated attempts by many posters to keep it up. If you haven't had a chance to read it yet, the most permanent link is probably to Rufus' copy which is at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conversebuffyverse/message/10611
Don't worry, this will take you straight to the transcript and nowhere near spoilers. Anyway, legs 11 for the Season, and time for some fun...

4.11- 'Soulless'

The clue's in the title- this is Literary References Bingo. You will need either a superb memory or a copy of 'Soulless', and a shallow but broad knowledge of the last 3000 years of literature. Ready. OK, here goes:

1) Samuel Beckett
2) Thomas Harris
3) Samuel Coleridge
4) Anonymous
5) WB Yeats
6) Sophocles
7) William Shakespeare

The idea is to match up the authors above with literary references, explicit or implicit, in 4.11. I'll give you some time. Anyone who gets all seven without cheating can collect a virtual prize, (several Voy Credibility Points).

OK, done?
Here goes.

1) Probably the most obtuse reference of the seven to start off with. I was left at the end of 'Awakening' with that wonderful laugh, equal parts Angelus and Joss Whedon, at the trick that had been played. Throughout the next week, I was wondering what would happen when Angelus returned. Then when it finally happened, we instead get a teaser which smacks of Beckett's absent lead character technique from 'Waiting for Godot' and others. First, we expect to see Angelus involved in the fight in LA, but instead it's Connor. An interesting choice here, because Connor seems to have so much of his vague personal identity stolen by Angel- Angel has the same love, the same abilities to fight, and here he is in an inversion, filling the role we expect his Father to fill.
After this we go into a long, excellent preliminary about Angelus, building up the excitement without seeing the interactions between the characters and Angelus himself. I have to say that after all the build up that Craft and Fain gave him, I was kind of expecting to be disappointed, because they'd added almost too much wait to the introduction and it could only fail. But superb writing, beautiful directing and lighting (of course by Sean Astin, the funny little hairy-footed Irish hobbit-y chap), and a very good performance from David Boreanaz, whose Angelus took on a higher level of evil due to the improvements in acting he's made since Season Two of Buffy. Although I have to mention that while in Sunnydale the Scooby Gang were fairly tightly together, here in LA the factions and the fall-outs mean that starting to tear them apart was a much easier job.
After the conversation between Wesley and the others, and the crescendo of expectation, we cut to Angelus, eerily singing to himself. Which I'll return to later...

2)A relatively easy though implicit one. Angelus plays Hannibal Lecter in this episode. For full marks, you'll need to have mentally noted 'Red Dragon', the books in which Hannibal is a fairly minor character, but he, though locked up in a cage, seems the most well-drawn threatening character in the whole book. Here Angelus does the same thing, always seeming to be relaxed and in control, even though he's the one locked in the cage and poisoned with darts at regular intervals.

3) I'm not sure how deliberate the expansion of the one little line is here, but it seems to fit quite nicely. Craft and Fain write, 'Bodies, bodies everywhere/ And not a drop to drink' fro Angelus. It's a good pun, undoubtedly, and it's taken from Coleridge's 'Rime of the Ancient Mariner', as the sailor is stranded in the ship, with only the dangerous sea water with which to quench his thirst. Of course, the main point of Coleridge's poem, is, apart from a kind of gothic horror, the idea that disturbing the rules of nature is a poor idea. The Mariner, who kills the apparently benevolent albatross, ends up eternally walking the earth, attempting to achieve redemption by telling people his tale and instructing them not to repeat it. There is a certain symmetry here with Angelus' position. He regularly broke the rules of nature, and eventually stumbled across somebody who could do something about it, the gypsy elder. Then, as the Mariner walked with the albatross hanging round his neck, so Angelus was forced to walk with his soul, an instruction to the other vampires that messing with the sanctity of life can be a dangerous thing. Angel however is not a positive instruction so much as a warning to vampires not to mess with gypsies. Angel becomes a cautionary tale for vampires, a halfway house between humanity and vampirism, eternally doomed to walk the earth in a different guise.

4) The sneakiest of the seven, but you will probably have got it if you really did go and watch the episode. I assume no-one knows the author of 'The Teddy Bear's Picnic', although I'd be happy to be corrected if it's more recnet than I think. A couple of things here. The words are somewhat changed, from 'If you go down to the woods today', to tonight, a little in-reference to the permanently dark sky and blotted sun in LA. The song may seem harmless, but like most nursery rhymes, it has a rather dark undercurrent lurking underneath. In the much-maligned and oft-omitted third verse, we have
'If you go down to the woods today
You'd better not go alone.
It's lovely down in the woods today,
But better to stay at home'.

This little warning always struck me as rather wonderful. It's totally incongruous to the harmless sounding animals of the chorus, but I always wondered whether a transformation might be about to take place. Lurking under the innocent teddy bear exterior, perhaps, lurks the creature with claws who will come to threaten you, the real live bear who's territorial and terrifying when threatened. Maybe this transformation from harmless fluffy toy to wild animal is supposed to parallel Angelus, or perhaps I'm just projecting. In any case, it made for a very unnerving shot of Angelus early on.

5) Well, this one was there for the taking if you knew the quote: 'In the foul rag and bone shop of my heart'. This is another beautiful poem by WB Yeats, (like almost all his writing), and for this reason, as well as it being scarily relevant and wanting to break the 100 super-compressed pages barrier, I include it below:

The Circus Animals' Desertion

I thought my dear must her own soul destroy,
So did fanaticism and hate enslave it,
And this brought forth a dream and soon enough
This dream itself had all my thought and love.

And when the Fool and Blind Man stole the bread
Cuchulain fought the ungovernable sea;
Heart-mysteries there, and yet when all is said
It was the dream itself enchanted me:
Players and painted stage took all my love,
And not those things that they were emblems of.

Those masterful images because complete
Grew in pure mind, but out of what began?
A mound of refuse or the sweepings of a street,
Old kettles, old bottles, and a broken can,
Old iron, old bones, old rags, that raving slut
Who keeps the till. Now that my ladder's gone,
I must lie down where all the ladders start,
In the foul rag-and-bone shop of the heart.

This is a very clear manifesto about 'Awakening', for me at least. When we see Angel's dream, the vision which will lend him perfect happiness just for a moment, we see not the reality which he is facing, but instead a perfect world where issues about Cordelia, Connor, the other triangle and his status as a Champion are made clear and suited to his needs. Yet Angelus perceives that this is not reality at all. Her claims Angel does not love the 'mound of refuse or the sweepings of the street', but instead 'Players and painted stage took all my love'. The reality is not what Angel wanted, merely the emblems of what was, the paradigm where all his troubles could be over.

The main point is that Angelus' thinking is clearly that Angel shows no interest, only disgust, in the reality of the situation. In his opinion, he has no love or trust in the gang, but instead perceives them as in the poem, with Cordelia 'the raving slut/ Who keeps the till', sleeping with his son, and the others merely 'Old kettles, old bottles, and a broken can'. At least, this is Angelus would like the others to believe. The truth is not like that at all. Angel has a profound love for AI, for the family that he is haltingly attempting to forge. The idea that the 'masterful images' were all that he wanted, all he loved, is entirely untrue and without back-up. That Angel, in the situation, had a perfect day much different from reality, is unsurprising, but this does not mean he has in any sense betrayed AI, who in any case no nothing of the dream he had.

6) Well of course this one has been playing out implicitly not only throughout this Season but as far back as 'A New World'. I suspect Sophocles would be surprised by the immortality of his play, although it was probably not his plot originally. The mythic power of the story, which has kept it alive for more than 2000 years, perhaps suggests more about the truth of it than Freud with his arguments ever will. In any case, here we have the first explicit mention of it, as Angelus tells Connor, 'You boned the nearest thing you had to a Mother, you tried to kill your Father. There should be a play.'

Here though, the story is not about Oedipus, but Laius, and how he responds to what has happened. As it is his story, he is the most charismatic one, and he does not get killed at the cross-roads like his mythic counterpart. The question now is to see how the relationship between Father and son develop.

