May 2004

May 2004 posts

Previous May 2004
More May 2004

A Farcical Look at Wolfram and Hart....spoilers for "The Girl in Question. -- Rufus, 17:56:37 05/11/04 Tue

I've said next to nothing about "The Girl in Question". I was waiting to see what some others thought about it. I laughed through much of the show and to prove I'm a Trollop, here's my favorite non-lead line...

You give us the money, we give you the head.

Remember, I am a Trollop. I don't know if that demon should be charged with kidnapping or solicitation...!

So, what't the deal with this episode that pissed off so many people? I've seen people say that the characters of Spike and Angel weren't themselves, acting out of character. I saw it as a way to highlight just how wrong a place they are in working for Wolfram and Hart. Both characters are reduced to reacting much like everyone under Jonathan's spell in "Superstar". No one could live up to Jonathan in superstar, hell, he even wrote a book. Angel and Spike are seen reacting to a character that they can't seem to win when it comes to charisma. Note the fact we never see "The Immortal".

The chase for Buffy leads to a "Life Serial" kinda repeat of the guys at her door time after time looking for her. So, what about the mission? The mission gets grabbed and the main reason they are there ignored. More on that later.

It's the scenes at the Italian branch of Wolfram and Hart that got my attention.

Illona: Ciao! Benvenuti! Welcome! (she makes a b-line for Spike) Spike, you are the very meaning of handsome. You take my breath away! Ah, I have no breath! And you, what an honor, the great Angelus.

Angel: Actually, it's just Angel.

Illona: Ah yes, of course. The gypsies, they gave you your soul back. The gypsies are filthy people [spit] And we shall speak of them NO MORE!!!
(I actually know people who say very much the same thing, really I do)

I am Illona Costa Bianchi

Sounds like a great gal, she reminded me of the gal in the nightclub. Both seem friendly enough.

Illona: Whatever it is you want, we give to you. If you want the world, we give you the world...we give you 2 world in fact...because this is our way.

Yeah, that's Wolfram and Hart's way, but how much does all that crap really cost. Angel and gang started this season with lots of new goodies, Angel himself seems to mention that helicopter a lot. But, how much did all the frills cost. This is where this episode is so good. It may be comic but there is an undercurrent of what Wolfram and Hart is all about. The emphasis may be on the Mary Sue like Immortal but the real news is the fact that Angel and crew are running in place and Wolfram and Hart are taking full advantage of that. When Angel and Spike come back all shredded from an explosion, Illona gives Spike a new wardrobe and gives Angel that awful jacket. When they want more she gives them the bums rush closing them out of the office.

Illona: Sometimes you have to put your fate in a higher power.

Angel: We're heroes. We don't need any higher power.

Illona: I'll be in touch. (she closes the doors on Angel)

Angel: We make our own fate. We don't need any body cleaning up our mess. You know we're champions.

The whole scene made both vamps appear so...impotent.

It's Andrew that gives them direction when he says that Buffy is moving on, and maybe they should to as while running in place they will keep missing her. That is the message in this episode, not who gets the girl, not the perfect Immortal, but the consequences of running in place while behind closed doors Wolfram and Hart continue the same old same old...evil.

Replies:

[> Re: A Farcical Look at Wolfram and Hart....spoilers for "The Girl in Question. -- Ann, 19:09:41 05/11/04 Tue

"If you want the world, we give you the world...we give you 2 world in fact...because this is our way."

I knew this sounded familiar to me.

Thine Lord is the Kingdom,
O God from whom all blessings flow,
The Power and the Glory,
all things come from you
for Ever and Ever
of your own do we give you
World without End.

W&H giving themselves godlike powers in this instance.

Her name: Illona Costa Bianchi has meaning as well. Illona is an Irish name meaning light of the sun. I think her first name is too similar in spelling to Illyria's to be a coincidence.
Costa: noun: any of the 12 pairs of curved arches of bone extending from the spine to or toward the sternum in humans (and similar bones in most vertebrates). Not unlike W&H's offices reaching out and supporting evil like a spine.

Bianchi is more commonly known as a world famous cycling manufacturer, winery and apparently a gun manufacturer. It is also the last name of a character SMG played in a 1983 tv movie called Invasion of Privacy!

Thanks for the quotage. I agree with your assessment of Angel and Spike at W&H. I do think farce works here. Neat connection to Superstar as well.

[> Re: A Farcical Look at Wolfram and Hart....spoilers for "The Girl in Question. -- Buffalo, 19:22:57 05/11/04 Tue

I'm in your corner, Rufus. Humor has always been one of the great qualities in BTVS and ATS. Borneaz has the great ability to trip over a chair when looking sad, or fall through a window when trying to be stealthy. The time Spike looked like a pincushion from arrows when Willow bemoaned the drty deeds done to Native Americans, or had the classic comeback "out for a walk....bitch," along with the motorcycle ride to Giroy with Andrew on the back talking about preferred snacks. Giles looking pitiful in his wizard suit hoping for some business at the Magic Box was like still life in motion. And of course, the classic group scream in Tabula Rasa. All the actors got to really show how far they can stretch and remain in character, IMO.
Given that the original confrontation between The Immortal and the vampiric duo was when they were evil, I'm not so convinced he's a bad guy as they just got their egos bruised. Those ships were in Horse Latitudes.

[> The symbolic nature of the closing of the door in "The Girl in Question" spoilers -- Rufus, 13:36:44 05/12/04 Wed

It was the closing of the doors in the scene where the CEO of the Italian Wolfram and Hart that points to a problem that Angel has that he seems unaware of.

The closed door often points to a hidden secret, but also to prohibition and futility. From the Herders Dictionary of Symbols

Illona was all kiss, kiss, ciao...you have no problems, but she represents what Wolfram and Hart are doing to the Gang. They give them the world but shut the door to them knowing any of their secrets. They find out what Wolfram and Hart wants them to. Angel said he was a hero or a champion but the ease that Illona closes the double doors, dismissing Angel and Spike speaks to the contempt that Wolfram and Hart has for the pair. Gunn is right, they need a compass to get out of the farce they are playing.

Kinda OT - Interactive Philosophy! -- Darby, 18:25:28 05/11/04 Tue

Design a deity!

Measure your moral parsimony! (I got 84%, Sara got 47%.)

Shakespeare vs Britney!

Lots more!

Go to http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/games.htm

Have fun!

Replies:

[> And for Evil Spawn Graffiti... -- Darby, 05:34:25 05/12/04 Wed

Down the % categories, his parsimony was 63%, and for all of the others he either matched one of us, or was close to exactly between - never outside the parent-bracketing range. Dunno what that means (it could be related to the limited number of questions for each category), but it feels like it ought to mean something...

Charisma in Playboy! -- NYCGIRL, 06:36:59 05/12/04 Wed

Charisma Carpenters pictorial in Playboy is incredible!

Replies:

[> Re: Not to be a PIG, but that's a must buy for me! -- Vegeta, 11:44:28 05/12/04 Wed

Oh yeah, when I first heard that she was going to be in Playboy my mouth dropped. It's like three of my birthday wishes coming true at once.

Oh happy day!

[> [> Re: And she's such a natural! -- Brian, 21:02:18 05/12/04 Wed

NBC Rumor Debunked, But... -- Rob, 08:06:15 05/12/04 Wed

from moviehole.net

Making sense of the Angel rumours

Posted on Wed, 12-May-2004

According to Aint it Cool, news about "Angel" moving to NBC might have been a bit premature. The site contacted an anonymous source who shed some light on the situation. "I wish it were true, but it's a steaming pile of BS. The sets have been struck, the writers are on new shows, etc. Joss is very focused on SERENITY which starts shooting in three weeks."

There is good news though. James Marsters recently told reporters that that he could be spraying the hair white again for a 'Spike' Spin-off. We heard from a reliable source overnight who backed up this one.

"It's about the only thing that's likely to happen at this stage. Marsters is pretty keen to keep on being Spike. You can't blame, it's a cool character. They're looking at shaping the telemovies around him, only because Boreanaz isn't that interested, not because Spike's the more appealing option."

According to 'Tabasco', the telemovie might happen before the end of the year - but not as early as September as previously rumoured. "Best case scenario for everyone: telemovies go off, Spike gets a series. Whedon's taking a break at the moment though, so don't expect anything official for a couple of months".

Rob

Replies:

[> Thanks, ever cheerleadery one -- Ann picking up the straw again, 08:27:17 05/12/04 Wed

[> Re: NBC Rumor Debunked, But... -- Kendra, 12:06:37 05/12/04 Wed

I read at another site that WB is not as pleased with Dark shadows as originally thought...this could bode well for a possible spin-off.

the character & future of the Immortal -- Rich, 11:43:49 05/12/04 Wed

I posted part of this elsewhere, but I'd like to expand it.

It took a while to figure out why I hated "TGIQ". I think it hinges on Buffy's dual nature.

I've seen posts linking the immortal to Angel,Spike, Angel
*and* Spike, & Mythos (from Highlander).

If we discount hearsay, what we know of the immortal comes from Spike & Angel's memory. He sent henchmen to attack them (losing one in the process), he escaped retaliation by hiding behind a mystical barrier, & he did
all this just for sex. He appears to be a sexual predator, a manipulator, & a physical coward. The first two could apply to Angelus, Spike, or Mythos ( in his 4 horseman days). The last (cowardice) doesn't seem to apply to any of them.

Even at their worst, all 3 did their own killing. They might delay a fight for strategic ( or sadistic) reasons. They wouldn't hide from a fight just to party ( to Spike, a fight *is* a party, & some of his parties look a lot like
fights ). They were (are ?) predators, but also warriors. They share this trait with Riley Finn & (especially) the Slayer herself - it was a major factor in her relationships with Spike, Angel, & Riley. The immortal fit this pattern.

There is a pattern he does fit - a character known & despised by many. The Immortal is "poophead" Parker on steroids. He will cheat on Buffy (probably already has).
If caught, he'll try to talk himself out of responsibility,
like Parker did. Buffy may buy his line - he's charming,
& she has lousy judgement in romance ( & a strong sex drive,
which would also be a factor).

But (here's the cowardice part), Buffy is also the Slayer. The Slayer doesn't send people into battle - she
leads them. She doesn't sacrifice others - she sacrifices
herself *for* others. Buffy can be gullible - the Slayer knows who to trust in a fight. She trusted Spike when no one else would, & Willow when Willow didn't trust herself.
She likes a man who's good in bed - she *needs* a man who
will cover her back.

The Immortal may fake devotion; he may fool Buffy. He can't fake courage; he won't fool the Slayer. When trouble comes (doesn't it always, in the Buffyverse ?), she'll know
exactly who she's been "boinking".

The Slayer has *NEVER* tolerated deception or betrayal
gracefully ("...you don't kmow what a Slayer is. Trust me
when I say that you're going to find out"). The Immortal's future ? SHORT (if you want to visit Rome, do it soon).

Replies:

[> Correction to the character & future of the Immortal -- Rich, 12:11:29 05/12/04 Wed

I meant to say "doesn't fit this pattern" in paragraph 5.

note to self: don't try to proofread until you stop foaming at the mouth

[> Patterns and Assumptions -- dlgood, 13:16:59 05/12/04 Wed

The problem with this analysis, is that we don't really see enough about the Immortal to make such judgements, or to fit him into such patterns as you point out:

what we know of the immortal comes from Spike & Angel's memory. He sent henchmen to attack them (snip) & he did
all this just for sex. He appears to be a sexual predator, a manipulator, & a physical coward.

This doesn't exactly present Buffy or The Immortal's side of the story, and thus seems to be missing that which is most necessary to draw such a strong conclusion about his actions or motivations. Or hers.

Angel and Spike's opinions are shown as being inherently biased representations of reality in the episode. The Immortal might be a cowardly poophead looking for nothing but sex, and misleading poor Buffy - as you suggest. Or maybe not. Without actually seeing either Buffy or the Immortal, it's hard to conclude such projections are factual.

[> So? -- Lunasea, 14:52:26 05/12/04 Wed

She moved on. She didn't settle down. We hear about them snuggling and see her dancing. Even Andrew says he's "not all that." This isn't her true love or Mr. Right. He's Mr. Right Now. He's the rebound guy. He's fun. She doesn't need a commitment or even monogamy. If she was ready for that, she'd be done baking and Angel could enjoy warm delicious cookie Buffy.

Parker was Liam. Buffy likes the type. She likes to be swept off her feet. Nothing wrong with that, especially when she isn't looking for a serious relationship. He's a great lay and you do Buffy a great disservice by assuming he has fooled her.

Somehow I don't think Buffy will be crying to Willow when the Immortal breaks up with her or maybe she'll leave him. Maybe she'll pull a Parker.

[> Response to dlgood & Lunasea -- Rich, 15:43:52 05/14/04 Fri

There I was, just venting a little (or a lot), & somebody actually posted responses - pretty good ones.

debating the ethics of fictional characters may not be the best use of time - but you both made good points, so I'll try to answer them.

Dlgood - you're right. I *am* making assumptions based on very little evidence, of dubious quality. But what else have we got ?

An optomistically-garbed executive (from Wolfram & Hart); a lovestuck demon extortionist (who cheats on the deal); & a bartender (who probably wouldn't want to insult a good customer - expecially since he's in the room at the time). Sorry - I don't trust any of these.

I might trust Andrew, but he won't take a position - he can't. When the scoobies found him, he was a basket case - they gave him refuge, forgiveness, & purpose. He can't take sides in this, any more than Xander could choose between Willow & Anya. He supports nonintervention because he doesn't want his friends at each other's throats (or his).

Granted, Angel & Spike are biased ( to be fair, so am I). OTH - they seem to remember events the same way. To that extent, they corroborate each other. Also, they could have come for the Immortal at any time, & didn't - until they heard Buffy was involved. When they got on the plane, they didn't know she was dating him - they thought she was in danger. That's not jealousy or anger, it's genuine concern. I have to think they had *some* reason for it.

I might change my mind if we had an alternate version of the earlier encounter, but we don't.

I might also change my mind if we heard from Buffy. As I said, Slayer Buffy has good instincts about who to trust. Human Buffy, OTH, has an "amazing heart". When I called her gullible, I didn't mean stupid - I should have said optomistic - she *wants* to trust people. Sometimes she trusts the wrong ones. We don't know which Buffy is we're dealing with here.

In sum, I agree it's a weak case ( it wouldn't even get *into* a courtroom). But it's the only case we've got. So for now, I'll stick with the "poophead" theory.

(BTW - I don't mind your clipping the original post, but I'm sorry you had to drop the "dead henchman" reference, because it was key. To the Slayer, innappropriate sex would be a venial sin, if that. Sacrificing a follower to *get* sex would be an abomination.)

II. Lunasea - you're right too. Buffy has walked through way too many fires, for way too many years, & she deserves a break.
If she wants to explore, experiment or have fun - she's earned the right. If she wants sex with the wrong guy (again) - it may bother me, but I'm not her father (although I *am* old enough). So far, we agree.

But ( you knew that was coming, right ?)

In the Buffyverse, people can change - Spike got a soul, Buffy went Neanderthal, & Willow went full-on screaming homicidal bonkers. Souled Spike still likes to hit things & piss people off, CaveBuffy still jumped through fire to pull people out, and MadWillow still wouldn't kill Xander ( the entire world, yes - Xander, no).
They changed, but their defining behaviors didn't.

If I assume the Immortal *was* a jerk ( to be polite), then I have to think he probably still is. I think he's using Buffy because I think that's what he does.