It was a fascinating development that Connor decided that Angelus was his real Father. That he identifies more with the anarchic, manipulative psychopath than the tortured, good intentioned proto-Hero is perhaps worrying for his psyche. But Angel was Angel when Darla conceived Connor, n a moment of perfect despair. That he was ready to surrender his soul, to give up on life, is undeniable, yet what Connor contends is not strictly true. However, the question it raises is still a major point for discussion. Just how much of Angelus is Angel, and how much of Angel Angelus? Is it still as simple as Season Two of Buffy, where we see Angelus as a clearly and demonstrably different character? Do elements of each interact more than Angel will admit, while he still compartmentalises his normal self? Is it important that Angel integrates his evil side in order to become a more content person? I am reminded of lunasea's interesting contention that the addition of soul to Angelus, a vampire with a strong, black moral compass, snaps him round like poles of a magnet, giving him a strong predilection to do good instead. By contrast perhaps, Spike, whose moral compass is weaker, his changed less from soulless to soulful, with the conclusion that his moral compass was less of a guiding principle as soulless vampire and then as ensoulled, reforming New!William. Remember the mantra: 'Spike does not negate Angel. Angel does not negate Spike'. Oh, and incidentally, (and this is just my worthless opinion), I cannot believe that a Joss Whedon helmed fifth Season of Angel, when this is his only show running, will fail to balance. I can see Angel and Spike as excellent counterparts, without denying Fred, Gunn, Lorne and anyone else time. But I don't even know the end of the Season, so what do I know?

7) The easiest of all of course: Angelus' comment about Othello and Desdemona. 'But Oh no, Desdemona didn't like the guy.' The guy in this case being Cassio, who in this schematic is being played by Wesley. This leaves Angelus as Iago. There are some interesting parallels. Angelus has become like he is because Cassio's decision was supported by the rest of the group. As a direct result, Iago has become the imprisoned, scorned embittered old man, but reacts by scheming his way out of it rather than folding. As a result of what Iago (Angel) says about Cassio's (Wesley's) relationship with Desdemona (Fred), Othello (Gunn) and Desdemona break up, albeit for more reason than in the play. Cassio is the group leader, but his claims are weakened sgnificantly by Iago's rumours and manipulation. Othello is a play full of frustration, mistrust, manipulations of the confused good people, and supremacy of the manipulating evil people. Which seems to fit Angel Season Four rather nicely.

However, considering the events of 'Calvary', it is also arugable that the obvious, laid-out Othello match is not the one we actually want. Perhaps Cordelia is Iago, the manipulator, and Angel is Othello, the one betrayed by her quiet words in her ear. How it all matches in this scenario is anyone's guess, so I think I'll give it a bit longer to develop.

How did you do? Hope you had fun anyway! Anyone who got all seven has a scarily close mindset to my own.

A couple of other miscellaneous notes:
-Well done Craft and Fain for a second top grade effort after the magnificent 'Supersymmetry'. They're fast becoming my favourite writers on the show.

-Some of the sexual imagery in this was really crude, even if implicit. Just goes to show that censors really don't understand the implicit, only the explicit explicit stuff, (I mean the 'willow tree' line really says it all).

-My only contention with the excellent 'Long Day's Journey'/'Awakening'/'Soulless' run is the lack of Lorne. He's barely done anything since 'Spin the Bottle', despite being an interesting character/plot device in the earlier Seasons. He needs a bit more than comic relief, even as a recurring character.

-'Holtz was a good man'. Wrong, kiddo. Connor may have a certain grasp on Angel/Angelus, but Holtz' prevading bitterness stopped him being good very quickly. He may have been 'good' when he was wronged, but their was a speedy deterioration.

-Angelus' assaults on Wesley using both Faith and his Father show excellent cross-show continuity, as well as that Angelus/Wesley scene being for me one of the most compelling scenes of acting on the series, with the ever-improving Boreanaz almost matching the stellar Denisof.

Loved this episode. Some thoughts on Calvary later today or tomorrow.

TCH

[> Got 5 -- mamcu (who clearly needs a life), 08:50:17 05/16/03 Fri

But you missed Neil Simon (scroll down for answer). I missed Beckett (you're right, but that is obscure) and Harris.

Promises, Promises.

[> [> Good catch -- Tchaikovsky, 10:00:20 05/16/03 Fri

I think 5 out of 7 is very good considering I basically made a few up! I'm not that familiar with Neil Simon, but this may make 'Soulless' the most literary referencing episode of all time. I know there are some with many more pop culture references, but this seems to have a lot of plays and novels and poetry, which I tend to notice more. Presumably the main reason is Angelus' age.

TCH

[> [> [> I'm so amazed by your brains! -- Scroll, 10:59:42 05/16/03 Fri

I only got 3: Oedipus, Othello, and the Teddy Bears Picnic, which granted, wasn't exactly obscure. Clearly I need to read more.

Terrific post, TCH! I especially love your point that Cordelia can also take the role of Iago, with Angel as her Othello. This season has been simply brilliant in its use of classic literary references. Agree about the censors being oblivious to Angelus' cruder sexual imagery. It's kinda funny that DB can be practically masturbating against the cage bars and nobody even notices!

[> [> Technically, more Burt Bacharach and Hal David than Neil Simon -- cjl, 11:15:18 05/16/03 Fri

Neil Simon wrote the book for the musical "Promises, Promises," but the Bacharach/David score was the fuel for its long run. (Songs from the show are back on Broadway with the new BB/HD revue, The Look of Love.)

And if we weren't sure about the Bacharach/David reference, "Cavalry" confirms it when Angel(us) sings "Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head," another BB/HD classic.

[> Wonderful TCH... (Angel Odyssey 4.11 and S5 Writer spoilers) -- s'kat, 10:00:35 05/16/03 Fri

First a thank you for providing my poor annoyed brain with some intellectual stimulation, if I read one more whining post about Spike coming to Ats or criticising the shows, etc, I was going to leave the online world for good.
What good is a mantra when everyone ignores it?? Sigh.

Okay going to address this bit first then move on the rest:

However, the question it raises is still a major point for discussion. Just how much of Angelus is Angel, and how much of Angel Angelus? Is it still as simple as Season Two of Buffy, where we see Angelus as a clearly and demonstrably different character? Do elements of each interact more than Angel will admit, while he still compartmentalises his normal self? Is it important that Angel integrates his evil side in order to become a more content person? I am reminded of lunasea's interesting contention that the addition of soul to Angelus, a vampire with a strong, black moral compass, snaps him round like poles of a magnet, giving him a strong predilection to do good instead. By contrast perhaps, Spike, whose moral compass is weaker, his changed less from soulless to soulful, with the conclusion that his moral compass was less of a guiding principle as soulless vampire and then as ensoulled, reforming New!William. Remember the mantra: 'Spike does not negate Angel. Angel does not negate Spike'. Oh, and incidentally, (and this is just my worthless opinion), I cannot believe that a Joss Whedon helmed fifth Season of Angel, when this is his only show running, will fail to balance. I can see Angel and Spike as excellent counterparts, without denying Fred, Gunn, Lorne and anyone else time. But I don't even know the end of the Season, so what do I know?

While I do not believe Angel is as morally black and white as some people contest - seen too much evidence of Angel's greyness and lack of moral character in both Btvs and Ats while he's Angel - for this contention to be supported.
I do agree that Angel himself may look at the world in this fashion and see himself in this manner. I've often seen Angel's greatest flaw as Angelus, Liam, and Angel as being his monsterous ego/arrogance or perhaps a better term is "pride"? It comes across in Soulless - in the way he delights in getting the upper hand with the gang and manipulating them - just as it comes across in Long Days' Journey when Cordelia maneauvres him into giving up his soul because as Angelus he's smarter - in fact the smartest of the group. The irony of course - is Cordy is outwitting him. Angel/Angelus have underestimated her - partly due to pride. Same thing happened in Becoming - Angelus believed he was worthy and was filled with his own pride, that he underestimated Spike and Buffy's ability to overthrow him
If you track through the series - you can see this flaw occurring over and over again - it's a fascinating one to me, because I do in a way identify with it, pride gets me into trouble too. It gets us all into trouble.

Okay WARNING - RANT on the S/A thing. (marked so you can skip it if you want to)
******************************************
The whole Spike/Angel bitch/moan kindgergarten whining fest is annoying me to no end and I am this close to leaving the board permanently over it. I honestly don't get peoples' problems with Spike and/or Angel - any more than the writers who created them did get the fans reactions to this. (Beginning to feel very sorry for the writers - I mean its beginning to remind me of Stephen King's Misery - the extent these nits are going to whine - hate mail?? It makes me ashamed to be a fan of Angel or be associated with such people.) If it has to do with B/A? Honestly guys, Angel left Btvs, he got his own series, became the star. He can't be Buffy's love interest in her show and her romantic foil and emotional arc - at the same time he is the hero of his own show - even if they stayed on the same network. They needed to give both characters new romantic foils to fit their shows - hence the introduction of Cordelia on Angel and Spike on Buffy. Now, what is Spike's relationship to Angel outside of Buffy and why does he make the most sense to go over to Angel? Spike is to Angel what Faith is to Buffy. He is Angel's foil. A FOIL in literary definition terms is Foil, in literary character terms not fencing jargon, is defined as "one that by contrast enhances the distinctive characteristics of another". (See American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd. Edition ). It is not necessarily a villain. And it is the one thing Angel the series has lacked since Lindsey left. Lindsey at one time was Angel's foil - and many posters compared him to Spike in essays and other works. Christain Kane has left to pursue a movie and singing career, so Lindsey won't come back. Writers have no control over this. So, who do we go to to get that new foil? Well the original source - Spike.

Of course Spike doesn't negate Angel and Angel doesn't negate Spike ANYMORE than Faith negates Buffy or Buffy negates Faith. Spike is Angel's foil. Faith is Buffy's.
It's not a mantra - it's common sense. I find this complaining about Spike joining Angel business by the fans to be ridiculously stupid and annoying - a can't see the forest for the trees sort of thing. And it is enough to make me wonder why I bother coming online. Until that is, I run across an amazing post like this one which delves critically into the text, explores literally allusions and examines their meaning in a larger context. SO Thank you again TCH, you've revived my faith in watching these shows...and in examining them.

Sorry for the rant, feeling especially grouchy today. (got a rejection from a literary agent on my novel - never a pleasant thing.)
******************************************************
END of Rant

Okay...on to the wealth of literary metaphors.

Teddy Bears Picnic - if you go back into the archives, some posters stated it was A British Novelty Tune - but no one gave a date. And I agree - I think it is a metaphor on the Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde status of Angel. But Angel has never struck me so much as a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as a -
fairy tale monster - or rather the subversion of the fairy tale monster - in fairy tales we usually end up with the nasty bear who hides the prince underneath, with Angel - we end up with the prince who hides the nasty bear underneath.
Which I think the Teddy Bear Picnic shows - he's nice and snuggly now, but you might want to be careful - underneath that handsome exterior lies something deadly. A motif explored in Innocence Btvs, Eternity Ats, Forgiving Ats,
Awakenings, Soulless, even in Angel's dream in Deep Down.
It's part of the reason I love the character of Angel so much - he reminds me a bit of ME's version of the Incredible Hulk mixed with Batman and a dash of DareDevil thrown in.

I liked your other literary allusions as well. I'd picked up on all of them but the Ancient MAriner one - been too long since I read that poem. Kudos by the way - in the posts when this aired? I don't think anyone picked up on that line. Could be wrong...but I'm pretty sure we missed it.

A bit of good news for you:

Craft and Fain are definitely on board next year. David Fury has probably left along with Mere Smith.

The line up is:

Co-Executive Producers Joss Whedon and Jeff Bell
Counsulting Producer: David Greenwalt
Writers: Joss Whedon, Jeff Bell, Ben Edlund, Craft and Fain,
Stephen Deknight, and Drew Goddard.

Leaving: Mere Smith, David Fury, Tim Minear

Joss Whedon will write and direct the first episode and several other ones throughout the year.

Thanks again TCH and sorry for the rant in the middle.

SK

[> [> And thank you back -- Tchaikovsky, 10:12:46 05/16/03 Fri

Until that is, I run across an amazing post like this one which delves critically into the text, explores literally allusions and examines their meaning in a larger context. SO Thank you again TCH, you've revived my faith in watching these shows...and in examining them.

That's the kind of thing that cheers me up no end! I've had a bit of a grey tedious day today, and I had to write this post twice because of an idiotic Internet connection thing, and it's being dank and rainy in Midlands England, but it's wonderful that it makes you want to continue online, particularly considering how much I enjoy your writing.

It's a shame Mere Smith's leaving. I, as I believe you did, got Mere Smith on the 'Which Buffy writer are you?' test, and I hugely admire her scripts. Otherwise it sounds like a wonderful list of writers, and I completely trust in Joss to write a wonderful show, particularly as any allegation of him being spread too thin over the last two years, which I believe has a limited validity, will be nullified by this being his only show next Season.

I personally understand other posters' fears, but I can't help but feel ultra-optimistic about it myself.

Anyway, thanks sk, you in turn cheered me up!

TCH

[> [> Go Rant Girl ;) -- ponygirl, 10:51:51 05/16/03 Fri

Someone in a thread below compared this current tempest in the teapot to last summer's fear of the Scrappy Gang. Kit? Carlos? Where are you?

I for one am giddy with the possibilities for AtS next year - and this is the first season of the show that I haven't thrown up my hands at some point and vowed never to watch again. The AI team was getting quite literally incestous and was more than due for a big shake-up/re-evaluation - our favourite rebel without a nudity clause can't help but aid that process. Also it gives me hope that some of the issues that never got explored fully will come up again - how can Angel maintain his "I am not Angelus" stance in the face of Spike's example? what will Angel do when faced with the possibility that his destiny is not his? and most interesting of all, Spike's presence could demonstrate to Angel that the big Reset button option he exercised in Home doesn't allow him a clean break with the past, the past always comes back to haunt you. Oh, it's going to be a fun year!

Thinking happy thoughts for your novel, sk.

[> [> [> Actually, that poster was s'kat herself! -- Scroll, 12:08:53 05/16/03 Fri

She's the one who did the Scrappy Gang comparison.

[> [> S'kat, to address your rant... -- Scroll, 13:16:04 05/16/03 Fri

Just want to preface this post with "Spike does not negate Angel; Angel does not negate Spike." Love this mantra : )

The whole Spike/Angel bitch/moan kindgergarten whining fest is annoying me to no end and I am this close to leaving the board permanently over it. I honestly don't get peoples' problems with Spike and/or Angel - any more than the writers who created them did get the fans reactions to this.

I'm starting to feel sorry for the writers as well. It can't be easy for any artist to have people doubting their work even before they've started creating it! Still, Buffy and Angel are shows that encourage fans to dissect and negotiate, and we often take it to the next level.

But I hope I haven't contributed to the "Spike/Angel bitch/moan kindgergarten whining fest". I thought my post was fairly even-handed -- and steered clear of any Spike/Angel rivalry -- but please be honest and tell me if you think I was actually whining.

As for you leaving the board, I want to you to realise that I (and maybe a few others, I'm only guessing) who have criticised (not bashed) Spike in the recent past have pretty much stopped/cut back our posting. We kinda feel like we're being attacked for not being all gung-ho about Spike. As if we need to be gung-ho, or to simply keep our mouths shut about him. As if he is exempt from criticism. I'm not saying any posters (certainly not you, s'kat; you've always acknowledged Spike's flaws) have actually told us not to criticise Spike, just that the general atmosphere is that criticising Spike is paramount to bashing Spike, bashing Buffy, and bashing the writers.

If it has to do with B/A?

Not for me it doesn't.

Now, what is Spike's relationship to Angel outside of Buffy and why does he make the most sense to go over to Angel? Spike is to Angel what Faith is to Buffy. He is Angel's foil.