Similarly, Buffy usually doesn't look for "Mister Right Now" - she goes for longterm serious commitment. Spike may have been an exception (that got *very* confusing), but I don't think she wants to repeat that experience (would you ?). I think she's serious about this
guy because that's what *she* usually does.

( If it were Faith, I'd be on board in a heartbeat).

In the Buffyverse, casual hookups can become seriously dangerous. Hang with a cute guy on Halloween - you're liplocked with a vampire. Invite a man home after a
date - you're pregnant with a litter of demons. Ask a woman out for coffee - you're hanging from the ceiling with a knife in your stomach. I think this relationship will end
badly because that's what the Buffyverse usually does.

I agree I haven't *proven* my case - I could be completely off base.But as someone said:
"The race is not always to the swift, or the battle too the strong, - but that's the way to bet". I think it's a good bet that Buffy *will* end up crying to Willow - & the Immortal will be faced with a seriously brassed off Slayer when she does.

PS. The last thing I wanted to do was disservice to Buffy - I think the writers did her a disservice with this story, & that's why I had such a strong reaction to it. They needed to end the Buffy/Angel/Spike triangle, so the boys could get on with their upcoming kamikaze mission.

[> Special note to Lunasea -- Rich, 11:05:06 05/15/04 Sat

At this point, I'm starting to bore even me, so I'll try to keep this short.

Like dlgood, you undervalue the "dead henchman" angle.

The Slayer's code allows Buffy to sacrifice others for the greater good. It also allows her to sleep with (almost) anyone, in any way, for any reason at all - or none. But she cannot, does not, & would never risk or sacrifice others just to get laid. If the Immortal did, then he's beneath contempt - not mine, hers. If she finds out - he's toast.

[> [> As Angel put it: -- Finn Mac Cool, 06:44:08 05/16/04 Sun

"She'd never fall for a centuries old guy with a dark past who may or may not be evil."

There's a difference between having a dark past and currently being evil (considering that Buffy counts Angel, Spike, Willow, Giles, Anya, and possibly Andrew as friends and/or lovers should indicate she feels that way as well). Besides, if the Immortal's minions were able to capture Spike and Angelus, there's reason to believe they could contain him (it was never made clear whether the Immortal captured them with or without help, or if he was personally involved at all).

[> [> [> Re: As Angel put it: -- Rich, 11:40:31 05/16/04 Sun

Good points (also BTW, a good name - we may have a common heritage).

I agree we don't know enough & I'd like to know more, but I'm trying to reason from what little we *think* we know. I'm also reasoning from character, which I admit is uncertain.

It seems (may not actually be) true that the Immortal sent his men against Angelus & Spike. As I've said, the Slayer doesn't work that may. Her people aren't expendable.
If they're going into danger, she goes with (if she can); she goes first; often she goes alone.

Of course, this would make phase 2 of the Immortal's plan impossible - but she wouldn't have a phase 2 - at least not this phase 2 (most likely "dust them", maybe "pound them to mush with a big sledgehammmer" (but we did that last night)).

Her prime directive, in any of her many modes (remember "Anne" ?), is to protect people, & she'll die to do it - she did. This doesn't mean she can't risk or sacrifice her followers - she has. It certainly doesn't mean she can't have sex with vampires or anyone else - she's been there.

It does mean she can't risk another person *in order to* have sex. If she did, she wouldn't be Buffy - she can "move on", but she can't move there.

She also wouldn't hide behind a mystical barrier or hecnchmen after the attack. She'd face any possible retaliation personally - at the very least, she'd get everyone else out of danger.

I don't just object to what the Immortal apparantly did. I object - (*much* more strongly) to how & why he apparantly did it.

I get that Buffy can fall for a man who's evil - she's done it before & might even prefer it, given her own dark side. The original Slayer demon is still in there somewhere. What got me started is that she seems to have fallen for a man who - by her own standards - is a total sleazeball.

(Btw - Have I mentioned how much I don't like this guy ?)

[> [> [> [> But does the Immortal really have any advantages in a fight? -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:25:35 05/16/04 Sun

I mean, for all we know, he might not be any good at fighting, that's why he has the goon squad. Buffy would certainly agree with the position that people with little to no skills in combat shouldn't be needlessly placed in a battle. Also, given how much Angel and Spike have changed since those days, it's no big stretch to say that the Immortal has changed as well. And, even if he hasn't, wanting to have sex with two incredibly hot women and waylaying two vampires isn't wrong. Not killing them probably wasn't such a good idea, true, but that's no more morally ambiguous then Lorne's attitude towards his Caritas customers, and he's a beloved character (all this is assuming, of course, that the Immortal didn't plan to kill them and his lackeys didn't just get overconfident with themselves in carrying out orders).

Yes, there's little to support my assertians over yours, except for one thing: Buffy thinks he's OK, and given how well known the Immortal is, I imagine she'd quickly find out if he wasn't.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: But does the Immortal really have any advantages in a fight? -- Rich, 20:42:36 05/16/04 Sun

This is one of the many things we just don't know, & probably won't. I agree, it would be nice to have a different version of the story.

As for the "Buffy likes him" argument - Buffy's Slayer persona is pretty sharp - her human side has been fooled before. I mentioned earlier - she likes to trust people.

[> [> [> Re: As Angel put it: alternate hypothesis -- Rich, 16:51:04 05/16/04 Sun

I don't buy this one for a second, but -

If the Immortal *KNEW* that Angel & Spike would someday be resouled (maybe he lives backwards, like Merlin),then he might want to run them out of Rome without killing them so they could fight evil later in their lives. This assumes that he's basically good,& all my previous statements are
completely wrong.

Spoilers Power Play -- DorianQ, 18:59:29 05/12/04 Wed

I am really going to miss this show.

Question: did Angel really kill Drogen and give up the child to the Fell?

And I love Cordelia too.

Replies:

[> Re: Spoilers Power Play -- Sofdog, 19:20:15 05/12/04 Wed

Right there with ya. Next season could have been so awesome.

Answer: Yes, I'm sure he did. That kind of organization wouldn't play games with membership. Angel looked so sorry when he saw Drogen's face.

Although Angel's speech about how the battle was neverending and all they could do was rock the boat was a bit depressing, I am so loving him.

Is there any chance next week might be more than 60 minutes?

[> [> Anyone else... (spoilers 5.21) -- Pony, 20:47:46 05/12/04 Wed

....reallllly hoping we get some sort of further explanation for Angel killing Drogyn? Like that he perhaps was in on the plan and willing? Because if Drogyn was indeed an unwilling sacrifice how is that any different than if Angel actually had killed Fred to further his ultimately-for-the-greater-good plan?

[> [> [> Re: Anyone else... (spoilers 5.21) -- Ann, 21:01:32 05/12/04 Wed

That is what I keep thinking. Was it a suicide of sorts? He seemed very tired and this would be an option.

[> [> [> [> Re: Anyone else... (spoilers 5.21) -- Alistair, 21:55:54 05/12/04 Wed

It is possible that Drogyn, given eternal youth a millennium ago, has the power to ressurect himself. After all, that deeper well still needs a guardian. If not, then Angel knew that killing Drogyn would be the price, after all, if he succeeds in his plan to halt the apocalypse machine, it would be worth Drogyn's life, to save billions- or at least give billions the choice to save themselves.

That Senator was truly horrendous. Plans for the White House in 2008?

I really love the political message being sent out by the show in its last breath. Software, oil... politicians. They are running a machine as well, a manifestation of the Senior Partners exists in our world the same as in Angel's (maybe not as a circle of the black thorn), or another secret society, but a group of the elite in power who are running things to a certain end. The only thing that makes human evil so pointless is our mortality. All the power we are able to collect is meaningless after our deaths. On the show, immortality goes hand in hand with power- to never die and conquer all, that is winning.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyone else... (spoilers 5.21) -- Sofdog, 08:21:36 05/13/04 Thu

[The only thing that makes human evil so pointless is our mortality. All the power we are able to collect is meaningless after our deaths.]

Not necessarily. Evil can certainly be passed on as a legacy. The evil corporation left to one's heirs, the victims who become fellow perpetrators. Evil can replicate and outlast the originator in countless ways.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyone else... (spoilers 5.21) -- heywhynot, 16:13:42 05/13/04 Thu

Very true. Corporations are dynamic systems and like all systems that survive, they have mechanisms to sustain. Working up the corporate ladder has a tendency to change people because you have to play by the rules which alters their perceptions of the world. Thus those on top tend to be alike, homogenized.

[> [> [> Re: Anyone else... (spoilers 5.21) -- Kenny (the Other One), 22:14:08 05/12/04 Wed

I hope not, as that would be too easy an out. Angel wanted every member of his team to understand the sacrifices they were making should they choose to stand by him. I love this episode for a number of reasons. If nothing else, shoutout to Cordy and her being key to this final plot (damn actor/producer relations). More importantly, this demonstrates how the character of Angel has changed. Since the series started, and especially since "Shanshu", fighting the good fight was about Angel's redemption. Even when he realized that he shouldn't focus on that end it was key to his motivation. Angel's not the type of person to believe that saving the world will take Drogyn's murder off his record. He's willing to take the burden of murdering another, of being guilty of performing blood sacrifice, to save the world. I don't think he believes that he'll be pardoned for his actions because it helped the greater good. I don't mean to get into a discussion of what he did was right or wrong. Rather, I think it's necessary to the strength of the narrative that he killed Drogyn without Drogyn's acquiescence as part of the plan.

I also think this makes an interesting contract to "The Gift". By the end of that season, I believe Buffy was ready to die. I don't think she committed suicide, as I've seen some people say, but she was tired, and she was ready to give her life so that someone less tired could live (and the universe could still exist, which is a plus). But I don't think there was any question in her mind about what would happen to her soul. She didn't think that she'd have to live in perpetual torment so that the world and her sister could be saved. Actually, she was stunned that her friends thought that could happen to her. Angel, on the other hand, is enjoying living. He has Nina, whom I've really grown to like. Pushing her away hurts him. He wants to keep going on. And he knows that his actions are sentencing him to hell. He's not the hero. Hell, he's not even saving the world from being turned into a realm of torment in a matter of seconds. He probably wouldn't even be able to convince most people that they are in an apocalypse because it's so subtle. He's willing to go to Hell for eternity to save the world from a slow and painful death. It's not a feat people will remember for centuries to come, as they never knew the problem existed. To me, that's what makes the story poignant, and Angel's murdering of Drogyn is key to that.

[> [> [> [> Re: Anyone else... (spoilers 5.21) -- buffybuy, 22:38:23 05/12/04 Wed

i am inclined to think that drogyn was an unwilling participant. I think his murder by angel is going to have to be resolved as a means-to-an-end type deal with his conscience. Also Illyria's Crash-Bandicoot/Life metaphor was very touching; it being annoying sometimes and yet she doesnt wanna stop playing. I just dont understand how they can have so much more stories for this series and just cancel it on such a suspenseful note. Is there ANY hope whatsoever of another series, or movies. Ive heard about Spike-centric movies, but that would completely blow, in my opinion. A 2 hour movie every month or even every 2 months is preferable to total cancellation.

PS- angel and spike intimacy? whats THAT about...;}

[> [> [> [> Re: Anyone else... (spoilers 5.21) -- Pony, 06:49:35 05/13/04 Thu

So murder's okay as long Angel feels bad about it after?

Jasmine believed she was acting for the greater good. So did Connor when he dragged that girl off to be killed. Right now I'm thinking that Angel has been corrupted - not in the sense that he's fighting for Wolfram & Hart but that he's fighting like them, as though evil can be fought by doing evil.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyone else... (spoilers 5.21) -- Kenny, 07:41:00 05/13/04 Thu

I never said it was OK. I just said that I liked it from a storytelling point of view. It's a powerful statement and contrasts nicely with other things that have happened on AtS and BtVS.

[> [> [> [> [> [> So much for living as the world ought to be (spoilers 5.21) -- Pony, 09:24:58 05/13/04 Thu

I like the idea of Angel murdering Drogyn as being acknowledged as a fatal flaw, going back to the very beginning of the series where Doyle suggests that one day Angel may decide that it serves the bigger picture for him to kill a few people. This could be the final seal on Angel's doom - that he is damned by his own actions and has been corrupted, but is still fighting on. That makes for a pretty cool and tragic story.

What makes me uncomfortable in the extreme is the possibility that Angel killing Drogyn is meant to be seen as regrettable but acceptable in the sense of Angel having to make hard choices or getting his hands dirty. Hopefully we'll see which it is next week, but I'm worried that this is one of those questions that won't be addressed.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> glad you said this, pony--well put! -- anom, 09:57:36 05/18/04 Tue

[> Re: Spoilers Power Play -- Alvin, 03:00:29 05/13/04 Thu

Since there was some talk in another thread that Spike's "little Shiva" comment might be in reference to a computer game, I thought I'd throw out that in a D&D computer game called "The Shadows of Undrentide", Drogan is the name of the player character's friend and mentor. He ends up sacrificing himself so that the player character can go on to fight the game's big bad.

[> [> A little help please.... (spoilers for 5.21 and questions) -- Briar Rose, 17:08:43 05/13/04 Thu

Without going into a long stroy about it - I was interrupted in my viewing last night.

Did I hear correctly that when Angel pulled out his glowey amulet, it froze everyone and opened their minds to him long enough for Angel to tell them that even though he was acting evil, it was a ploy of some type? And are they going to remember what he said after the freezing, if I heard that correctly? What do they know, or do the viewers know if they know?

I am a little cheesed off, since this was one of the most important eps ever and I missed sooooo much of it. I (basically) missed everything said after Illyria was being beaten to mush.

i believe I heard Angel say that Cordelia had transfered the visions to him in her Goodbye kiss. Is this correct?

[> [> [> Re: A little help please.... (spoilers for 5.21 and questions) -- heywhynot, 18:56:05 05/13/04 Thu

Angel used a "glamour" crystal to create the illusion that he was still fighting the gang. It gave him 6 minutes to tell everyone his plans without the Circle finding out his plans. They are going to remember. He did not alter his friends. He altered the perceptions of those looking in on the scene (like Hamilton). Wes, Gunn, Spike, & Lorne know Angel's plan. That he received a vision from Cordelia when she kissed him. That he wasn't going to let Fred's death be meaningless. He was going to use it to allow him to break the circle (hence the story that he was behind Illyria's arising and Fred's death). And they know and have agreed to take part in his plan to kill the entire Circle.

[> [> [> [> Thank you so much heywhynot!!!!! I can stop angsting now. Until next week.... -- Briar Rose, 01:29:47 05/14/04 Fri

[> [> [> [> One little point I'm wondering about... (spoiler for 5.21) -- Masq, 10:46:56 05/14/04 Fri

Before they pull away to show the glamor that Marcus Hamilton is looking at, everyone has raised their hands EXCEPT Lorne.

I wonder if there's any significance to that.

[> [> [> [> [> Ummmmmmm (spoiler for 5.21) -- Rufus, 23:14:13 05/14/04 Fri

He was begining to raise his right hand just as they cut away.

Politicians (tounge in cheek speculation, spoilers 5.21) -- Vegeta, 12:16:35 05/13/04 Thu

Any else notice some connections between the Senator and a real politician (maybe a joke with the writers). Her name was Helen and she had designs on the White House in 2008. Sounds an awful lot like a junior Senator from New York. That's right, Hillary Clinton. Names start with the same letter, both blond, both have icy personalities (IMHO), both eye balling the White House in '08. Does anyone remember Helen's last name? I wouldn't be suprised if it starts with a "C" or rhymes with Clinton.