Thing is, I agree it would be interesting to have Spike as Angel's foil, to get some resolution for these two characters. But the key word here is "resolution". Spike would be terrific for a short arc somewhere in Season 5, in which he and Angel figure out (or at least begin to tackle) what exactly it means to be a souled vampire in a morally ambiguous world. But I don't think (again, IMHO) that Spike should be made a regular character.

Because it's been four years since Angel has seen Spike. They've both grown and changed so much. Just because they're both souled vampires doesn't mean they'll necessarily work as foils (though I do trust Joss to make it work anyway). Also, as a Wesley fan, I feel I need to point out that Wesley is, and has been, a perfect foil for Angel for the past two seasons. Wesley's journey has been a subtle parallel (unlike the not-so-subtle "addiction" parallel between Buffy and Willow in S6) that makes me re-evaluate everything I first learned with Angel in Season 2.

Granted, the writers might be able to work out an Angel/Spike parallel without losing the beautifully crafted Angel/Wesley parallel. Is it wrong of me to doubt Joss? Am I losing faith?

I find this complaining about Spike joining Angel business by the fans to be ridiculously stupid and annoying - a can't see the forest for the trees sort of thing. And it is enough to make me wonder why I bother coming online.

Well, I realise you need to rant occasionally, but look at it this way: Those of us who aren't exactly jumping for joy about Spike joining Angel feel that everybody else thinks we're being stupid and annoying. Short-sighted about the grand potential of Spike, and heretics to actually be having doubts about the writers. And that's why some of us aren't posting anymore.

Until that is, I run across an amazing post like this one which delves critically into the text, explores literally allusions and examines their meaning in a larger context. SO Thank you again TCH, you've revived my faith in watching these shows...and in examining them.

I'm right there with you, s'kat. TCH did a great job examining the literary references. I hadn't even noticed most of them until started reading reviews of "Soulless" (which really is an incredible ep).

Sorry for the rant, feeling especially grouchy today. (got a rejection from a literary agent on my novel - never a pleasant thing.)

I'm sorry to hear that, s'kat. *hugs* I'm sure you hear this all the time and it doesn't help, but you've just gotta keep trying! You're going to catch your break one day : )

[> [> [> Re: S'kat, to address your rant... -- s'kat, 15:30:04 05/16/03 Fri

I don't mind constructive criticism Scroll, I mind bashing.
And I'm not saying you're doing it. I don't think you really have. Complaining yes. Not bashing.

There are believe it or not a few characters I'm not fond of on these shows. I have a love/hate relationship with Buffy for instance. I've never liked Cordelia - actually stopped watching Angel for a while because of that character. Dawn and Connor have gotten on my ever-living nerve this year. But I do NOT remember ever going on about how these characters ruin the show or are written poorly or that the actors can't act or that they are pathetic. Because I believe the actors are quite good actually. Nor have I ranted at people who did like them. I have an email friend who adores Cordelia - so for her I wrote the Little Girl Lost Essay on Cordy and Fred.

The Spike bashes make me angry at Angel,b/c most of these posts pit the characters against each other and go on and on about how Angel has the more interesting story and how they are so afraid Spike will take away from it and then the posters go after those of us who like Spike, with a vengeance - telling us that we don't have morals, that we are pathetic, that we like bad boys. This makes me furious because I could make the same exact arguments on Angel. And I happen to love Angel, he's always been one of my favorite characters and the actor is very good. I love the contrast between these two characters. I do not see one as pathetic and one as heroic or vice versa. I like them equally. I like their moral ambiguity/ And I don't want either character with Buffy. I like the fact that she can't quite have them and they can't quite have her - I'm masochistic that way.

If you don't like a character? Don't post on it. Post on something else. Surely there are enough things in these shows to post on besides Spike? And why do you want to post on something you hate any way? Heck when I first went online I made it a point to write about everything but Spike for the first five essays. If you go to my site you'll see I've posted on more than just Spike. I may be obsessed with the character and maybe a little in love with it, but I can post on other things. And I try very hard not to post on Cordelia. I also seldom post on Wood or I try not too, since I hate him. Nor for that matter was I always crazy about Gunn. I absolutely despised the G/F ship but I don't remember going on about it. I do like the character now.

And I don't understand your view that you feel you can't be critical of Spike on this board. Or that Angel is kicked like a stray dog? I haven't read these posts...of course I don't read the entire board, so maybe I just missed them. I do tend to skip character bash posts as a rule. Heck people are criticizing Spike all the time. At this point in time - I've counted over 100 posts doing nothing but criticizing Spike and talking about how great Angel is, to the extent some people have felt uncomfortable. One poster even wondered if she was the only B/S shipper left. And it's been incredibly painful for the A/S shippers. Who like both characters.

You repeat my quote - yet your words seem to counter it. You haven't seen the story yet - you haven't even seen the end of Btvs and you are already making assumptions about how the character will appear in the story. You're judging it before it is seen. Wes was Angel's foil - but they resolved that - he's past that point now, there's no going back - do you want the characters to stagnate? Or grow?
Spike and Angel have lots of back history and stuff to resolve - it certainly could take a year even more to figure it out. Also there's a ton of stuff I don't know about Spike - I want to know - I'm fascinated about finding out. Yes, I'd prefer it if they'd gone with a Faith/Spike or a Spike spin-off b/c I would get more of this incredibly talented and generous actor who continues to blow me away every time he's on screen. And who gives the best in depth interviews on the business of acting and the process of anyone out there. But I'm not going to get that. We already have an ANGEL spin-off which has solely focused on Angel's journey for four years, building up supporting characters. And we don't need or are getting two spin-offs. So the best I can hope for is two or three or possibly ten minutes of my favorite character/actor popping up in the show. But just because I want more on Spike does not mean I don't want more on Angel, Lorne etc. I want to know more about Fred, and Gunn, and Wes, and Lorne, and Knox, and Lilah, and Gwen...and dear Angel. Wes is one of my favorite characters. Lilah is my favorite female character next to Willow. I like the idea of several characters to get to know. My happy universe would be for all the characters to get equal time like they did this year on Ats S4. I want to think about the positives, because right now there is so much negative - that for me this show is a positive and it made my week, heck my month when I heard that not only was it being renewed, but who the writers and cast were - I was finally getting my dream show. So excuse me if reading a lot of rancor on the internet is just a tad annoying.

By no means, stop posting on my account. I like your posts, you've posted some amazing stuff on Wes and on Lilah and on Gunn and Fred. I just don't trust your judgement on Spike - b/c you seem to truly despise the character...you say you don't but every word in the post above seems to indicate otherwise. I understand that - there are characters I despise, I just try to not post on them to be sensitive of the people who do love them.

Don't know if that made a lick of sense. Nor am I accusing you necessarily of whining, since I certainly didn't read all of your posts on the topic. I tend to skip posts that despise Spike or other characters as a rule. Problem is there's almost too many of them recently to skip. Your post above seems pretty fair and not bashy at all.

It's just as a person who likes/loves the character of Spike, I find it painful sometimes to come to a board and see tons of posts telling me I'm insane or pathetic for liking him. And how he ruins the show. It makes me angry. Silly but true. I'm sure you'd feel much the same way if you saw a bunch of posts maligning your favorite character constantly.

Sorry for the ramble. I hope it made some sense.
I've more or less given up on my book right now... and I'm sort of dealing with the rage and pain of that, so maybe a little of that is coming across in my posts. I'm probably just overidentifying with the ME writers. I feel for them.

SK

[> [> [> [> OT: publisher thought -- fresne, 17:59:23 05/16/03 Fri

This is a bit OT (and BTW, I'm thrilled that Spike is heading to Angel. They have issues. Where there are issues lies plot. Same reason I wanted Faith back on BtVS).

Anyway, I don't know who all you've submitted your novel to, or what your general goals are, but I happen to know that the people at
http://www.clocktowerfiction.com/ (it's a completely on-line fiction distributor)

read their slush piles. Or at least they did up to a few years ago when a friend of mine worked there. They started based on the idea that the way the book market is structured makes it extremely difficult for new authors to break in. By publishing on-line, well, that's most of the cost of publication. They distribute by subscription and they are listed in a number of those Publishing Your Book books.