Since, I suspect a lot of the posters are liberals, I just thought I'd throw that out there to see what happened. Enjoy.

Replies:

[> Re: Politicians (tounge in cheek speculation, spoilers 5.21) -- dlgood, 12:41:10 05/13/04 Thu

It's pretty broadly stroked. Is Whedon saying senators are Eeevil. Is he poking fun at political figures who "demonize" their foes in such broad strokes whether from the left or the right? Is he mocking California's senators like Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein.

Mostly, I think it's a gag with no particular targets beyond the institutions of government. HC just provides a convenient frame of reference.

[> [> The Senator Isn't a Specific Politician, She's ALL Politicians -- AngelVSAngelus, 13:30:51 05/13/04 Thu

Unfortunately, being funded by hostile governments, lying about your opponents, and winning office by coercion are all things that typically describe a great deal of politicians here in the state.
Including one sitting in the white house.

[> [> [> Re: The Senator Isn't a Specific Politician, She's ALL Politicians -- Corwin of Amber, 19:43:24 05/13/04 Thu

This is why I never bring up politics on this board anymore.

Here's a thought...does assuming the worst of your political opposition actually encourage the worst to happen? Both sides of the political spectrum in the U.S. have been demonizing the loyal opposition for so long that people actually feel free to encourage assassination of the sitting president (as has been done of Bush) or accuse the sitting president of murder (as has been done of Clinton). I'm starting to think that conditions are ripe for a civil war in this country. We HAVE to tone down the political rhetoric, or we'll have another inside of 20 years.

[> [> [> [> Re: The Senator Isn't a Specific Politician, She's ALL Politicians -- dlgood, 05:11:03 05/14/04 Fri

We HAVE to tone down the political rhetoric, or we'll have another inside of 20 years.

I'd certainly prefer more decorum in public debate, but I find that the only really large driving faction are the NeoCons. The other groups are significantly smaller and less vocal.

I'm not sure how today's overheated political rhetoric compares to either the 1850s or the 1880s, whether its a directed trend or part of a cyclical process... I'd have to study that far more than I am...

[> [> [> [> civil war -- skeeve, 07:30:23 05/14/04 Fri

We're not going to have another civil war.
Once we have all-electronic voting,
the powers that be won't need one.

Wait a few more years and
election fraud won't be necessary either.
The anti-dissent forces will be sufficiently
powerful to preclude any meaningful change
in government.
An open question is whether it's possible now.

[> [> [> [> Actually rhetoric doesn't work the way it used to -- Charles Phipps, 09:29:11 05/14/04 Fri

The encouraging of the assassination of a sitting president is something that's always been done. From Washington onward.

The essential assumption that politicians are in fact evil no matter who is going to be elected though is rapidly becoming mainstream in my area.

You can't fight a civil war is both sides are scum by the majority of people.

[> [> [> [> [> Wow, this went off on a tangent -- Vegeta, 10:09:59 05/14/04 Fri

Who would have thought that within 5 responses "civil war" is being discussed. Ouch. Anyhow, I am still waiting for Senator Helen's last name from anyone out there (please). The tape I used to tape the episode won't play (to my dismay). I still think that even if Helen is a steorotype of all politicians, she was modeled after the junior Senator from New York. You know as well as I do that ME doesn't really create "generic" characters. Except the thousands of vampires and demons who have met a quick demise without a speaking role (except "Grrr, Argh... ugh... poof!").

[> [> [> [> [> [> Speaking of tangential digressions -- fresne, 11:31:10 05/14/04 Fri

Because you know, Friday and the day progresses to the weekend.

I guess because the character was a senator from California, and California's two female senators, Feinstein and Boxer, don't really strike me as, well, demons, I guess I didn't really correlate the character to a junior Senator from New York. Actually, I was impressed with how generic her opposition's ad was.

I mean, I had no real sense as to the Senator's political flavor was. Heck for all I know she's a member of the Chartreuse political party, their symbol is the banana slug (Go UCSC) and they support government funding for white goat sacrifices, tariffs for exports from demon realms (as listed in Provision A, sub-article XIVV) and limited government regulations/controls in the Fear and Loathing Industry.

However, since, that wasn't enough of a digression. Hmm...yes. One of the costume ideas that my friends and I just haven't had time to put together is Victorian Political Party cheerleaders.

You know, "Go, Tories. Go Whigs." Our pom poms would be made of velvet ribbons. The skirts, would, of course, have to be floor length. It wouldn't do to expose our limbs after all.

The idea is to wander around Gaskell's ye Occasional Dance Society Winter Ball and possibly Dickens Faire and chant 1870/80s political rhetoric (we're not so much precise as after juicy barbs), but you know like cheers. Perhaps, give each other the cut direct.

Course, when we've made the outfits, I'll bother to do my research on cutting remarks about the children today, railroad bond bubbles, and the disgraceful inaccuracies of the opposition party's media arm. Or not. The point is to be a Victorian Political Party Cheerleader. It's all about the clothes.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Speaking of tangential digressions -- Vegeta, 12:21:31 05/14/04 Fri

Hmmm... I didn't catch that she was a California Senator. I mean just cause she came to the Wolfram & Hart office in L.A. doesn't mean she is from that state. She did bring a video of her opponent's campaign ad (not that she wouldn't). This is, like I said a "tounge in cheek" speculation. Did anyone catch the good Senator's last name yet?
Also, the Victorian party is definetly about the threads.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> My theory. People hate Hillary, Ergo evil female senator equal... -- Charles Phipps, 21:05:53 05/15/04 Sat

It's just like Billy's family supposedly being the Kennedys. Yeah there's a VAGUE correlation (actually is his family the same family as this girl?) but not necessarily one.

And one made for purely joke value.

[> [> [> [> [> [> The only similarity... -- LeeAnn, 00:43:28 05/15/04 Sat

The only similarity I saw to Hillary Clinton was the blond hair.

And as far as civil war goes, either we get honest elections, paper ballots counted by people in front of other people, or, well, it will come to that.

Who do you trust?

[> [> [> [> [> I think after a civil war starts, both sides are scum by the majority of people ;-) -- KdS, 01:48:29 05/15/04 Sat

[> [> [> i wouldn't go that far -- anom, 22:03:46 05/15/04 Sat

Even the most jaundiced opinion of politicians doesn't deny that at least some of them start out idealistic, even if in the end they can't resist the corrupting influence of power. The senator in this episode clearly never had any idealism to lose.

[> I'm wondering if it was an X-Men film reference -- KdS, 01:45:53 05/15/04 Sat

The way that, in X2, Mystique is impersonating the Senator who died in the first film.

[> Re: Politicians (tounge in cheek speculation, spoilers 5.21) -- nightly, 19:25:25 05/15/04 Sat

Brucker or Crocker is what I heard for Senator Helen's last name.

The reference to Hillary were pretty obvious to me - her appearance, running for president in 2008, lock on the women's vote, getting financing from "hostile foreign governments," something about a lack of personality which is a common barb against Hillary.

[> Going both ways -- tomfool, 07:27:30 05/16/04 Sun

The direct answer to your question is Senator Helen Brucker, as others have already noted. To me, there's no linguistic relation to Hilary Clinton. But that's just me.

In the larger sense, I see an interesting phenomenon. I think it's clear that the character is meant by Joss/ME as a generic everypolitician. And why do I think this? Because viewers with a tendency toward dittohead (and please, I'm using this term affectionately) interpretations of the world can see that HB is OBVIOUSLY a thinly veiled version of Ms. Clinton. (Who by the way is the most 'demonized' politician in the country.) And those viewers who might describe themselves as ultraliberals (again affection all around!) can CLEARLY, clearly see this politician as a thinly veiled version of a Delay or a Hatch or a Bush.

The beauty of the writing accomplishment is that somewhat polarized viewpoints can be equally accomodated. Both viewpoints are equally correct. The character is a blank canvas to be filled out with the worldview and experience that each viewer brings to the table.

I'll just say, nice job ME.

[> [> yeah, they were very careful... (vague, inconsequential spoilers for 5.21) -- anom, 14:40:44 05/16/04 Sun

....not to have her state any specific political positions, weren't they? As far as we know, she's not even against pedophilia--it's just a useful charge to level against her opponent.

[> [> [> Re: yeah, they were very careful... (vague, inconsequential spoilers for 5.21) -- skeeve, 06:54:46 05/17/04 Mon

...not to have her state any specific political positions, weren't they?

She didn't state any because she didn't have any.
No care required.

[> [> [> [> And, additionally, -- mrsubjunctive, 07:38:12 05/17/04 Mon

Getting people to accept a "politician" character as evil is about as difficult as growing dandelions.

The Angel Bunch Rides Again...(spoilers Ats 5.21, The Wild Bunch) -- shadowkat, 06:22:11 05/13/04 Thu

"Suddenly it was sundown for [five] men. Suddenly their day was over. Suddenly the sky was bathed in blood. [Five] men who came too late and stayed too long...Unchanged men in a changing land. Out of step, out of place and desperately out of time. Born too late for their own times. Uncommonly significant for ours." --Tagline from The Wild Bunch by Sam Peckinpah

A while back in an interview, Jeff Bell, showrunner of Angel Season 5, mentioned that Whedon yearned to end Angel a bit like the Wild Bunch. Fans were confused. The Wild Bunch?

The Wild Bunch is a 1969 western by Sam Peckinpah who more or less created the slow-mo violent action sequence that you now see in so many movies. The story is pretty simple - it's about an outlaw gang in the old west, circa the late 1800s who attempt to rob a Texas train, but fail miserably. Determined to change their fortunes, they go into a partnership of sorts with an evil Mexican General named "Mapache" Juerta, who employs them to steal a shipment of guns. When that goes awry and they realize Mapache has been using them as his puppets, killing their friend, Angel, who is the wet-behind the ears innocent - the wild bunch decide to turn the tables on the General and his gang in one last hurrah. "We won't survive this," says Pike, "and I won't make any of you do it - it's your choice. But I want to make Angel's death mean something. Our lives mean something. We won't be able to take them all out, but we can take out a few. And go out in a blaze of glory while doing it. Who's with me?" They entire bunch is - because everyone in the bunch adored Angel. They all want to take Mapache down and hopefully redeem themselves a little in the process.

In Powerplay, Ats 5. 21, Angel states pretty much the same speech. He, like Pike, is tired of being someone else's toy, or puppet. He's tired of playing games and going around and around and around the mulberry bush. As Illyria and Drogon point out playing the video game Spike's left them - it's meaningless after a while, yet addictive, compelling. Also as we see in the circular symbol of the black thorn kabbal, the powerful group that runs things - it's a gear, a wheel, a loop, a cage - grinding things onwards forever.

Now it's been a *very* long time since I last saw the Wild Bunch, but like Angel Season 5, Peckinpah is obsessed with circular images (as well as ant metaphors) - the beginning scene of the film which remains ingrained in my memory - starts with a close-up of a scorpion, then we pull back and see it covered with a circle of fire ants, then back again, see kids squatting in a circle around it pushing the fire ants at it and torturing the ants. Then pull back still further and see the nine men ride into town, the Wild Bunch. (The circles in the film represent the Bunch's trajectory - the first is the victims of the guns the bunch procures for the mexican general, the second the bunch themselves (the ants), and last the children or mexican general.) The final sequence also deals with circles, the Bunch is encircled by the mexican army and bullets are flying. The ants are basically turning on the children. In Angel, we have circles as well - the symbol, the circle of men around Drogon, then Angel biting Drogon at the center. We also have the mention of ants - Angel mentions how they are nothing but ants, that people are just ants for the slaughter and it's whomever has power that rules. Just like in the Wild Bunch - whoever is controlling the ants, rules. Yet - this appears to flip on itself in both the Wild Bunch and Powerplay - it looks like Angel and his friends are ants that Hamilton and the inner circle play with, but in reality - they are playing with inner circle. So the question now becomes who are the real ants? Humans, whom Angel calls weak, or the black thorn demon club pushing them at each other with sticks?

Back to circles:

The symbol that Angel shows Wes and finds in the black thorn lair is the same symbol in the robot in Lineage, on Illyria's coffin, on the top of the fail safe in You're Welcome. And in this episode, Powerplay, Lindsey describes the group as a gear - the circle is a gear in a machine that makes it run. If you think about it - each time we saw the symbol it was attached to a machine of some sort - something that moved. In Lineage - the device that made the robot move and triggered a bomb, in You're Welcome the device that operated the fail-safe, and in Hole in the World the device that opened the coffin. Open, operate, move. Like a game of go or and infinite game between select players.

In James P. Carse's book - Finite and Infinite Games - a vision of life as play and possibility - he notes there are two types of games - one for the purpose of winning, one for the purpose of continuing the play. He also notes that there is not a game unless the players choose to play it, and no one can play who is forced to play. Whoever must play, cannot play - you have to choose to play the game. In Angel this season, we've had lots of references to games, particularly in the last few episodes. This harkens back to former episodes, Dead End ATS S2, where Lindsey tells Angel the key to WR&H is not to let them make you play their game. Remember no one can make you play. You have to get them to play your game. Gunn repeats this view actually in Inside/Out to Fred where he states, you flip over the playing board. Now Angel says the same thing - we stop playing their game. He has in effect stopped letting them pull his strings. Something Cordelia of all people shows him - why does it have to be Cordelia? Because for the past four seasons the PTB pulled Cordy's strings, she let herself be their pawn - so instead of passing on her visions to Angel per se - she passes on her insight - she shows him he has a choice, he can either continue being a cog in the big machine, a puppet, or he can break out and start his own game separate from theirs. We have free will.

Each of the power-brokers in the inner circle represent the villians this season. The Senator who is a demon soul in a woman's body - probably courtesy of Hainsely from Just Rewards, also an echo of Illyria taking over Fred perhaps? Vail - who represents the erasure of memory and mind-wipe. Izzy the devil - who is from You're Welcome. The Arche-Duke from Life of The Party. And of course Marcus Hamilton who appears to be Drogon's twin. One who can't tell a lie and is virtuous - granted immortality for a noble cause, the other nothing but lies and manipulation - evil, granted immortality for a less than noble cause. Photo-negatives of each other.
Twins. And of course the Senator with her smart vamp, and Angel with Gunn - Gunn and the vamp echoing each other - the vamp in his suit reminding us a bit perhaps of Gunn at the start of the season? All these villians have one thing in common - they are string pullers - they play games. In the film noir, Ripley's Game - Ripley, who lacks conscience, amuses himself by playing games with people. He is interested to see if he can get an innocent man to kill. Can he push the right buttons. Just one kill. That's all he wants. He gets off on the power of it. The ability to manipulate someone else without them knowing it. The man he chooses does not knowingly play Ripley's game, yet he does allow himself to be used by Ripley to play it. To be manipulated. The man in Ripley's Game reminds me a bit of Angel - who has allowed others to play him, not knowingly and certainly not willingly, but has done so all the same. Vail, the Senator, the Arche-Duke, are seen doing things similar to Ripley - not obvious things like killing people out-right, no behind the scenes manipulations. The Arche-Duke with his slave on the leash, or the Senator with her policies and laws that allow certain evils to continue, or Vail with his magics manipulating time and space. Little manipulations like the ones that got Illyria's coffin across oceans.

Angel like Pike in the Wild Bunch has grown sick of this. The little manipulations, the strings - he has decided to create his own game and he, unlike in Home with the mind-wipe, has asked his friends to join him - because like he states you can't do it alone. Also like Pike, Angel is making a powerplay of sorts, but not quite the same one that Drogon, Lorne or Illyria discuss. Angel isn't interested in taking power or territory - so much as regaining his own power. He's acknowledged he and his friends have power - that power is in a simple phrase - "free will/choice" and it is the power that he yanked back from Jasmin in Peace-out and is now yanking back from the SP.

Final notes:

-Drogon's death. Drogon had lived over a thousand years. He had chosen to be a jailer and keeper of others, restricting power. Like the old ones he safe-guarded, he no longer belongs in the world. I honestly think Angel did him a favor. Also his death reminds me a bit of Eve's loss of her immortality. Again - an immortal dying. Hamilton and Angel in a sense do to Drogon, what Hamilton did for Eve, end his immortality - which Drogon himself admits he's grown tired of.

- I don't think Illyria is dead and I'm still not unconvinced that there's more than an ounce of Fred in her yet. As Spike states - her greatest power is her resemblance to Fred, wonder what would happen if that resemblance was more than skin-deep? I think there's more than one mislead here, but I could be wrong. Completely unspoiled on the finale. Do *not* spoil me!

- The call outs to The Wild Bunch in both BTVS and ATS: Whedon named three of his vampire characters after the bunch - Gorche brothers, and Angel. He named the boyfriend in the movie version after Pike. (Also we have Spike). The ant metaphor. And now the speech.

Episode? Okay. A bit slow in places. One too many speeches and Nina bores me. Outside of that? Enjoyed it quite a bit.

[* citation note: The taglines are slightly alterred and from the 1969 Western, The Wild Bunch by Sam Peckinpauh, starring William Holden (as Pike), Ernest Borgnine (as Dutch) and Robert Ryan as (Deke), plus Warren Oates and Ben Johnson as the Gorche brothers. And Jamie Sanchez as their friend, the innocent Angel - see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065214/ for more information.]

Thanks for reading.

SK

Replies:

[> Good catch! -- Pony, 06:56:38 05/13/04 Thu

[> Video Games as Metaphor -- neaux, 07:42:01 05/13/04 Thu

Well this was the third time video games were used this season.
or maybe more,

the first time Spike was playing Donkey Kong.
I think last week Spike had a HandHeld video game.
This week Illyria and D are playing Crash Bandicoot.

Yes these are just games, but I believe the emphasis is more on the controller/Control aspect rather than the "games are just games" idea. Why is playing a video game meaningless, yet addictive/compelling? Its because the person "playing" this game is in Control. They are given the power over their own world, something that still appeals to Illyria. The idea that Spike is always the one playing these games is Ironic well, because Angel is the one trying for real power. Yet maybe a bit telling about the difference between Spike and Angel. Spike wants this power just as much as Angel but is content with controlling just a game while Angel wants Real world power. Angel's using real world characters.. manipulating Wes, Gunn, Lorne Spike and Drogon, heck even dead Fred, to gain this world power.

So that's my take on the video game references. Control = Power

[> [> more games and amusements -- Ann, 07:56:50 05/13/04 Thu

The Circle of the black thorn looked like a BeyBlade toy. The toys battle in a stadium to the death. And the girl Stacy Blue (or to be a Illyria parallel should be stasis blue as that is how she was housed)is discovered at an amusement park - Funland Amusements. This child/kid/baby/smiletime theme of "amusement" continues while the apocalypse is coming.

[> [> Agree and disagree, regarding Angel's motives (Spoilers Ats 5.21) -- s'kat, 22:13:18 05/13/04 Thu

"Yes these are just games, but I believe the emphasis is more on the controller/Control aspect rather than the "games are just games" idea. Why is playing a video game meaningless, yet addictive/compelling? Its because the person "playing" this game is in Control. They are given the power over their own world, something that still appeals to Illyria. The idea that Spike is always the one playing these games is Ironic well, because Angel is the one trying for real power. Yet maybe a bit telling about the difference between Spike and Angel. Spike wants this power just as much as Angel but is content with controlling just a game while Angel wants Real world power. Angel's using real world characters.. manipulating Wes, Gunn, Lorne Spike and Drogon, heck even dead Fred, to gain this world power."

Interesting. While I agree with the take that characters want control and control is a type of power, I'm not sure I agree that Angel wants *real* world power.

Angel's speechs are interesting. In both he telegraphs to his friends that he doesn't think much about power. This is a man who probably knows more about power and power games than anyone. He's been trying to obtain power all his life or been at the whim of other's powers. To the extent he wants control over himself - yes he wants that type of power you are correct. But he isn't meglamanical nor is he after the type of power Illyria speaks of, that's a mislead I believe.

What Angel is doing here isn't all that different than what Buffy does in Chosen or Pike in The Wild Bunch and that is change the game. Have you ever done role-playing games that don't have as a goal a winner or loser, but more the idea of continuing play? The goal of the players is to keep the game alive, not to let it end, and while players can choose to drop out or can get wiped off the board - another player replaces them and the game continues. This is infinite play. It's not like Donkey Kong or video games where the goal is to achieve a title or win a prize or rescue someone at the top of the hill. It's different - because what it's about is just playing.

Infinite games don't have winners or losers. They aren't about getting power. As I was explaining in a post to Rufus below - the infinite player plays with strength not to be powerful.

Look at the black thorn club and Lindsey's speech. Lindsey is in some ways Angel's shadow self - he wants the opposite of Angel. Lindsey wanted power. He wanted to gain admittance to the inner circle. To be the SP's player. To have real power. Angel realizes that's a crock. That titles aren't important, nor power, so much as strength. IF Angel was after power, like you state, he wouldn't be asking his friends to help him and he would suggest stopping the gear.
Nor would he say - we won't win, we won't lose, we won't completely stop it, but we will put it out of commission for a bit. Put it out of commission for a bit. Stop the machine that is playing a finite game. Then it restarts.
But not necessarily as finite anymore. He changed the rules.
He's no longer playing WR&H's game of vampire with the soul might be on either end of apocalypse - apocalypse will happen down this line, at this point, we build towards it, and there will be a winner. What Angel does is say, no, not necessarily.

Drogyn's death is interesting. IF you think about who Drogyn is and what he represents. He's order. He guards the well with the old ones. He's lived forever. HE has a title.
He is eternal but never changing, literally stuck in place, until Angel wedges him out - it's Angel who gets him to leave the deeper well and it is Angel who changes him, so Drogyn stops being the immortal and becomes mortal.

James Carse in a book about infinite and finite games says:
"The finite player aims to win eternal life; the infinite player aims for eternal birth."

Interesting quote. Think about it in terms of the Jossverse.
Spike and Angel are "reborn" when ensouled. Connor has three births - one with Angel in Lullaby, one with Holtz in Sleeptight, and one in Home. He keeps being reborn. The shanshu prophecy is about eternal birth not eternal life. You have to die to live - translates roughly to rebirth.
Spike and the amulet, he burns up and then is reborn.
Then of course there's Buffy, who dies and is reborn again Gift-Bargaining, and dies and is reborn again Chosen.

So, it's not about obtaining power or territory, it's about continuing the play. Not sure it makes sense - it's a bit of a brain teaser, but it's what I think ME is trying to convey.

[> [> [> A little speculation about change as rebirth (Spoilers Ats 5.21) -- Arethusa, 08:27:34 05/14/04 Fri

In a way, the Shanshu is also about eternal change. Angel, Drogyn and Illyria all have/had immortality in common. They wouldn't die, get older, have children (presumably) or have many other life-changing experiences. But if Angel shanshus, he will begin to change constantly-to get older and experience all the changes that occur as we age and finally face death.

Angel says our power lies in our ability to make choices. Each time we choose a move, the game changes; our actions create consequences. And our life changes in some way, we change, we undergo a death and rebirth, we move on the the next position on the board. To not make a choice, to not make a move, means we are stuck in one spot, and therfore vulnerable to the actions of others. We are swept up in someone else's consequences, victims of "fate," ie, our own inactivity.

This might explain something that bothered me-how does attacking the senior partners in a suicide plan continue Angel's journey to reconnect with humanity? Perhaps it means he's finally ready to change, to move across the board even if he has to sacrifice himself to do so, a pawn that is removed from the chessboard so others can go forward. His need to remain immortal, that is unchanging-a choice he made in IWARY-was holding him back. (Which make his the Immortal an interesting choice for an "enemy"-Angel's enemy is Immortal[ity]. The Immortal may be all that, but he's not what Buffy would want forever, as we know from her relationship with Angel. She is changing, and could not be happy with someone who couldn't.)

[> Interesting! Now another movie to add to my rental list -- Cheryl, 07:56:00 05/13/04 Thu

[> Re: The Angel Bunch Rides Again...(spoilers Ats 5.21, The Wild Bunch) -- Jay, 09:24:00 05/13/04 Thu

The episode was a good one. And yes, it was a bit boring in spots. For me, the episode didn't really start until about halfway through and Wesley point-blank questioned Angel about Fred. Angel's "answer" really spurred the show to life. After that it was almost all good.

[> s'kat once more makes Whedonesque.com! -- Masq, 11:43:57 05/13/04 Thu

Yeah!

clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap

[> Re: The Angel Bunch Rides Again...(spoilers Ats 5.21, The Wild Bunch) -- Cubiclesatan, 11:45:42 05/13/04 Thu

Just wanted to say this was a great read! It's making me miss the brilliance of Joss and Co all the more. Only one ep left - it'll never be enough.

[> Nice work, thanks -- Ames, 12:22:45 05/13/04 Thu

I hope someone's saving this for The Annotated Angel

[> Re: The Angel Bunch Rides Again...(spoilers Ats 5.21, The Wild Bunch) -- karen, 13:16:54 05/13/04 Thu

I appreciate your insights. Now I must go rewatch for the Wild Bunch parallels. Thank you!

[> Wildbunch and realistic characters (spoilers Ats 5.21, The Wild Bunch) -- Rufus, 16:57:07 05/13/04 Thu

Trollops have been talking about the Wild Bunch parallel for awhile and your post allows me to finally say something here. Fans of Angel the Series sometimes expect heroes of another time where there is only good and evil to fight. What Sam Peckinpah in the "Wildbunch" and Joss Whedon in "Angel" and "Firefly" do is to bring us realistic heroes, and these heroes may win but at a great price.

From Doing it Right, The Best Criticism on Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch Edited by Michael Bliss

Using the shorthand of behavior, Mr. Peckinpah has mad a film only about the hardest honesty: life is bitter and cruel and very hard to get through, and men and women, the best of them, are endlessly foolish. And the absolutely imperative need to be Right is nearly alway rendered corrupt. Maybe once it redeems, but you will have to be ready to die for it. And practically nobody is. Exept the Wild Bunch.

As the odds against them steadily mount, their implacable enemies are everwhere before them. Each maneuver becomes and appointment in Samara: Pike Bishop (William Holden) says it low and clear, "I wouldn't have it any other way either": a banal exchange between witless, simple men...but that is the gesture of will that is man's only salvation when faced with himself.

The Wild Bunch is about the discovery by these witless, limited men (which means all of us) of the difference between Right and Wrong, in this case by a process of elimination: if year after year for a lifetime you do everything wrong, you will wind up having done it all wrong, and nothing can change it. Since there is nothing else to do wrong, and something can change it. Since there is nothing else to do wrong, and something must be done, ergo you will finally do something Right...almost by accident. And it will cost you everything. This is exactly what happens to the Wildbunch: it is called the human condition, and it is a definition of the terrible path toward tragedy. Mr. Peckinpah, to clarify further, states unequivocally that Good and Bad (resulting) in any moralistic judgements, as in Melodrama) have absolutely nothing to do with it. Good and Bad are easy concepts for children and women, says Mr. Peckinpah; Right and Wrong are awfully damned hared to tell apart...and between them, after a given point of no return, grown men may not vacillate.....

All of the divine madmen (Buddha, Christ, Gandhi) have known that to be right and to say so is a very expensive proposition. But we learn from the Wild Bunch that being wrong costs more, costs everything. And ends up the same.
That is all we know abou The Bunch and all we need to know: just their collective behavior, just that. In 1969 it is supremely valuable to see once more in our fiction men who are only men make a decision (neither Good or Bad...simply a Right decision, balance on a hair) - and back it with their lives. Robert Culp from Sam Peckinpah, the Storyteller and the Wild Bunch.

Angel the Series is a more adult take on the story started on Buffy. Angel is a more flawed character and the hundreds of years he has lived has shown he has made a fair share of wrong choices, but so have the ordinary man like his gang of demon and human friends. Joss Whedon may not give us a story we want but he will give us a more realistic view on just how wrong we all can go given the right set of circumstances, and turn it around by having this group of demons and men/women join in a fight to do something right.

Earlier this season there was a reference to "Ship of Fools" by Lorne. Everyone is a fool and everyone can rise about their own wants and desires to find that compass that leads to a spiritual growth that results in a good end result, even if the character doesn't outlive that choice.

[> [> Winning/Losing or just playing the game (spoilers Ats 5.21, The Wild Bunch) -- s'kat, 21:48:49 05/13/04 Thu

What's interesting in the Wild Bunch - and here in Angel and in Chosen and to a degree in the Trek series - is you are hitting on an idea that James Carse also discusses in Infinite and Finite Games. What is it?

That there are no winners or losers in the game of life.
That life is not a finite game where someone wins at the end and if you manipulate the odds and claw your way up you get the prize. But being linear thinkers - we think that. A + B = C.

There's so many images this season about order, control, rules, practices, laws - Gunn who becomes the expert on demon laws and has Angel sign contracts, or you have the trade - you have to help these clients and make profits or you lose the business. The whole set up of the contest in Destiny between Angel and Spike which is for what - a cup of Mountain Dew?

When you look at the film the Wild Bunch, also a few other Pekinpah films such as Sam Garrett and Billy The Kid (I may have the title wrong) - you see an interesting pattern.
They are films about men in desperate times who spend their lives fighting battles, trying to win or steal or claim some fortune and once they get it? Feel empty. Okay I'm king of the hill, now what? Just like Angel at the top of WR&H. Peckinpah steps back, and has his characters realize it isn't about winning and losing it's about how you play.
It's not about good or evil, right or wrong, it's about continuing the play - going out in a blaze of glory so to speak so you can be reborn.

Here's a few quotes from Carse's book that might help:

"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play."

Angel remarks how it doesn't matter if they win? It's not about good and evil. It's about stopping the machine for a moment - even though it will continue on? Very similar to Buffy who knows what she does in Chosen won't end evil, what it does is change the game. The First Evil like WR&H/black thorn club is playing a finite game - wants to finish and have a definite winner. Buffy flips over the playing board turning it into an infinite game which ends the First Evil. Angel does the same thing in a way when he kills Drogyn, who is a player of the finite game - he's a guardian, a rule-keeper, he works within boundaries, and does not change, eternally the same - never able to be reborn, because he never dies. Angel by killing him changes that. Just as Eve by falling for Lindsey becomes reborn as a mortal. No longer eternally in a straight line.

As Carse states: "The finite player aims to win eternal life; the infinite player aims for eternal birth."

To the finite player the world is a linear place, we are born, we achieve, and we die. It's made up of winners and losers. It is made up of forms, rules, boundaries. Controlled. To the infinite player - we are born, we die to become reborn, recycled in the web of life which is infinite. There is no winner, no loser, it's not static.