Just a thought.

[> [> [> [> [> Thank you! Really Appreciate it! -- s'kat, 21:16:54 05/16/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> Re: S'kat, to address your rant... -- Rendyl, 07:26:46 05/17/03 Sat

I have to say I don't understand how an opinion of a character by someone who does not like that character is logically any less accurate than one from a person who does like the character. If we assume a poster's dislike influences their opinion then we have to assume the same for posters who like/love the character --- or we have to assume there is no bias from either. But it has to apply both ways.

I can identify with Scroll. About once or twice every season I and other Buffy (the char not the show-grin) fans endure the extremely caustic Buffy-Bashfest. If the posts were good criticism it would be okay, but many of them degenerate into nothing but 'Buffy is a B----' rants.

I understand Buffy's faults. (I love her anyway) An important part of who most of us are -is- a little dark and selfish. My love of the character does not stop me from viewing her realistically. The same can be said of characters I don't like. I don't like Nikki. As a mother myself and a daughter of divorced parents I do understand her to a certain extent. I don't feel I am any less qualified to post about her than I am to post about Buffy.

I understand what Scroll means. This board is very pro-Spike and posts to the contrary are often dealt with harshly. If I post about Angel, most responses will be intelligent and polite. The same doesn't hold true for those who are criticising Spike.

Ren

[> [> [> [> [> OT - Thank you, Rendyl -- Scroll, 09:37:38 05/17/03 Sat

I'm glad you can understand where I'm coming from. It's been difficult trying to figure out just how much worry/criticism I'm allowed to express on the board. I've criticised characters -- I'm like you in that I'll defend Buffy, even her speeches, yet I'll turn around and also criticise her for her speeches -- and I've had a few moments when I have (unintentionally) bashed characters. While I always apologise as soon as I realise my mistake, it still works to create hostility on the board. The experience hasn't been too terrible, but I still think I need to take a break from this board -- at least until I learn that "If I have nothing good to say, I shouldn't say anything at all."

Thanks again for your support, Rendyl.

Scroll :o)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: S'kat, to address your rant... -- s'kat, 11:34:03 05/17/03 Sat

Actually, I'd agree with you except that I've found that when I post criticism for Angel or Buffy - I get attacked and usually the person starts bashing Spike. And the criticism is even keel. Go to the archives and see some of the essay I did on Angel/Spike - I got attacked by Spikeshippers and Angelshippers. And it was constructive criticism.

Again I want to point out to you a difference between constructive criticism and bashing. KdS and Malandaza in my opinion writes some of the best Spike criticism on the board. I may not agree with them, but I would not define it as bashing. Sophist writes some of the best Xander criticism on this board. He doesn't like Xander, but he never bashes him. Aresthusa has written some of the best Buffy and Angel criticism as has Rufus. You can do it.
But when someone starts saying a character has ruined a whole show or starts bashing posters through that character it gets painful. And I've seen that being done way too often lately.

You have a right to your opinion as do I. I personally try not to read posts that make me angry. And if I remember correctly - regarding the Buffy bashing - I posted an essay supporting her in response to it. PErhaps what we should do is try the positive approach over the negative one?

But my main point is - I don't know about anyone else - but I DO NOT want to see posts complaining about Spike joining Angel all summer long. This board is actually pretty tame, if you want to feel comfortable with Spike bashing? Go to Angel Soul Board - it's brutal or Bronze Beta - and have a blast. I'd just like to have at least one place that I can come to without reading a bunch of nasty posts on ANY character.

[> Teddy Bears' Picnic Lyricist -- Rhys who is not Rhys-Michael, 10:44:50 05/16/03 Fri

From http://www.sterlingtimes.org/children3.htm:

The tune of the song by American composer and actor John W Bratton (1867 - 1947), dates from 1907, while the words were added in 1932 by Omaha-born librettist Jimmy Kennedy (1902 - 1984).

And here is the full song:

If you go down to the woods today
You're sure of a big surprise.
If you go down to the woods today
You'd better go in disguise!

For ev'ry bear that ever there was
Will gather there for certain,
Because today's the day the
Teddy Bears have their picnic.

Picnic time for Teddy Bears
The little Teddy Bears are having
A lovely time today.
Watch them, catch them unawares,
And see them picnic on their holiday.

See them gaily gad about.
They love to play and shout,
They never have any care;
At six o'clock their Mommies and Daddies
Will take them home to bed,
Because they're tired little Teddy Bears
.
Ev'ry Teddy Bear who's been good
Is sure of a treat today.
There's lots of marvelous things to eat
And wonderful games to play.

Beneath the trees where nobody sees
They'll hide and seek as long as they please
'Cause that's the way the
Teddy Bears have their picnic.

Picnic time for Teddy Bears
The little Teddy Bears are having
A lovely time today.
Watch them, catch them unawares,
And see them frolic on their holiday.

See them gaily gad about
They love to play and shout,
They never have any care;
At six o'clock their Mommies and Daddies
Will take them home to bed,
Because they're tired little Teddy Bears.

If you go down to the woods today,
You'd better not go alone!
It's lovely down in the woods today,
But safer to stay at home!

For ev'ry bear that ever there was
Will gather there for certain, because
Today's the day the
Teddy Bears have their picnic.

Picnic time for Teddy Bears
The little Teddy Bears are having
A lovely time today.
Watch them, catch them unawares,
And see them frolic on their holiday.

See them gaily gad about
They love to play and shout,
They never have any care;
At six o'clock their Mommies and Daddies
Will take them home to bed,
Because they're tired little Teddy Bears.

[> [> Very interesting Rhys, thanks -- Tchaikovsky, 11:28:59 05/16/03 Fri

[> Just so you know, I'm saving this post for when I get to "Soulless" on my annotation site. -- Rob, 10:50:09 05/16/03 Fri

[> TCH, have you read Jasper Fforde's "Thursday Next" books? -- Rob, 10:59:45 05/16/03 Fri

Because I think you'd completely love going through them and catching all the literary references and jokes. I assume you've heard of them, but if you haven't the first is "The Eyre Affair" and the second is "Lost in a Good Book." It takes place in England in an alternate version of 1985, where literature has become very, very important to everybody, to the point that there is a special division of the police devoted to protecting literary works. A device is created that allows people to enter the actual stories inside the books. It's kind of a mix of literary humor and satire, sci-fi, fantasy, alternate-history, mystery/detective story all rolled into one. The main characters of the book traipse through "Jane Eyre," "Great Expectations," and Longfellow poems, to name a few. You should really check them out.

Rob

[> [> Hey Rob, what did you think of the 2nd book? -- ponygirl, 11:13:28 05/16/03 Fri

Still a very fun read, and I loved Miss Havisham and all the inside the books stuff, but I felt it was getting a bit muddled at times. It's almost like Fforde has too many good ideas and wants to cram them all in. Of course, diversion though it may have been, I loved Spike and his "small, blonde girlfriend"!

[> [> [> I'm actually reading it right now. Halfway through. So far... -- Rob, 11:32:40 05/16/03 Fri

I'd say I agree with you about the being a bit overstuffed, but on the other hand, that also makes it very interesting and unpredictable. On strength of story, so far, I'd rate it a little lower than the first one, but re: sheer imagination, it eclipses the first in places. Am I making any sense?

Rob

[> [> [> [> Agree -- ponygirl, 11:59:11 05/16/03 Fri

And I hope I didn't spoil anything for you. Actually I think I picked up Eyre Affair based on your recommendation, so I'm very grateful - it's such a fun series!

[> [> [> [> [> No, you didn't spoil anything. Glad I inspired you to read it! -- Rob, 17:17:37 05/16/03 Fri

I'm not even done with "Lost in a Good Book," and I'm already chomping at the bit for the next one!