"The rules of a finite game may not change; the rules of an infinite game must change."

Angel plays by WR&H's rules, yet he lies, he plays with them, changes them. How? With Drogyn and Illyria. He lies about Illyria and instead of taking out an innocent, he takes out an immortal - turning the playing card over, like in a game of GO. Think about it - three Immortals have been made mortal via Angel this season: Eve, Lawson and now Drogyn.

"Finite players play within boundaries; infinite players play with boundaries."

" Finite players win titles; infinite players have nothing but their names."

Both the Bunch and Angel let go of titles. At the end all they have is there names. Not so the Mexican General or for that matter, the members of the black thorn, - so many titles there. Senator - who fears losing her's, as you state below - "I clawed my way out of hell - I better be 're-elected'." The 'arch'-duke. The "Senior" Partners.
As Lindsey states - to enter, Angel must give up his title: "champion". Angel does. Not only that he gives up the title of "hero". HE's stopped playing the black thorn's game, he's flipped it. Buffy if you think about it does the same thing in Chosen - she gives up her title, by empowering all the slayers.

"The finite player consumes time; an infinite player generates time."

Reminds me of Timebomb, the idea of consuming, wasting time is linear. We only have so much time. In infinite play - we generate time, time exists around us encircles us, but is defined by us. Illyria tells Angel he is caught in a web, controlled. Angel tells Illyria she doesn't have to be a puppet to time - that they can change the future. And Angel does so in Timebomb. He stops Illyria from consuming time, and flips it.

"A finite player plays to be powerful; an infinite player plays with strength."

Here's the key I think. This is also in response to neux's post above. Is Angel making a power play? I don't think so. I think that's the mislead. He even tells us this. It's not about winning. It's not about power. It's about changing the game. He sees their strength and instead of playing to obtain power - which is Lindsey (his shadow-self's goal) and what Lindsey and Illyria both assume Angel wants, Angel isn't out to "obtain" anything that isn't his to begin with.
It's not about power any more for Angel. Angel knows quite a bit about power - he's had 250 years trying to get it.
But he's had an epiphany of sorts, he's realized that's not the game he wants to play. He already has power. It's time to play with strength. The Wild Bunch figures out the same thing - it's not about power, it's about strength. They spent their lives trying to obtain power and realize finally it's not about that.

Hard to explain in words. But my gut tells me that's what Whedon and ME are going for. It's by no means new, I think Peckinpah goes for it as well. Also we see it in the Trek films - the idea of moving past adversarial play of winners and losers to infinite play where the object is not to win but to continue the game in new ways.

[> [> [> Correction on other Peckinpah films and realism(spoilers Ats 5.21, The Wild Bunch) -- s'kat, 22:37:30 05/13/04 Thu

When you look at the film the Wild Bunch, also a few other Pekinpah films such as Sam Garrett and Billy The Kid (I may have the title wrong) - you see an interesting pattern

I did get it wrong. It's Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid. The other is Ride the High Country.
All three deal with the idea of losing one's sense of equilibruim or meaning.

In Pat Garrett - it's Garrett who has been trailing Billy all these years, who begins to wonder what the point is.
He becomes tired of the chase. The movie is in some ways a reflection on the choices we've made and how we come to this point and what it means.

Ride the High Country - similar thematic structure. The idea of heros not clearly heros, no good guys/no bad guys.
Just men trying to find their place in the world and trying to live with what they've done.

Highly recommend all three. They are long. But fascinating character studies.

(Of course you have to get past some of Peckinpah's misogynistic/chauvinistic tendencies, as you can see in the quote you used...they aren't quite as apparent in his films as you might think. Whedon thankfully is the opposite on this score. The women are seldom strong in Peckinpah's films or evident. Partly due to the time period and the genre, partly due to Peckinpah. )

[> Pac man has no anima. That's why he's so hungry (spoilers for AtS 5.21, and 5.22 preview) -- fresne, 17:07:22 05/13/04 Thu

Donkey Kong stands on his mighty pipe top mountain looking down at the little plumbers. He throws his barrels fall. The damsel in distress is distressed, her frame is frayed. Lying, laying, lie, lye on the floor. Red and blue and pale. Power drained away and all world is stench and decay. Tell me no secrets and I'll tell you no lies. The man who can tell no lies. The woman/fallen godKing who would not bother. Unless they are lies to herself. The one she does not know.

It interested me that Illyria characterized Angel's behavior as something she has seen in other kings. Serve no master but your ambition, but it seems pay attention to the details. The endless round of fruit and crystals. The crystals in her eyes.

Crash the Bandicoot.

To be or not to be. That is the question. Whether it is nobler to play the meaningless game that does not amuse or by choice end it in a blaze of fire. Through the Fury, into the undiscovered country. The future. The final episode. The potential for movies. And away from the endless purgatory of having your heart removed, only to have it regrow.

That Angel's choice is linked to Cordelia's final blaze. Vision. Sight. The events are in motion. The racketball pinged from racket to wall to racket. Be sure to wear goggles to shield the windows to the soul. Pong.

I'm not sure if it's ill or well timed that the image of Drogyn's torture and murder were so evocative of recent events come to light. It's the thorny circle that brands into your skin and then fades away. The mark is gone. Hidden. The pain remains. Rub it beneath your shirt and walk on.

I want another season where Spike, Illyria, and Wesley fall into some horrible triangle of cross species bingo. Intimacy. Intimate. "Eternity was in our lips and eyes. Bliss in our brows' (the brow is back) bent: none our parts so poor but was a race of heaven." Once.

As they stood there discussing their potential funeral blaze, I pondered Kali burning crowns of thorns. Who will build when she is done if everyone is gone? Masks that hide your true face. Hoods. Radicals. People who oer' reach their ambition, it is a frat party in a basement. People who have reached the edges of their scope. Worn away by all that they gather and attempt to accomplish. Alas, Aragorn is dead, consumed.

Well, he was more Elvin fade away, eternal youth in a cave by a tree, whose roots are a hole. The tunnel that makes the world a ring. A wearying machine grinding down with cogs and gears that start with A and end in pocalypse.

The song is almost over, but the melody lingers on.

[> [> Re: Pac man has no anima. That's why he's so hungry (spoilers for AtS 5.21, and 5.22 preview) -- Rufus, 17:36:32 05/13/04 Thu

I liked how Illyria said the game was pointless but wanted to continue to play it. Kinda says something about how she views her current state.

[> Quote on the Senator...(spoilers Ats 5.21, The Wild Bunch) -- Rufus, 17:42:52 05/13/04 Thu

Senator: I didn't claw my way up from Hell, and get installed in a human body, just to have some pedophile steal my senate seat.

Gunn: Wait, he's a pedophille?

Senator: Not yet...but the public better think he is when you guys get through.

Continues the issue on power and the apocalypse...who controls the power also controls the nature of the apocalypse. Now everyone is just choosing sides.

Spike and Angel....Intimate? What? -- Jaelvis, 07:20:19 05/13/04 Thu

Did anyone catch that line from Spike where he says he and Angel have never been intimate except once? What does that refer to? Is this something we know about? Is this sexual intimacy we're talking about or is it emotional intimacy he's referring to?

Any ideas?

Replies:

[> Re: Spike and Angel....Intimate? What? -- skeeve, 07:28:25 05/13/04 Thu

Spike *might* be refering to emotional intimacy.
That we have seen.
More likely, the comment was Spike was being Spike.

[> Re: Spike and Angel....Intimate? What? -- Rob, 08:11:10 05/13/04 Thu

I think it was emotional intimacy, such as we've seen in some of their gentler, quiet scenes in this season. But it was worded vaguely enough to give all the fanfic writers a happy little shoutout.

Rob

[> Re: Spike and Angel....Intimate? What? -- Old One, 08:45:57 05/13/04 Thu

We don't know what he's referring to. It's not something we know about from previous episodes, or from BtVS. And my guess is he was referring to sexual intimacy, which doesn't seem that far-fetched to me...these guys were a team, along with Darla and Dru, for a very long time. We've only seen them interact over the last seven years, along with occasional flashbacks.

I agree it's a shout out to Spangel slash writers, kind of a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink."

:o)

[> [> Re: Spike and Angel....Intimate? What? -- Masq, 09:42:11 05/13/04 Thu

Um, Dub, this is totally OT for this thread, but you know that little spoiler I'm so mental about?

Everything still OK with that?

bites nails

[> [> [> Oh, darn, I forgot to e-mail you! (Just for Masq--SPOILER for others) -- Old One, 10:09:30 05/13/04 Thu

Sorry. Yes, you are still A-okay, even given the heavy-handed hints of the promo for next week. Your boy survives.

:o)

[> [> [> [> Spoiler for finale above (just to clarify!) -- Masq, 10:42:51 05/13/04 Thu

Thanks, dub ; )

[> Assorted theories: -- mrsubjunctive, 09:56:42 05/13/04 Thu

One: it was a throwaway joke by the writers, a wink, nudge, or shout-out to the writers of Spangel slash.

Two: it was a throwaway joke by Spike to lighten the mood or whatever.

Three: Spike meant some kind of intimacy other than sexual.

Four: Spike meant what he said, and he and Angel have been sexually intimate once.

Five: Spike meant what he said, but was downplaying it, and he and Angel have been sexually intimate more than once.

I personally lean to a combination of one and four, myself, and am a little puzzled by the rush to assume that it couldn't possibly have happened. Don't see why not. There've been plenty of hints in the flashbacks that there might have been something there; it's not inconsistent with either character. They've been around for a very long time, Darla and Dru were probably not always available. (Don't think Darla/Dru slash would be entirely in the realm of fantasy either, except to the degree that this whole thing is entirely in the realm of fantasy.) If the prevailing moral code was against it in certain times and places, that might have been more of a reason for them to do it ('cause, you know, evil). They've both been willing to sire men before ("Why We Fight," "Conversations With Dead People"), which is occasionally presented as an almost sexual intimacy ("Into the Woods"). And, in keeping with all kinds of gay porn about straight guys, they both seem to get really drunk on a fairly regular basis.

[> [> I like theories 1 and 4 as well -- Tyreseus, 13:53:47 05/13/04 Thu

Yeah, my mouth almost hit the floor when I heard Spike say that. It opens a wide door for the slash fic writers.

You make an excellent point about them perhaps being sexually intimate to shock, anger or mock the more Puritanical society when they were evil.

Or, living for a very, very long time (trapped eternally in adolescence with the hormones of young men) might lead a man to try and find new thrills - explore urges and desires that are different. I know of quite a few predominantly straight men who have explored same-gender intimacy at least once in their lives. In fact, some queer theorists believe that prior to our rather recent gay rights movement, men would have been less opposed to some sexual experimentation. It's our recent obsession with labels and the modern concept of sexual identity, of gay community or culture, which has curtailed this type of expereimentation.

If you believe the theory that most people are actually bisexual, but predominantly inclined in one direction or the other, this theory makes sense. The wonderful advances in gay rights and visibility have had the arguably negative impact that a "mostly" straight person won't be as likely to explore a same-gender attraction (no matter how fleeting) because they don't want to be even marginally associated with the label "gay." But if Spike and Angel lived before this change in social mentality about sexuality, there could have been a time when they did have real sexual contact.

Tyreseus

[> [> [> I've personally always seen Spike as acting too macho for that -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:37:50 05/13/04 Thu

I'm not sure if the stereotype was around back in the 1880's, but gay men have traditionally been presented as very effeminate. Considering Spike's attempts to bury his past as a "pansy", the many layers of bravado he's spent a century building up, and his "nancy boy"/"poofter" comments, I'd think Spike would be averse to any sort of homosexual behavior for fear of breaking down his tough guy persona.

[> [> [> [> The stereotype was very much around then - think Oscar Wilde -- Bjerkley, 14:57:54 05/13/04 Thu

Although we can distinguish between stereotypical homosexual 'behaviour' and homosexual acts. The stereotype existed in that period, and I suppose wouldn't have been desireable for many to be seen in that way.

However, there was still more men, who wouldn't behave in such a way, couldnt be considered effeminate, wouldn't define themselves as gay, yet would still have gay sex - very often with those more effeminate men. I think this is what Tyreseus is referencing above - that it was okay to have sex with another man, as long as you didn't act or behave in a stereotypically gay way. Only in the last 40 years or so, according to some gay commentators at least, has there been more rigidity in sexual interaction. In te Victorian times it would have been no way rare for a tough young working class man to have sex with another (most likely older, richer man... but that's capitalism for you). Rough trade and all that. Spike's merely swapping one stereotype for another.

And that leather jacket? Very suspicious given the decade he acquired it :-)

[> [> [> [> [> Yes, thank you! Better put than my reply post. -- Tyreseus, 15:13:56 05/13/04 Thu

[> [> [> [> Re: I've personally always seen Spike as acting too macho for that -- Tyreseus, 15:12:08 05/13/04 Thu

The point I was trying to make is that the whole concept of exclusively gay men only really became a part of our social consiousness in the last 50 to 100 years. I'm not well-versed enough to tell you when the association between effeminate men and homosexual activity became linked, but the idea of a person being homosexual is remarkably new. But for generations, engaging in homosexual sex (especially if it was only rarely) would not have had a cultural significance or stereotype associated with it. Instead, it would have been thought of as nothing more than opportunistic sexual gratification (and a sin, of course). I suspect, from my understanding, that people who were interested in same-gender sex to the exclusion of heterosexual intercourse were associated with being effeminate around the 1880s, but men who primarily pursued women and occasionally had sex with men weren't associated with anything unusual whatsoever.

Also, it wouldn't be an impossible read on his character to argue that his "poofter" and "pansy" comments are deliberate attempts to disguise or negate an experience or feeling in his past. Call it over-compensation or a case of the lady protesting too much.

Tyreseus

[> [> [> [> [> Sexual Trivia comment..... -- Briar Rose, 01:56:38 05/14/04 Fri

The French term - a manage'a'troi (in other words coming together of three) - originally referenced sex between a woman, her husband and her lover. Unlike the common usage today, that identifies a three-some or menage'a'troi as being two women and one man.

In the factualness of the times in France - they realized that most men can not keep up with a woman sexually. Therefore, it was considered only common sense for a woman to be able to have a lover to satisfy her when her husband was not capable.

This also was considered as a responsible and practical way for a husband to care for his wife: To allow her to find a lover, as well as to accept him into their bed at times.

Historically - they also made clear reference that it would be considered of appropriate protocol for the men in such a situation to be intimate with each other as well as the woman.

Interesting how things change.....

[> [> [> [> [> ...more queer stuff. -- Nino, 10:41:28 05/14/04 Fri

Yeah...I think this is very important to note. When talking about pre-20th century characters (like Angelus and Spike) it is unfair to project today's notions of sexuality. The fact is, these characters would not have sorted out their sexual desires and activities in 20th century terms...and the term homosexual, as Tyreseus pointed out, is a fairly new invention. Men who had sex with men did not think their actions made up their identity. People were simply not defined by who they had sex with. Anyone was prone to commit sodomoy, as anyone was prone to commit theft or murder. It was a crime that did not create a class of people...the world was not divided into gay and straight.

This is why queer readings can be so helpful. If we know that Angelus and Spike, for example, did not necesarily deem gay sex as something only GAY people did, their chances of partaking are pretty decent. Especially given the hyper-sexualized image of the vampire, and their disdain for all things in the moral norm, a queer reading of the Angelus/Spike relationship would be quite meaningful.

Some people think its reading to much into things (but these same people refuse the queer reading of Louis and Lestat in "Interview with a Vampire"...which seems crazy obvious to me). I think there is a lot to be said for queer readings tho...there is a great essay in that "Fighting the Forces" book called "Surpassing the Love of Vampires: Or Why (and How) a Queer Reading of the Buffy/Willow relationship is Denied." It's got some good stuff, and is (obviously) geared toward Buffy characters...check it out!

[> [> [> [> [> [> could you define "queer reading"? -- anom, 11:24:29 05/14/04 Fri

When I read it in your earlier post, at first I thought it just meant looking at a relationship as queer or from a queer point of view. But the capital letters & now the paragraph in your 2nd post that starts "This is why queer readings can be so helpful" make me think it has a specialized (maybe academic?) meaning, w/historical context & other elements I'm not aware of. So now I'm not sure I really know what you mean, & I'd like to.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> sure thing -- Nino, 22:05:28 05/14/04 Fri

The essay I mentioned earlier in "Fighting the Forces" is written by Farah Mendlesohn, and offers a good definition of queer reading. I actually used it for a paper in a class on Literary and Cultural Theory. She says,

"A queer reading is constructed by a reader who, denied the obvious manifestation of homosexual desire, in a context in which heterosexual desire is normalized, seeks to identify the codes by which authors have indicated passionate relationships between same-sex members of their texts..."

So, yeah, in this sense it really is just looking at a work through a queer lens. However, there is certainly an academic element to queer readings. Any application of Queer Theory (which attempts to debunk the myth that sexuality is divided into rigid binaries) to literature, could be considered queer reading. There is a good introduction to both Queer Theory and queer readings written by Donald Hall called "Queer Theories" which sums up, much more eloquently than I, the basics of Queer Theory, GLBT history, etc. and has lots of suggested reading.

In choosing a text to do a queer reading of, the requirements, as Mendlesohn describes them, are a loving, passionate or tense realtionship between same-sex characters. Which, I believe, Angel and Spike surely fill. Queer readings don't impose sexuality on to characters, rather they investigate possibilities...for instance a queer reading i did of the Iago/Othello relationship examined the homosocial bond of bedfellows in Elizabethan England. By understanding the sexual dynamics of Shakespeare's time (which include real sings of physical love between men) and noticing the homoerotic imagery in his text, a queer reading is readily available. The signs of sodomites and bedfellows have much overlap, and so to ignore the possibility of Othello and Iago's physical intimacy is unfair to Shakespeare's text.

So, yes, queer readings have an academic following. I've read queer readings from such obvious texts as "The Color Purple" all the way to "Romeo and Juliet." I think the Buffyverse is rife with possibilities in this field.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: sure thing -- s'kat, 20:07:16 05/15/04 Sat

I've seen several queer readings done on Shakespearen texts: Mercutio and Romeo is the most famous, some literary scholars even believe the reason Mercutio commits suicide on Tybalt's blade is because Romeo fell for Juliet and abandoned him. (That's one of my favorites. Don't ask me to point you to a reference though since I can't remember cites and references, just content. ;-) )

I've also seen a queer reading done on stage of Midsummer Night's Dream. Where the people who are smitten by magic dust are Demetri and Lysander. It was a nude version, with dance. Very interesting. Particularly since I saw it with a class and we had to write a paper on it. In fact our assignment in writing the review was how much this version was revisionist or the queer reading.

Nino is correct on Spike/Angel - of the relationships, Spike and Angel, and Darla/Drusilla certainly lend themselves for queer readings. I think thebratqueen on livejournal did one a while back. Not sure. I know scroll posted last year on the use of it - and referenced thebratqueen's essay on Celluide Closet and Queer subtext in ATS and BTVS (check the archives). Another one that does is Lindsey/Angel to some degree. Some have proposed Wes/Angel. But I'm not sure those relationships work nearly as well as S/A partly due to how the writers wrote it. It's a fascinating topic at any rate - I'll be interested to see your post on it, Nino.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> thanks, nino -- anom, 19:47:14 05/16/04 Sun

That helps clear it up. I've heard/read some things about the history of attitudes toward/concepts of sexuality (incl. the famous Bible verse often quoted as being "against gay people," which actually prohibits specific behavior), but I hadn't seen the term "queer reading."

And it's amazing how pervasive attitudes can be. It's taken a long time for the medical community to talk in terms of higher risk of STDs in terms of what people do that puts them at risk instead of who they "are." Now that they do, the same approach is used for other types of diseases & what puts people at risk, which is much more accurate.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Biblical requirements of prohibited sex.ual behavior.... -- Briar Rose, 17:18:35 05/18/04 Tue

There is nothing in there that says anything BROADLY against homosexuality between men (and homosexuality between women is not even mentioned), except for the remonsteration that "No man shall lie with a male Temple Prostitute. . . ." Lying with a male Temple Prostitute would be accepting/submitting to a "pagan idol", since the Temple Prostitutes were in the service of this pagan idol. (The problem is they never mention which pagan idol, and I am pretty positive that many now believe it to be Dianic.

This also puts an interesting spin on the theories that Jesus might have spent part of his 30 odd missing years in service to a Dianic religion.

I am not a Biblical Scholar - so I do not have the specific book and verse reference to male Temple Prostitutes memorized or handy. However my SO has detailed it many times in discussions, and in written form, in his Leather Community 'zines and blogs.

Times do change in how society views sexual relations. It wasn't that long ago that oral sex was considered one of the most depraved acts that one could commit. In some US states it was accorded sodomy status. It "wasted the seed" that was supposed to go into procreation. But now it's seen as as common to sexual health as kissing. And in some people's opinions as "un-sexually related" as a kiss between friends.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> gotta dispute this -- anom, 18:55:03 05/18/04 Tue

"There is nothing in there that says anything BROADLY against homosexuality between men (and homosexuality between women is not even mentioned), except for the remonsteration that 'No man shall lie with a male Temple Prostitute. . . .' Lying with a male Temple Prostitute would be accepting/submitting to a 'pagan idol', since the Temple Prostitutes were in the service of this pagan idol. (The problem is they never mention which pagan idol, and I am pretty positive that many now believe it to be Dianic."

Leviticus 20:13 says (in as literal a translation as I can give), "And a man (ish) who lies with a male (zachar) the lyings of a woman, the two of them have done an abomination; they shall surely die; their blood is upon them." Translations may vary, but none of them specifies "a temple prostitute" (&, as I said when I originally referred to the Biblical prohibition, it mentions only the sexual act, not any "sexual identity").

There are prohibitions against lying w/both male & female temple prostitutes elsewhere in the Torah. I couldn't find where in the limited time I have; the index in the version I'm using is kinda...obscure. But it's not connected w/the general prohibition of sex between men; it's not even in the same chapter.

But maybe I shouldn't call the prohibition "general"; this, like most of the laws in the Torah, applies only to Jews. And the wording is interesting: although often translated as meaning "as with a woman," the words I translated as "the lyings of a woman" more accurately mean "as a woman does"--which is anatomically impossible! Of course, women can lie w/men in the same ways men can...but I'm reasonably sure that ain't what it means.

If "Dianic" refers to the worship of the Roman goddess Diana (or the Greek Artemis), I don't see how that's possible; the Torah--even if it wasn't handed down at Mt. Sinai--was written before the Israelites had contact w/the Romans, or even the Greeks. If it can also apply to counterpart goddesses in other pagan cultures (Astarte in Canaan?), that's more plausible.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks anom! But I have a question on wording too.... -- Briar Rose, 00:25:13 05/20/04 Thu

"And a man (ish) who lies with a male (zachar) the lyings of a woman, the two of them have done an abomination;...."

That doesn't quite make sense for the reasons that you already mentioned as well as a very pertinant one: the man (ish) could also mean a lesbian, or any woman with a phalus, if that is an English translation of man-ish, am I correct?

We also have the problem with wether they mean that word for man = "ish" and the word for male = "zachar". In which case, what exactly does each word mean? This word, "zachar" could be male prostitute, as well as any other word, if ish is indeed the word for man? Unless the language has a very unusual way of constructing words from root words, it would apper to be a completely different root word.

I must say, this is a very confusing line. The one outlying the laying with a male Temple Prostitute is exquisitely clear.

I also wonder if this is one of the many printings that have reversed or mis-translated the text, as the wording seems to be murky, as you stated.

You are correct.... The "Dianic" religion I am talking about is not about Diana, the one and only. It is about a Goddess religion that existed along with Jeudia, and appeared to be similar to many others; Dianic, Isisic, Artemisian and etcetera.

Normally the term Dianic is used to explain the theory as Diana and Dianic religions are fairly well known to many in the intelligencia as well as lay people. It's easier than using Mare or Artemis as an example, I guess.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "ish" isn't a suffix... -- anom, 14:55:36 05/20/04 Thu

....it's the Hebrew word for "man" (that's why I made it italic, to indicate it's a foreign word). So it couldn't "mean a lesbian, or any woman with a phalus" (um, how could a woman have a phallus? & as Nino mentioned, the concept that the practice of having sex w/someone of the same sex meant it was someone's identity didn't exist in that culture at that time, & ish definitely couldn't mean what we now call a lesbian); it means "man"--not specifically a prostitute--& zachar means male, of any species--not specifically a prostitute (& that doesn't appear in the context, or I'd have mentioned it), or even specifically human. The 2 words do have different roots, just as in English "man" & "male" have different roots.

I reading the verse in Hebrew, so any mistranslation is mine, but I think it's accurate. I don't see how the line is confusing, & I said the index is obscure, not the text; that's why I couldn't find the other verses, the ones that do speak of (male and female) temple prostitutes. They're separate verses, in a different part of the Torah. The Hebrew for "temple prostitute" is a different word (kadesh) w/yet a different root from the words for "man" & "male"--the same root as the one for "holy." The word is also a place name, & that's what the listings for that entry in the index referred to.

My turn: I'm not familiar w/"Jeudia" or "Mare." And how different is "Diana, the one and only" from Artemis? Did the Dianic religion you mentioned exist in the same place where the Israelites lived, so they'd have contact w/each other?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Biblical requirements of prohibited sex.ual behavior.... -- Phoenix, 17:21:34 05/19/04 Wed

I promised myself I wouldn't post here again after the last time which witnessed the truly spectacular kicking of my arse. I always was an idiot. :) *waves at any arse kickers still around*

[quote]This also puts an interesting spin on the theories that Jesus might have spent part of his 30 odd missing years in service to a Dianic religion.[/quotes]

Since the discovery of the Qumran texts (Dead Sea Scrolls) scholarly opinion seems to veer more towards 'he was likely part of the Essenes' - the very opposite of a Dianic cult.

Also since the translations of the Sumerian texts (as they are in cunnieform branded into clay tablets, they have survived far longer than any other 'documents' from the past) it is clear much of the Bible is a straight rip off from the older Sumerian belief system, especially the early books. Everything goes back to the Sumerians (the later Egyptians appear to be a mere scraggy rump of Sumerian civilisation).

"Times do change in how society views sexual relations. It wasn't that long ago that oral sex was considered one of the most depraved acts that one could commit. In some US states it was accorded sodomy status. It "wasted the seed" that was supposed to go into procreation. But now it's seen as as common to sexual health as kissing. And in some people's opinions as "un-sexually related" as a kiss between friends."

Yes, times change, but you will never get religions to change. Maybe the 'modern' branches, but they don't have much of a following outside of the US. Remember the whole uproar about gay priests. That has split the Anglican Church right down the middle, and though the modernist may think one has to move with the times, most of the African branches and others outside the US and Britain, will not contenance this.

It's a great mistake to think it is only the Judaic/Christian tradition which is against "homosexuality", and that this was merely because these beliefs arose in more primitive times. *Every single major religion* condemns homosexuality. Kind of amuses me in the recent gay marriage kerffufle to see Christians denounced as intolerant in this matter - guess the Muslim stance is conveniently overlooked, because it's politically correct to do so. Not a cat in hells chance that they'll ever accept gay marriage. Mohammed specifically condemns homosexuality in the Koran (male homosexuality of course) - I can't be arsed to look it up for you but I'm sure someone could.

There is actually a very profound reason that all legitimate religions have this stance and it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with "morality". It's to do with ENERGY. Not that religions understand this of course - though to be fair, most of the occult traditions (which every religion has) do have a decent grasp. Often though, that understanding can come within the *context* of that religion, so can skew the understanding a little. What should be a temporary paradigm, instead becomes The One Truth. Yoga is currently the only 'pure' way to get at an untainted understanding - though quantum physics is shaping up nicely. I'll try explain what I mean.........

If I told you the "power" that fuels it all (every single thing known and unknown in the universe) - the Lifeforce - has been within you all this time, you likely wouldn't believe me. The power that some call "God" and choose to worship - in spite of the fact that time and again all religions stress a variation of "God is within". Course they don't really understand what they mean by that, but their esoteric/occult traditions do.

What is it, this great "Universal Spirit", this "Lifeforce", that can do some staggeringly jaw dropping things once it's utilised properly?

It's SEX!

Sex is far more than a groovy feeling in the genitals and an expression of luurve. Not that there is anything wrong with that of course, but it keeps mankind distracted from his birthright, and little more than a domesticated chimp.

It's the exact same energy which fuels every cell in your body, and which keeps the Universe ticking along.

"Sex" is merely the expression of Universal ENERGY in concentrated form. Like all energy it is polarised, and used properly it's your ticket out of the prison. Who would believe it though? A look on the internet alone will show you how debased sex has become. Having smashed all the taboos of old, we are gorging ourselves like children let loose in a sweet shop. They eventually become ill if they overdo the gorging, and likewise so will we.

No one understood the concept of this energy - and it's natural expression in humans via sex - better than the Tantrists and Taoists.

Marriage is called "Holy" matrimony because the union of male and female mimics the Divine Marriage of Shiva and Shakti, the positive polarity of the universe (male) and negative (female). On the larger scale Shiva and Shaktis' ''union'' gives birth to the Universe and the things in it. We give birth to the next generation and the continuation of the species - at the most mundane level. 'As Above, So Below'. Doesn't matter whether one has children or not, the *potential* is there, in a biological sense. (State legalised unions between homosexuals probably wouldn't cause such an uproar as the pretence that it is a "marriage". 'Marriage' is a union of opposites, period.)

In a "spiritual" sense (word's a bit poncey but it'll have to do) something far more interesting becomes possible.

The Tantrists are very clear that when a society promotes and accepts homosexuality to a high degree, it ceases to be a "real" civilisation and begins to decline. Nothing to do with any moral judgement but purely to do with an imbalance of energy, which affects all sorts of things I won't bore you with. IMO - and I may be wrong - I don't actually think it *is* homosexuality per se, which is the problem. Female sexuality doesn't carry the same stigma, and was often encouraged in the absense of males. This is because the nature of the female polarity - it is ostensibly passive, but is viewed as *transforming*. Two negative polarities don't seem to cause as much damage to the organism as two positive polarities. However, female homosexuality is not viewed as healthy if it's the butch kind of lesbianism that one often sees in the West. That is viewed, again, as evidence of imbalanced energy. I'll stress again, there is *no* moral judgement here at all - these traditions couldn't really give a stuff about such trivial matters, that have biggers concerns in mind. It's purely the use of energy that is of concern and just as if you misuse electricity you are gonna have problems, so too the belief that the misuse of 'sexual' energy brings major problems for the organism involved.