Rob

[> [> That sounds wonderful -- Tchaikovsky, 11:32:01 05/16/03 Fri

I have heard of them but I've never got round ot reading them- but on your recommendation I shall buy them this weekend! Actually, that's if I have any money, as I have just blown too much on that Season Six DVD...;-)

[> [> [> LOL! Buffy DVDs must always come first. -- Rob, 11:40:18 05/16/03 Fri

I actually had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Fforde last year, when he did a tour across America of his books. I was going to college at NYU (New York University) when I saw a flyer that he'd be doing a book-signing at a local Barnes and Noble. Coincidentally, I had just read "Jane Eyre" for a class on 19th Century British Authors and Poets (covered Lewis Carroll, Dickens, Austen, Brontes, Coleridge), so when I read about the book, it was just perfect timing. I went, listened to him read two chapters from the book, bought a copy, and stood on line to have him sign it. He is a very, very funny man in person, very witty sense of humor. I spoke to him for a few minutes, since I was the last in line, I told him I'd just read Jane Eyre, and he told me to write him if I noticed any mistakes he may have made in the text. Oh, and I just remembered, he said that his books come out in England a year before they come out here, so while "Lost in a Good Book" just came out here, I believe the third volume (which I think is called "The Well of Lost Souls") was just released near you.

Rob

[> [> [> [> I'm *so* doing the wrong degree -- Tchaikovsky, 11:54:35 05/16/03 Fri

a class on 19th Century British Authors and Poets (covered Lewis Carroll, Dickens, Austen, Brontes, Coleridge)

And they call that work? You know, sometimes when I'm struggling away with the Euler-Lagrange equaitons, Euclidean rings and holomorphic functions, I really do wonder why I' not doing an English degree! I suppose if I was doing it, odds on I'd have been ground down to a slow-burning resentment of literature, and want to be doing some maths stuff. That's the problem with me; I have a short attention span. Or as I like to say, [Joss' complacent auteur voice] 'I'm a polymath!'

TCH

[> [> [> [> [> I couldn't imagine myself doing anything but an English degree... -- Rob, 12:32:15 05/16/03 Fri

...Unfortunately, I have no idea what kind of job I'll be able to get into after school! English degrees are highly enjoyable but not very profitable, for those forward-looking types. I am mortally fearful of math and science. I'm completely allergic, so I had very few options besides English or History. I've recently become very interested in film, too, so I may veer off in that direction in the future.

Btw, if you're curious at all about my classes last year, I can send you some of my term papers. E-mail me at robwill@optonline.net.

Rob

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I couldn't imagine myself doing anything but an English degree... -- MaeveRigan, 15:34:52 05/16/03 Fri

You go, Rob! Besides, you can do anything you want with an English degree--well, maybe not immediately become director of JPL--but it may be the most versatile major you could choose. Do what you love and the job will follow.

Notice I don't say "the money" will follow. Though it might!

I'm speaking from experience as an English major who has never been out of a job; I know I've been amazingly fortunate and blessed, but I also know I wouldn't have been content as a business major or with any other "practical" degree.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's not your degree as much as what you do with what you learned. -- WIckedB - Earned a BS in Posting & a Minor in Possession, 17:33:26 05/16/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> I can tell you, but it's demonic -- mamcu, 21:08:04 05/16/03 Fri

With an English degreee, sooner or later you'll sell your soul and become a composition teacher. And you'll know that's what you did, because the special hell for people who love to read good writing is that they spend eternity reading and correcting bad writing.

Actually, I've loved this job, and really loved my students, but it wasn't what I had in mind...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I can tell you, but it's demonic -- CW, 07:25:31 05/17/03 Sat

My greatuncle who began teaching rhetoric (which we would call compostion today) in a small midwestern college about seventy-five years ago, a time when it was far more difficult to get into college, used to say he was actually teaching "Dumbbell Grammar." Time doesn't change some things much.

[> [> Not TCH but Abso-freaking-loved the Eyre Affair (spoilers of a book jacket sort) -- fresne, 17:06:17 05/16/03 Fri

Pondering Lost in a Good Book in a there are several books I'm lusting after right now way.

But, yeah, given that I read The Eyre Affair and then Jenna Starborne, a retelling of Jane Eyre in a Sci Fi context, I was feeling pretty darn literary. BTW: Sharon Shinn writes some absolutely heart rending stuff. Wrapt in Crystal just blew me away.

But anyway, Eyre Affair, I want to go to a showing of Richard III which is basically Rocky Horror. And all the history allusions where if you know what actually happened, just make you go, hey wait a minute!

It feels like a universe where there's all this background texture that just isn't explained. It's just the world they live in. Where gangs of young philosophers have turf wars and literary counterfeiting is big business. Where the Crimean War has been going on foreverish and the implications of England not being allied with Russia during WWI and the implications of this and that and ah...good stuff.

As to the utility of an English degree, more useful than one might think. Basically, one learns how to read, how to pull information from what you've read, how to discuss what you've read with others, gain new insight from that discussion, distill all that into a written report.

[> [> Totally love these! Thanks so much for reminding me about them! -- mamcu, 20:37:27 05/16/03 Fri

[> ::using yellow highlighting pen on monitor to mark key points:: -- WickedBuffy .. Wow! I feel like I'm in the FUN Summer School, 11:49:44 05/16/03 Fri

[> ok, without looking... -- anom, 13:39:39 05/16/03 Fri

...either at the answers or at the tape (like I had time!), here goes:

1) Samuel Beckett

No idea. At a guess, "Waiting for Godot."

2) Thomas Harris

The not-so-good (OK, not-at-all-good) Dr. Lecter.

3) Samuel Coleridge

The albatross from "Rime of the Ancient Mariner." (Well, I'm half-guessing, & it's way more likely than "Xanadu"!)

4) Anonymous

No fair!

5) WB Yeats

Good ol' 2nd coming/slouching towards Bethlehem. You'd think he never wrote anything else (this will be so embarrassing if I'm wrong!).

6) Sophocles

Oedipus.

7) William Shakespeare

Othello, of course.

Saved the easiest for last, didja? Or were there more Shakespeare ref's.? Of course, without looking, I can't cite specific lines (except Angelus' Othello gibes). But aside from 1 & 4, I at least have a vague idea of how they were referenced, as in: for 3, I actually do seem to recall the mention of an albatross.

Now to send this before I check the answers & see how far off I was!

[> now that i've actually read it... -- anom, 17:00:11 05/16/03 Fri

Wow. I'm amazed how many I got right, considering how unspecific many of the answers were.

"The Mariner, who kills the apparently benevolent albatross, ends up eternally walking the earth, attempting to achieve redemption by telling people his tale and instructing them not to repeat it."

It's not so much that the albatross was apparently benevolent (& then turned out not to be? not sure if you're making an implication here or not) as that it was good luck; so it makes sense that killing one, as the Mariner did, was bad luck. Anyway, great parallel w/Angel (whom I'm now picturing w/his soul hung around his neck).

"Lurking under the innocent teddy bear exterior, perhaps, lurks the creature with claws who will come to threaten you, the real live bear who's territorial and terrifying when threatened."

I think I've quoted this button before, but maybe that was in chat. In any case, I can't resist: "Beware! The teddy bears of today still carry the vestigial claws of their ancestors."

"...with Cordelia 'the raving slut/ Who keeps the till', sleeping with his son...."

I'm not sure that's how Yeats meant "slut"--m-w.com lists its 1st meaning as "a slovenly woman," & since all she's doing is minding the money box or drawer, that may be all it means here. Of course, Angelus may well have that other meaning in mind.

"But Angel was Angel when Darla conceived Connor, in a moment of perfect despair. That he was ready to surrender his soul, to give up on life, is undeniable...."

Uh...no, it's not. I deny it, so there! I've said this before, & so have a few others on this board. Angel said he needed to "feel anything besides the cold." He wasn't looking for or expecting perfect happiness from his coupling w/Darla. In his frame of mind at the time, he couldn't possibly have found it for even a moment, & I think he knew it, even if Darla didn't. And even in his despair, I don't believe he wanted to unleash Angelus on the world, no matter what he thought of that world.