While the balance of energies is undoubtedly important, I'm of the belief that the real reason for the condemnation of male homosexuality is because of it's propensity for anal sex. Simply because this is condemned for male/female unions too.

All Occult traditions - or Esoteric if you wanna get prissy about the word occult (and that'd be a general 'you', not personal of course) involved with any form of study of the Lifeforce as it manifests via sex, knows that the most IMPORTANT, the most SACRED part of the body, is The Anus. Yep, that waste disposal unit which causes Western society to become acutely embarrassed at the mention of it, is a Holy Orifice in esoterica.

Now biologically, the anus is a very delicate part of the body that tears easily. It simply isn't designed to have anything inserted, hence anal lesions are very common amongst homosexual males and females who engage in such. It's even more delicate 'spiritually'

Outside of 'sex' - (and to get this right during such a union requires discipline and experience in breathing exercises), there are various 'yoga' type exercises to raise it. The one thing they have in common is that the anus must be kept scrupulous clean, and it must be strengthened before any serious attempt to raise the energy. It is the premier "lock" in the body that enables the pressure to force the energy upwards, with no chance of it going elsewhere. You cannot raise this energy with flaccid anal muscles.

During male/female genital sex this energy - variously called Kundalini, The Serpent/Serpent Goddess, The Great Dragon etc, rises up *inside* a channel in the spinal column (in a spiral) fueling energy centres known as the Chakras in the Eastern tradition, Hvels in the Nordic (both mean Wheels). Interestingly the latest discoveries in molecular biology show that our cells have 'spiraling' energy within them that rotates around a little 'rod' at so many revolutions (can't remember how many). IIRC the oscillation causes them to heat up and the more they oscillate the better they function.

It is no coincidence that the Caduceus of the Greek God of Healing (Asclepius) became the symbol for the Medical Profession. That coiled snake around the staff is an acknowledgement of the importance to the organism (both physically and spiritually) of this energy. Not that I expect the medical profession has any conception of why this was the symbol for Asclepius.

I digress....

Usually one has to be trained to get the energy to rise naturally during coitus, but sometimes if there is great chemistry between the man and a woman, it can rise spontaneously during the act, like 2 magnets pulling toward each other. If the energy is rising properly, it will connect with it's opposite polarity at the base of the skull. This is where the tiny reptilian part of our brain lies (known as 'The Gatekeeper' in various traditions - it's the place of our most Primal Self and our State of Grace). If the energy connects with that 'socket', you will quite literally - in modern parlance - enter the quantum universe, and your consciousness will temporarily 'merge' with it. Whether the connection of this energy releases certain substances in the brain that facilitate this experience, or the energy blocks chemicals that usually prevent one from seeing the "illusion of reality" (Maya) nobody really seems to know.

What often happens however, is the energy fails to connect when it gets there and you have a violent 'shock' and black out for a moment. This is the so-called "little death", which is often seen as desirable. It's not. If it happens too often, it's viewed in the same way as if you short circuit electrical energy - not a good thing. Most people don't even manage the Little Death though, and their energy never gets beyond the genitals.

The only important difference between animals and humans is that we are the only ones who can deliberately raise this energy to the brain. The more often you raise it, the more of it 'stays' until eventually it stays permanently flowing to the brain. Then you have so-called 'Enlightenment' where you become permanently and intimately connected to "God", "The Universe", call it whatever you will. You become "as a god under God"

Other ways to raise it include excessive spinning. This is why the Sufi mystics known as the Whirling Dervishes spend their days just spinning and spinning. Unfortunately when you spin excessively you merely get a psychic 'rush'. The energy rushes up so fast that it causes one to experience what one is emotionally bound to at that time. At that level, they are still viewing via the paradigm of Islam so Mohammed will likely appear to them. 99% of them will forget the warnings that these are all "illusions" and should be ignored, and it merely validates the paradigm for them. Islam then become the Truth. If a Catholic did it, they would likely have The Virgin appear before them, and all but the strongest would be convinced that Christianity - in this instance the Catholic perpective - was the Truth.

Aside from stretching the anal muscles, anal sex can cause a phenomenen known as Reverse Kundalini, where instead of flowing upwards, the energy gets blocked and pools at the base of the spine, and often starts to flow downward. This is a *very* bad thing. The same would obviously apply to heterosexual men/women who engage in anal, and not just homosexuals. It obviously isn't the sexual inclination of the person that is the problem, but the *method* of expressing that sexuality.

Sexual energy is *the* most powerful force available to mankind - even in it's physical expression. It's the individuals passport to Godhood - or entry into the 'quantum realm/frequency domain' if one wants to be scientific. If man can make 'direct contact' so to speak, then organised religion has no place anymore.

Religions have always been afraid of sex. Not unnaturally they've mistaken it for something to do with "morality". They know 'homosexuality' is a no-no, but again they don't know why (though a look through their esoteric traditions might have clued 'em in). It's like, the real reason for the taboo for incest, for example, was to do with biological inbreeding, and the damage this does to the evolution of the species. Over time that original understanding became lost and it became all about "morality". Or possibly they never understood that, and thought it was always only about morality. The original premise is correct, but the *reason* was wrong IYSWIM. So, from this perspective, the original reason for the condemnation of homosexuality (that anal sex for both gay and straight was not a good thing because of imbalanced energy, physical damage to an important orifice, Reverse Kundalina blah de blah), over time became about 'moral' condemnation of homosexuality per se. As anom said, it became about a type of person/group of people (homosexuals) instead of a particular form of sexual behaviour that was undesirable for both gay and straight.

The spiritual leader Gurdjieff believed homosexuals (one presumes males) had an actual advantage in spiritual growth, once they understood the concept of polarised energy. If they stopped 'practising' homosexuality they could progress quicker than heterosexuals because they would no longer be distracted by the flesh. I personally think they could get away with doing everything *but* anal without affecting their organism too much. I do agree with the importance of balanced polarities but, I dunno, I'm still convinced it's *purely* the anal factor rather than a combination of both which is the real problem.

A bastardised form of Tantra has become quite popular in recent years. They show how little they have understood by including anal sex within it. The whole point of Tantra is the development and use of two *opposing* energies to bring one into a 'different/higher' state, and the way to do it is to get that energy raised if only for a short while. Anal sex prevents this occuring.

You certainly can't come out in public these days and float the possibility that occasionally a widely held taboo might be there for a damn good reason, not in these politically correct times. Some jackass will accuse you of homophobia if you urge caution for gay men, and heterosexuals will accuse you of being repressed and having hang ups if you don't think anal sex is a good thing. It's very tiresome.

Shit, this is long and rambling and probably makes not a lick of sense to anyone, but whatever. If I spend too much time tidying it up, I'll probably not post it.

Which likely would have been the wisest choice. :)

Merely another perspective tossed into the pot for consideration. I'm not gonna defend my stance.

Phoe, disappearing back into cyberspace.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Pheonix - I AM a Witch.*L I understand you..... -- Briar Rose, 00:37:47 05/20/04 Thu

Believe me, it is not about morality that I (as many Witches, of many different schools) see homosexuality as out of balance in the Universal Harmony. And that also includes lesbianism, not just homosexual males.

However, that does not mean that it is not a tolerated life choice, and even treated as respectfully of the choices a homosexual makes as a Witch hopes others will to the Witch's religious choices to be.;)

The point being that many pagan religions DID see homosexuality as okay, as long as it wasn't causing procreation to cease.

Some Native American tribes saw a homosexual male as a good omen and the warriors who most needed to be protected spiritually would initiate sexual union with the homosexual male to gain added power for battle. Hermaphrodites were seen as even more spiritually blessed and an unbelievably good omen to be born within the tribe. The two halves of all Universal, male/female, Energy being whole in one person.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Pheonix - I AM a Witch.*L I understand you..... -- Phoenix, 18:25:09 05/20/04 Thu

Hi BR,

Forgive me if I repeat, am falling asleep here so I might be a bit sloppy.

"The point being that many pagan religions DID see homosexuality as okay, as long as it wasn't causing procreation to cease."

A religion is a religion , whether it be pagan or 'othodox'. That means it gets coloured by the belief system of the people practising it, and the time period it arises from. The fact that pagans thought it 'ok' is really no more valid than the fact that Christians, Muslims, Jews etc, think it wrong. IMO of course. :)

I think you would agree that those who use the biblical argument often use it in a way to suggest "moral authority" for the condemnation? I merely make the suggestion that this derives from a basic misunderstanding/distortion of the original source of the taboo (or what I believe could be the original source). For instance you mention procreation and the "wasting of seed", and dismiss it accordingly. However, this is another distortion from Tantra/Taoist sexology. It is believed that when a man ejaculates he begins to die. Ditto a woman menstruating. The deliberate act of raising the Kundalini in combination with certain other exercises, retains the male semen (ie orgasm without ejaculation, which is how men can have multiple orgasms) and the body literally reabsorbs it. In a woman a process known as 'Turning Back The Blood' halts menstruation completely. The Kundalini takes this raw 'life essence' and passes it through the chakras into the cells.

This is not only believed to strengthen the organism, but it's believed to aid in the goal of extreme longevity. My speculation here is that the reabsorbed menses and semen are packed with telerase, the recently discovered "immortality" enzyme which is responsible for the division of cells. We are loaded with it when we are born, but have hardly any by the time we are adults. Once it diminishes it switches off the cell division and as our cells die they no longer get repaired. So we age and die. If menses and semen are not loaded with telerase, then the act of conception must trigger production. But in order for conception to occur, all you actually need is 'vibration' (more on that in a mo), so it may be that when it's reabsorbed within a rising Kundalini, that telrase production is triggered and parsed to the organism.

Unlike biblical tomes which focus on procreation (the occult traditions of Judeo-Christianity/Islam don't, btw), Tantra takes the opposite view. (I'm focusing on Tantra/Taoism specifically because I think these concepts are the root of the taboo). You either waste your life essence in procreation, and hence live and die no better than animals, or you take the decision to reabsorb it and forgo completely procreation. It's either/or. I suspect that this was the source for the original "don't waste the seed" but it got distorted, in no small part because of the nature of the culture writing the texts at that time.

Again, people always overlay their own belief systems if it suits them to do so. For hundreds of years we believed that ancient man was very into Phallic worshipping cults. This was due enitirely to the interpretation by male scholars who perceived what they wanted to see in "phallic" drawings and sculptures, especially if there was evidence of sexual activity. It wasn't until comparitively recently that there was a collective "whoops" and it was realised phallic worship wasn't actually that prevalent - what all these drawings and sculptors were of, was in fact "Soma", "Flesh of the Gods". Also known as "magic mushrooms". :D They were ingested during rituals - particular sex magick, and still are - and the participants got to interact with their "Gods". It was only the narcisisstic enchantment with the penis that caused these scholars to think along those lines. Idiots!

"Some Native American tribes saw a homosexual male as a good omen and the warriors who most needed to be protected spiritually would initiate sexual union with the homosexual male to gain added power for battle.

Like all pagan peoples, the Native Americans had a good understanding of the Earth and it's rythmns but they are not the font of all wisdom. They've gone from being viewed as savages in the past, to a ridiculous modern tendency to idealise them as some altruistic wisdom keepers. Neither is the case.Like many Shamanic cultures they had some gross traditions and treated their women appallingly. Most "warrior" cultures do tend to venerate men and it's hardly surprising that they thought homosexuality was of the good. The Greeks also thought it was the highest form of love at one point. Doesn't mean they were right.

The Kama Sutra details ways for men to give each other oral sex, but makes clear that high-caste Hindu's or priests should *not* allow themselves to become "polluted in this way". In the East there are four distinct notions of sexual behaviour between men: mutual caressing without orgasm, mutual maturbation with orgasm, oral sex and anal sex. The first two categories are not thought to be evidence of homosexuality and men who indulge should not consider themselves such. Both Buddhist and Hindu Law condemn oral sex between men - though this was often ignored as there are references in the ancient texts to masseurs relieving their customers this way. Hee nothing much changes. *g*

The medieval Arab ''sexologist'' and author of 'The Perfumed Garden' Shaykh Nafzawi was quite specific: "All authorities on religious law are agreed that a man may use any part of his womans body for sexual gratification, *the rectum excepted*."

Kinda ironic that in spite of Mohammeds condemnation it was the Moslems who introduced male/male anal sex in India during the Moslem invasions, where it was previously unheard of. It's also wasn't standard practice for the Chinese or Japenese.

While the texts are okay with occasional 'spontaneous' anal sex between men and women, where everything is going swimmingly, the kundalini is rising, birds are tweeting etc, the deliberate premeditated and frequent act of anal sex between men and women but *most especially* between men is condemned across the board. The Taoists have an interesting twist on this: you will often find military leaders of the past were gay because this was viewed as a way for the 'inner fire/energy' to try and balance itself out in 'masculine' agressive endeavors. Aggressive homosexuals having anal or oral sex were considered to have a great responsibility to the passive partner because they were tranfering their Karma to him. The normal view is that in male/female genital sex the karma is tranferred to the foetus (Sins of The Father) if conception occurs - if it doesn't it remains with the participants. Male anal sex sends it out of whack (more so than male/female anal) because there are two 'positive' polarities within the body, and the dominant partner tranfers his karma directly to the passive partner. It's an interesting parallel with other traditions which have methods for transfering karma (good or bad) to someone else, and oft times it is during sex.

"The two halves of all Universal, male/female, Energy being whole in one person."

And this is where the Yin/Yang principle often begins to gets distorted.

If I had a penny for every time I've heard the idea that because human sexuality is a duality, it's therefore perfectly 'natural' to indulge in homosexuality. (I don't mean you are saying that, btw) I'd be a very rich woman.This is as illogical to me as those who say that homosexual acts are encouraged by "God" because "The Bible tells us to 'Love one another' ". It's confusing two different things.

Energy is only able to manifest as 'whole' if it can connect with it's opposite. If it can't, it remains incomplete.

Even in many occult/mystery schools - Pagan or Hermetic - you will still find the "threefold" principle explained as three *distinct* things within the Whole. Father, Son, Holy Ghost - Triple Goddess - Woman, Child, Crone/Hag blah blah blah. There are actually only TWO distinct energies within the Troika, and it's the root of all 'Virgin and Child' myths.

The Universe is as you know, an expression of the Feminine (well ours is). That's no cause for women to gloat though, because it ain't "female" in the human sense. Merely the expression of a ''negative'' polarity of an energy field. You start with ONE distinct energy field that is neither male/female (yet contains both), it just IS. For whatever reason, it's gives birth to an offspring (Big Bang?). The offspring contains the whole of it's parent - indeed IS also the parent - and remains connected via an 'umbilical' cord of energy. It's important to note that unlike human offspring, this umbilical cord is never severed and it's not physical. Everything is vibrating energy. You now have your 'Three'. The One (parent), the new energy (child). There's your "Virgin Birth". What about the "Third" element? Ah, that's the most important element of all. It's the RELATIONSHIP between the two. It's your way back 'home'. The ''child'' (Universe) isn't two halves of a whole, though that has become a common way of describing it. It is merely 'polarised'.

Many traditions have it that periodically this 'offspring' is reabsorbed back into the Parent, and at a certain point it births another offspring and new worlds are formed, different permutations each time.