[> Breaking the GuFWeL chain (Angel Odyssey 4.12) -- Tchaikovsky, 11:05:23 05/17/03 Sat

In my rush to a mindless gimmick yesterday, I missed out a couple of points I'd been meaning to include on 'Soulless'. Here they are:

-The consummation of the Fred-Wesley-Gunn triangle is physical on each side. Fred and Gunn hug when they are re-united, Wes and Fred kiss, and Gunn and Wesley come ot blows. This couldn't stretch much further, as exhibited in 'Calvary'.

-There's the 'Angel knows me' line form 'Heartthrob', which appears to be a quite beautiful moment in Cordelia's re-integration to AI, but actually turns out to be anything but in the pursuing episodes.

-Angelus is concerned about Angel's 'requisite phallic imagery' in his dream- the crowing of an Evil Alter-Ego about its good side's imposed sexual repression, and another example of implications of truth leading to false conclusions, the heart of the assertion that Angelus 'lies with the truth.'

4.12- 'Calvary'

Full of action, but not such a good effort from the assortment of writers, at least in my opinion. All sorts of things are going on, but the pacing is a little off and the characterisation has moments of creakiness.

A lot of the interest in this episode derives from the long, confused chain of intimacies which was carefully set up by the end of 'Supersymmetry', ie Lilah-Wesley-Fred-Gunn. In this episode, every single one of those chains is systematically broken, by a combination of Angelus' penchant for revealing uncomfortable truths, Cordelia's treachery and a lack of trust on all sides.

-Gunn/Fred. Ever since 'Supersymmetry', the enforced restraint that Gunn exhibited on Fred's actions has been gnawing away at the relationship. To complicate this, there is the almost overheard scene of Fred and Wesley kissing. It's been a difficult time for a relationship which started out as a bit of a surprise, but which had grown to a surprising strength and assurance over the summer, with the proto-child Connor. Wesley's return, however, coupled with Gunn's eternal insecurity about being inferior, and Fred'stendeny not to confront her emotions, leads to the break-up. It's an insidious process which seems almost imperceptible yet slowly grows. Gunn, while neither inferior nor treated as inferior by everyone, still has qualms about being 'the muscle', 'the side-kick', or, on a more implicit level, the token black guy. Fred's history incorporates her never-expressed but obvious initial love for the saving Champion Angel, and then the repeated inability to honestly decide between Wesley and Gunn, even if she appeared to have already chosen an option. In these circumstances, the frequent pressures of LA get to them.

Fred-Wesley. This relationship is tempered by a lack of emotional honesty on Wesley's part- and the scheming mind of Angelus. Fred is easily torn away by the revelation that Wesley has been sleeping with Lilah. Wesley, like Fred, while never making any concerted or coherent claim to Fred, has never denied his fascination. But Fred's revulsion over his attraction to Lilah harms the relaitonship, for the time being at least.

Wesley-Lilah. A 'relationship'/tryst which broke up when Wesley chose his side, the Englishman still felt it necessary to save her from the Beast in 'Habeas Corpses'. Here the relationship is put a permanent stop to by Evil!Cordelia.

Or is she? What on earth's going on? I'm going to stick to my guns here and not speculate because something very strange is happening. In the light of the end of 'Salvage', it is very tempting for me to correlate Cordelia's pregnancy, (via Connor, The Destroyer) with her apparent power, despite Connor's apparent ignorance on the subject. In any case, her killing of Lilah appears to be proof at least of the fact that she is not the Cordelia of Season Three, and that something over the Summer changed her more than just emotionally as a person.

This was a relatively arc-y episode, with the general whodunnit style of the lost soul implicating all sorts of people. Eventually, from the final scene of the episode, it becomes fairly certain that Cordelia is to blame, but throughout there are others in the picture. Could it be Wesley, whose tendency to self-isolate as leader madkes hime want to take matters into his own hands, 'Loyalty' style. Or Connor, the loose cannon who would like to kill the simply evil Angelus to avoid the moral ambiguity of having the probably good Angel as his Father. Or of course, Lilah, who immediately disavows the scenario but continually appears to make know claims for servants but her own- an anarchist a little like Angelus himself.

Another beautiful little bit of directing at the beginning of the Gunn/Fred break-up scene- we see the space taking the middle of the camera shot, and only half of the figures of Acker and Richards. Not only is there distance, but these two don't understand each other perfectly any more, they see only some of the other's intentions.

The big mystery, aside from the nice artistry of Angelus' escape, (which of course had me fooled, but then how was I to know Cordelia was evil?!), was why he likes Bacharach, as mentioned by cjl below? 'Why do birds suddenly appear/Evey time you are near?' All I can say is that were I a bird, I'd find any where more comfortable than near Angelus. Don't the goldfish community interact with their sparrow counterparts?

The real big mystery is why the song itself the beautiful 'Raindrops' comes across to Lorne as being pure Angel. Assuming he can tell who Angelus is from the singing, there's some foul play going. Oh, and in a slight hangover from the whole bingo thing, let me over-analyse for a second. Lines in 'Raindrops' include:
'So I just did me some talking to the sun
And I said I didn't like the way he got things done
Sleeping on the job'
Kind of ironic, considering. And more relevantly for Angelus, the conclusion:
'Because I'm free
Nothing's worrying me'
Which becomes ominously truthful quickly.

Average episode. But enjoyed some of the delicately woven interplay between the characters. It is Angelus' ability to exploit the factions which come from the split loyalties summarised above that has been his abiding skill in these two episodes, and what makes him such a fascinating character. But even he was outshone by the return of a certain brunette in 'Salvage', coming soon...

TCH

[> [> Squeak! Gah! -- Tchaikovsky, 12:23:09 05/17/03 Sat

'Salvage' and 'Release'.

Wesley and Faith, and Angelus.

Enough said.

TCH

[> Sorry it has taken me so long to enter the discussion -- lunasea, 13:01:28 05/17/03 Sat

I love reading all of your stuff. I was honored to even be mentioned in one of your analyses. WOW! Thanks and [blushing]

To further the soul/vampire talk a bit, you mention that Angelus doesn't see Angel as loving his family. I'm not sure that a vampire can see such a thing. With both Spike and Angel as major player on AtS, the soul is going to have to be developed a bit more, but I see a lot that can be done with it.

When Liam is biten, his eyes pop open, showing the loss of his innocence. I think a vampire sort of gains a new sort of innocence. With our compass pointed towards good, innocence means that we don't see evil. With their compass pointed towards evil, vampires/demons don't quite see good. A vampire can't understand why someone would be attracted to others when there is nothing in it for them. Why would Angel hang around such losers?

Angel in his fantasy keeps them as loveable losers. Angel doesn't change them, making them perfect. Each of them has a major fault: Wesley makes the initial mistake, Cordy can't see where the sword is, Connor is well Connor, Gunn plays with the sword and breaks the table, don't remember Fred (it's been a while). He loves them with all their faults. He even magnifies theses in his fantasy. That is something Angelus just can't understand which drives his fury. How can Angel be such a chump? Why bother to save a world that doesn't want you?

I'm not sure even Angel realizes why he does yet. (more on this in "Peace Out")

The author of the Teddy Bear's Picnic is Kennedy. It is one of my kids' favorite books, but is in the car right now. I would have to get it to remember his first name. When I heard it, it sent shivers down my spine because I recognized it instantly and my kids love it so much. I hold my children on my lap and read it. THAT was what Angelus was using to be so creepy. GAHHHHHH!!!

Something intensely personal: A invitation to share (spoiler EoD) -- lunasea, 09:28:15 05/16/03 Fri

Every now and then something Joss or Marti says really hits me. One Marti interview caused me to go off-line for a week because I had to rethink a lot. When I came back, I felt like Buffy after the Master had killed her, "stronger." For some reason that is something I have been thinking about a lot lately, why Buffy's death made her stronger. Angel seems to come back stronger from each of his also.

This season, I have loved the locations where things take place. We have Buffy coming out of the "Grave" at the end of Season 6, but back in with CwDP. She loses to Caleb in the cellar, but the Scythe is even lower than that. She descends to get it and races up the stairs to bring her back to the surface, much much stronger. She then descends again to save everyone. She isn't quite sure what the Scythe is, so again she has to go underground to the temple. When she comes out of that temple she will be fully empowered. (spec, but it is really a no brainer) I just love that.

But that isn't what provoked this essay. Joss himself is. In a recent interview with MSN he says

MSN: What is your proudest moment of the entire seven-year run?

JW: I think it was the first time I got a letter -- it was actually an e-mail -- from somebody explaining how much Buffy had made her feel stronger. I was ... it had never really hit me. I knew what I wanted to do, I even knew why, but the reality of the thing and how potent it could be had never really emotionally hit me until I got this one letter. It just ... I can't even think about it without starting to cry.

That's what I want to share, how the show has made me feel stronger. I invite everyone to do the same. Maybe, just maybe someone from ME does read this and will pass them onto Joss. If not, at least sharing will be good for us. The anonymity of the internet allows for people to share things they might not otherwise.

For me, two things have made me stronger. The first is the often denigrated season 6. Prior to this, I had identified with Buffy as something I had gone through. I had learned those lessons, but it was nice to see them again. It was like visiting an old friend. That all changed with Buffy's Dark Night. I have written extensively about my interpretation of this, so I won't reinterate what I saw. What I will say is that I was able to see this in myself BECAUSE of Season 6. Not sure how much longer I would have stayed in that state if it wasn't for Buffy.

There really aren't a whole lot of stories out there about a heart like Buffy's. I didn't understand why I was in so much pain. I didn't understand why, even though people thought I was this massive outgoing extrovert, that I really hid everything from people. I had closed down in ways that I barely understood.

I could understand this in Buffy. Slowly after the season was over it began to dawn on me that I was going through the same thing. I'm still working on the whole turning pain into strength, but it is coming along. All thanks to a show with a silly name.

Reason 2 is Angelus. Instead of it being how hard something hit me, it was how hard it didn't. This time it was more like seeing an old friend. I tend to identify more with Angel than Buffy because at one time, I had a rage inside of me that rivals Angelus. I rarely acted on it, but my fantasies would have impressed Angelus.

I was dissociative, like Angel is this season, and called the persona this rage developed "The Bitch." I visualized her locked in a cage. It was one way I kept her under control. When I heard Angelus was coming back I was both excited and terrified. I was beyond worried about how I would react. It had been a decade since The Bitch had been reintegrated, but I wasn't sure if this had ever really been tested. This season was a test of sorts.

AND I PASSED!!! I saw what I identified with as The Bitch locked in a cage, much like I had visualized, and say the sort of things I would say. I saw The Bitch and I was fine. That was no longer me, but it was. I didn't go "That's not what I am any longer." I still reveled in what Angelus said and did. More importantly I really felt for him. "Release" was a very important moment for me.

It is one thing to be able to feel for poor pathetic Spike. I really wanted to hug Angelus. All that compassion that I showed myself a decade ago that I used to reintegrate The Bitch back into the whole, I felt again. It was an incredible moment. It made me feel strong and showed me how to turn that pain from season 6 into strength.

I can never thank ME for those things enough. They have enabled me in ways that I can't tell them about. It is something that can only be shown.

So please, share your stories.

[> Re: Something intensely personal: A invitation to share (spoiler EoD) -- rowena, 09:42:58 05/16/03 Fri

Is there a way to respond to you privately?

[> [> my email address -- lunasea, 10:06:40 05/16/03 Fri

Just let me know if you send me anything.

lunasea16@yahoo.com

[> as a final farewell... -- Anneth, 13:03:58 05/16/03 Fri

Actually, I was just thinking something along these lines this morning. I propose that we start a thread, where people post things along the lines of "what Buffy has meant to me" - the thread can have a declared life of, say, a week, after which someone could print all the posts off and mail them to ME. (I'd be happy to do this; one of the perks of going to law school is free access to printers and paper.) It could be a mass 'Thank you from all of us at All Things Philosophical.'

I'd really love to do this; I hope there's interest.

[> [> Good idea. Why don't you start that thread when ready, then. -- Random, 13:30:56 05/16/03 Fri

[> [> [> Perhaps after the last ep has aired and we've stopped crying? -- HonorH, 21:52:43 05/16/03 Fri

[> [> I would also like to know what I meant to Buffy. -- Archiloih, 17:29:16 05/16/03 Fri

[> Aah! Thank you, lunasea! -- HonorH, 21:54:40 05/16/03 Fri

Was stuck on a challenge fic. Not any longer. You've just crystallized it for me with your observation that Buffy always has to go down to the depths before she can arise victorious. Thank you!!!

(off to write)

Gerald Gardner and the History of Wicca -- Rina, 10:42:25 05/16/03 Fri

Here is an interesting little tidbit:

From:
http://virtualavalon.com/TheWakingDragon/W101.htm

"The History of Witchcraft

The history of Witchcraft is a controversial issue. Some say Witchcraft started when Gerald Gardner came out in 1954 stating that he was a Witch and Witchcraft is indeed a religion. But there are others who have studied and know that Witchcraft is older than any other known religion.

25,000 years ago, Paleolithic primitives hunted for their livelihood. At that early time to these people, all nature was scary and unexplainable. So what they did was they made a god for everything; a god for the wind, a god for thunder and one for the sun, etc. Since hunting was the most important thing, the god of the hunt was born. Most of the animals hunted were horned animals such as the bison, gazelle and the stag. Therefore, the god of the hunt was soon depicted with horns.

With the god there was also a goddess, for the primitive men saw in nature both male and female. The goddess was depicted as a female with large, swollen breasts and ripe, fertile, and pregnant stomachs. Consequently, these became their symbols of fertility. The goddess of fertility. Later with the knowledge of farming, the goddess also became the goddess of fertility over the crops.

In time, primitive man learned how to store food for the winter. The horned god then became a god of nature, as well as the god of death. Primitive man had now developed a belief in life after death, and to follow their beliefs of life after death, had also developed a belief in rebirth. So the goddess became the goddess of fertility and rebirth. For the primitive man knew that life came from the womb of the woman.

This early beginning of religo-magic came to be, and so a priesthood was born. These few where known as Wicca or "Wise Ones". They were everything to the people; from lawyer, to healer, to mid-wife to priest. These few were better able to lead the rituals of fertility, of the hunt and of the seasonal days that were being marked to be later known as the Wheel of the Year.

Then Christianity arose, but not as fast as some would say. Christianity, a man-made religion that was not created over thousands of years but in only a few years, began to spread throughout the world. Slowly at first then gaining in power; and with power came greed and destruction. Except for the first thousand years or so since Christianity's birth, Paganism was still the prominent religion. Later, Pope Gregory the Great tried to mass convert pagans by building churches on pagan worshiping sites. At that time, most people were still pagan - so who do you think where building those churches? What the pagans did, was carve pictures of their gods and goddesses and other symbols upon the walls of the newly built churches. Such is evident today, as many churches still carry the ancient symbol of the Green Man.

In 1484 Pope Innocent VIII lashed out at Paganism and Witchcraft with the help of two German monks, Henrich Kramer and Jakob Sprenger. This caused mass hysteria for almost 400 years. With the creation of the Malleus Maleficarum (The Witch Hammer) a textbook on how to interrogate a witch, they began their reign of terror. It is estimated by some that throughout this infamous period - which is termed by witches today as the "Burning Times" - that over 9 Million people were murdered.

There is much more history, a lot more than just what is here. However, these facts are but a brief history of the path of Witchcraft to this date.

In 1951 the last law against Witchcraft was repealed. With his modern interpretations of an ancient tradition, Gerald Gardner took the helm and lead Witchcraft, or Wicca back from the shadow and into the light. Without him coming forward, who is to say where Witchcraft would be today? He was one of the forefathers of the Wiccan revival. Today Wicca is one of the fastest growing religions. How, you say? Well, since Wiccans don't convert I am asking myself the same question. But, I guess people are starting to break the bonds of ignorance and materialism and are looking for more, looking for their spirit and the growth of their spirituality.

I hope I have not bored you to tears, but have given to you a brief insight of what Witchcraft is and how it began. From its fragile first step thousands of years ago to its widespread growth of today.

Blessed Be!"

Current board | More May 2003