There are actually 'hints' of this 'virgin birth' in mundane reality, in keeping with the 'As above, so below'. You don't actually *need* a balance of male/female energy to in order to CREATE life. Technically the 'male' principle is superflous to requirements, because the female egg contains the full monty. All foetuses are female for the first few weeks until their chromosomes begin to change and genitals develop. All that is needed for conception to begin, is 'vibration'. The male semen is responsible for the 'agitation/vibration' and gender selection , nothing more. I used to delight in sharing an occult technique called 'palengenisis' whereby one went to one's local pond and grabbed some unfertilised frog spawn. Take a sewing needle or some other similar object, and (use the eye end, not the point) give it a sharpish jab. You must be careful not to pierce it else you'll have killed the potential little froggie. If you have done it with enough force, and not pierced it you will be enchanted to see conception begin and shortly you'll have a wee little tadpole, then a little frog. It will be a female frog, and it will be sterile, but otherwise healthy. It was always assumed that humans had this ability once, and somehow lost it. However, I was reading an article the other day whereby scientists had done this in the lab - rats I think, but it was definitely some kind of mammal. So this should be possible in humans too. What was *really* interesting though, was not that it was female (natch), but that it *wasn't* sterile! The animal went on to have perfectly normal babies herself. So Virgin births are becoming a reality. This is not of the good.

The male scientists were chortling that men would soon become obsolete, and I'm thinking that even lemmings ain't that stupid. Way to go fellas, bring about your own extinction. The male is needed for balance, even if technically not for the creation of 'life'. But this is what happens when people who have no conception of the energy start pissing about with things they don't understand. At this stage, it isn't good to make men superfluous in this manner. Because of their polarity, they can only experience the 'raw' feminine power through sex via the female. Short of becoming an ascetic and raising Shakti via discipline and years of practice, the surest, best method, is via sex with their polar opposite - Woman. And that is why sex is so 'sacred' and so feared. Separated from procreation it is a man's access to the 'Great Mother' energy. Done correctly, a literal communication/merging. He cannot access it via anal sex. The female needs the 'Shiva' principle, not for the creation of life, technically, (though she still does at the moment), but if she wants to get back to the Source. Both can take a 'shortcut' if their polarities are connected, back to the parent, the One. Shiva and Shakti begin to 'dance', then they can merge with the Parent once again. Again, a person can do it alone, without sex, but it takes much longer (and not half as much fun). Two of the same cannot do it.

"Hermaphrodites were seen as even more spiritually blessed and an unbelievably good omen to be born within the tribe."

The 'Hermaphrodite' has always been prized and you will find it's imagery much in evidence in the Hermetic and Alchemical texts. However this has got nothing to do with human sexuality. The hermaprodite is merely a SYMBOL of a being whose energy field is in 'perfect equilibrium'. The polarities are balanced and the energy no longer expresses itself as 'positive' or 'negative', male or female. It is no longer either, yet contains both within it. This 'being' is ready to take the leap back to the Parent because it's energy is in perfect harmony with the Universe. Nicolas Flamel gave an interesting observation on the formation of a 'hermaprodite' after the ingestion of the Philosophers Stone (which incidentally appears to have been found - and ole Moses was in the thick of it). A softening of the features, more youthful, less 'gender specific', all body hair falling out etc. The Hermaphrodite in this sense certainly doesn't engage in 'sex' anymore, let alone the homosexual kind - he's acheived the 'purpose' of sex already. And he's no longer 'human' in the way we would think of it.

I can certainly see why a 'hermaphrodite' born into a tribe would be deemed lucky, instead of shunned, but this biological quirk is not the same as the spiritual/esoteric Hermaphrodism. Not at all. In a way the goal of the alchemist is spiritual hermaphrodism, but it is a mistake to personalise this with human sexuallity. Until such a 'state' is acheived.....

No matter if a male is "effeminate" or has inadequate testosterone, the dominant polarity of his energy field is "positive". Even if he's had a sex change, his chromosomes and energy field are still that of a male. Very weak, fucked up energy field though. His inner Yin energy (female/negative) is contained at that little indent in your neck where it meets your skull. In the female, the dominant polarity is of course the "negative" and her inner Yang is at the base of her skull.That's ALL that is meant by the containment of the duality in it's *PHYSICAL* form.

It's just energy, nothing more. Think electrical power. When that "serpent" energy rises up the spine and connects with it's opposte polarity THEN and ONLY then can one become the 'complete' being, who for a brief shining instance will resonate will the rest of the Universe (the Child). Once one is 'complete', if one can remain at that stage permanently (and few manage to keep the energy permanently connected - though ALL the great spiritual leaders MUST have done - one is able to make the leap back from Child to Parent. From the world of 'form' and 'illusions', to pure abstract Energy. One leaves humanity behind at that stage.

Kundalini is the force responsible for miracles, and miraculous healings. The Hawaiian Huna were exceptionally gifted practioners, but alas they have left few records. Max Freedom Long was one of the few to collate the info and actually meet an old practising Huna. The energy can be made 'dense' enough to be seen (ectoplasm of the spirit room is merely one expression of it). The'' thought forms'' manifest by the Tibetans - 'Tulpa' - are possible because of this force. The Rosicrucians were also familiar with it, and it plays a part in Jesus' "Ascension" (the so-called "Cloud"), and various legends of miraculous garments that made one invulnerable or invisible. It is the instigator of Aristotles "First Matter" the Prima Materia. Though it is accessible outside of sex, and usually is (because it's not only contained in everything is IS everything), it is never more concentrated or powerful than in it's expression of male/female sexual union. You mess with that energy at your peril, and anal sex messes with it big time.

Reverse Kundalini can also occur in heterosexuals engaged in energetic non-anal sex, after a full meal. Because the body's energy is busy with digestion, this interferes with the rising of the sexual energy and it can become blocked and turned downward, just as anal sex causes it to do. Physical symptoms are said to include: hot and cold chills; shortness of breath; weakness of the limbs; sudden thickening of the lower half of the body in males - the waist, hips and legs - even though there has been no change in diet. This latter is kind of interesting because this is often a symptom of the "male-menopause" especially if the prostrate gland has been removed. Damage to the prostrate gland (referred to as 'Kanda' in Sanskrit) is claimed as one of the consequences of the downward flow of Kundalini in men.

Psychological symptoms are said to include development of neuroses and personality problems, sado-masochistic and morbid fixations, cynicism replacing previous good humour, and a detachment from the 'Higher Self'.

Many bastardised modern occult schools, which are more interested in politically correct rejigging, don't seem to get beyond energy balance in a 'surface' sense, and it become all about the individual and whether something feels good. If it feels good, then everything is peachy. You know the old rider 'And It Harm None', well anal sex may not appear to harm anyone on the surface (if we ignore the biological lesions) but according to those who know the most about this energy, anal sex does indeed do great harm. So modern occult schools are often ignoring their most basic tenet in order to facilitate a modern belief. They want things to be how they think it *should* be rather than how it really is. In their way they may be doing as much damage as the biblical crowd who yell crap about ''sin''.

I will still maintain that these concepts are at the very root of the taboo, and merely got misunderstood and distorted.

Phoe

[> [> [> Re: I like theories 1 and 4 as well -- Old One, 14:49:46 05/13/04 Thu

Thanks! That was what I was trying to say, but you said it much better.

;o)

[> Queer Reading of Angel/Spike -- Nino, 13:46:53 05/13/04 Thu

There has been more than enough sexual tension and conflict between Angel and Spike to do a good Queer Reading of their relationship. I've been wanting to write a little something on it for a while, and maybe when the show is over I will. (I'm big on the Queer Readings...just did one of the Iago/Othello relationship for a Theory class...they are so much fun to do!)

My favorite queer moment is in "Destiny" when Angel holds Spike's hand in the sunlight...you could cut the sexual tension with a knife.

David Boreanez has actually said in an interview that he thinks that Angel and Spike just hate each other, and that it is not sexual in any way. But this is the beauty of Queer Readings...they don't necessarily have to be intentional. Plus, DB doens't strike me as someone open to the possibilities of Queer Theory and he shouldn't necessarily be the authority on his own character anyway.

Has anyone read a good Spike/Angel Queer Reading? I won't waste my time if there is a good one floating about somewhere.

[> [> Re: Queer Reading of Angel/Spike -- Masq, 14:00:02 05/13/04 Thu

Has anyone read a good Spike/Angel Queer Reading? I won't waste my time if there is a good one floating about somewhere.

I don't know of a direct link to an essay analysis, but I'm sure the Spangel 'shippers on Live Journal could point you to one, or make one up on the fly detailing a queer interpretation of every interaction Spike and Angel have had on the shows.

One would think such folks have *too* much time on their hands, but we all have our kinks, obsessions, and interests.

[> [> [> Re: Queer Reading of Angel/Spike -- lcolford, 18:55:50 05/13/04 Thu

Hi,
Over at TWoP (televisionwithoutpity) there's an entire thread devoted to slashing (same sex subtext clues) Angel (with Spike, Lindsey,Wesley, Hamilton, etc) entitled "HoYay" (homoeroticism, Yay!). You'll find all the various "catches" in all episodes.
Great fun.

[> [> [> [> Re: We've been through this already -- Buffalo, 00:20:03 05/14/04 Fri

I recommend rewatching "Destiny."

[> [> [> [> [> If I had to bet when... -- LeeAnn, 00:33:34 05/15/04 Sat

If I had to bet when:

15 INT. VICTORIAN ERA HOTEL - NIGHT
William walks into the hotel and sees Angelus humping a woman dressed in white on the
bed.

WILLIAM
Well... looks like you haven't had your fill of her after all-

Angelus leans back, revealing that's he's been with Drusilla.

DRUSILLA
(rolls her head over to look at William)
The little children didn't come out to play.
(sits up, leaning closer to Angelus's chest)
Did you miss me, pretty William?

ANGELUS
I'm sure he did, Dru. After all... you are his destiny.

DRUSILLA
Oh. That's so sweet.

Angelus laughs at William. Drusilla joins in the laughter. William gets a look of
enraged hatred as he glares at Angelus.

20 INT. VICTORIAN ERA HOTEL - NIGHT
Angelus throws William into the wall, squeezing his neck.

WILLIAM
Don't touch her!

ANGELUS
Little late for that, Willy. And I really don't like it when
you raise your voice to me.

DRUSILLA
William, don't play such a sad tune.
(reclines seductively)
Give us a kiss, then.

WILLIAM
Why did you...? You knew. You knew she was mine.

ANGELUS
Did I?

WILLIAM
You knew bloody well!
(wrenches himself free of Angelus's grasp and punches
him)
(charging Angelus)
Unh-aaaugh!

Angelus deflects William easily and pushes him to the ground.

ANGELUS
Just don't get it now, do you?
(picks William up by the lapels, throwing him onto the
couch)
(pushes the corpses off the couch and sits beside William)
Well, you're new... and a little dim. So let me explain to
you how things are now. There's no belonging or
deserving anymore. You can take what you want, have
what you want... but nothing is yours.
(Drusilla walks out into the doorway)
Not even her.

WILLIAM
You're wrong. We're forever, Drusilla and me.

DRUSILLA
(clasps her hands over her heart)
Are we?

ANGELUS
Ah, still the poet now, aren't we, Willy?

WILLIAM
William.

ANGELUS
Right. William. You know, you really should find a new
name for yourself. It just doesn't strike the right note of
terror.
(pats William's knee; stands; goes to stand behind
Drusilla)
Tell you what... William. If you want her...
(slips his hands around Drusilla's body, below the waist)
come and take her.

Drusilla holds her hands out, beckoning William. William charges Angelus
angrily.

At the end of that scene Angel is holding Dru like she's bait, Dru is holding her arms out to William, wanting him to come to her while Angelus stands behind her, holding her. At that point going to Dru is going to Angelus, being embraced by Dru is likely being embraced by Angelus.

I think it was then.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: If I had to bet when... -- Santhion, 15:45:34 05/16/04 Sun

Maybe someone has raised this before.

But after William's declaration of love towards his sire... uh... whatever (that's a topic of discussion with the extent of a black hole)... anyways; Druscilla, I always wondered why Angelus was so eager to jump in the sack with Dru to give William his lesson.

To point out that Angelus was the alfa-male in the pack or that he always would be first on Dru's list? Angelus knows the devotion Dru has for her Daddy; the bond between a childe and the sire, between him and Darla and Darla and the Master. Yes, he is jealous of that last bond too. But why be so upset about William's romantic love notion for Dru? Is he that insecure?

Why the powerplay? Or the 'I'm your grandsire so through my childe your arse is mine'? Should he care what a vampire beneath him feels or loves?

He's having fun with William, his new comrade in arms, might see him as someone he can share his wits with. Brotherhood is beautiful and Angelus is certainly bonding with William after the nice slaughter of some poor souls (another nunnery perhaps?!). And then William spoils it al by saying something stupid like 'I luv Dru'... :)

Besides that Angelus is of course plain evil...
I think Angelus was punishing William not only for loving Druscilla but more so for not focussing his devotion to the 'right' centre of the universe, namely Angelus himself.

I'm sure that after that Angelus has taunted William into a large number of physical confrontations. The episode 'Girl in Question' might suggest some Darla involvement.

[> [> [> Too much time, huh? -- Nino, 10:22:22 05/14/04 Fri

I know more than a few people who might say the same for this whole operation...

....good thing we don't care what they think! :)

And a good quuer reading would be more than a list of questionable interactions, but rather would uncover homoerotic subtexts that enrich our understanding of the characters.

Plus...its just hot.

[> [> [> [> Re: Too much time, huh? -- Masq, 10:35:46 05/14/04 Fri

rather would uncover homoerotic subtexts that enrich our understanding of the characters.

That is what I meant. These are serious Spangel fans.

And lest anyone think I'm being hypocritical here, I have often been accused of having WAY too much time on my hands, what with ATPoBtVS and all! ; )

Plus, I was part of a little band of fans who did a complete subtextual analysis of Buffy/Faith back in season 3 of BtVS. That was the season Joss coined the phrase, "Bring your own subtext!"

[> [> [> [> [> haha! i love it...BYOS :) -- Nino, 15:11:06 05/14/04 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Too much time, huh? -- phoenix, 09:13:24 05/15/04 Sat

Hi Masq,

Is that Buffy/Faith analysis still floating around anywhere? I'd love to read it. Yeah, I'm on holiday and I've got way too much time on my hands (-:

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Too much time, huh? -- Masq, 10:02:59 05/15/04 Sat

Alas, the website of the Sisterhood of Jhe (which is what my little band of Bronze posters called ourselves) was long ago taken down. It's possible I might have that analysis in some file on some disk somewhere, but it would be a good day's hunting to find it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Too much time, huh? -- phoenix, 01:09:06 05/17/04 Mon

That's a shame. Thanks anyway.

[> Re: Spike and Angel....Intimate? What? -- T_rex, 10:27:23 05/14/04 Fri

When I heard that comment from Spike, I immediately imagined the girls putting them up to it, as a sexual dare or some kind of game. "We will perform for you if you perform for us" or something like that. I have personally never gotten a bisexual vibe from either character, although I certainly wouldn't have minded if I had.

[> [> Re: Spike and Angel....Intimate? What? -- Arethusa, 11:17:39 05/14/04 Fri

And then, no doubt, they stiffed the boys on their reward. ;)

Angelus said he didn't swing that way in Calvary.

[> [> [> Re: Spike and Angel....Intimate? What? -- T_rex, 12:05:17 05/14/04 Fri

"And then, no doubt, they stiffed the boys on their reward. ;)"

Yep. And the boys must have learned their lesson, since they only fell for that trick "once".

[> [> [> [> Re: Spike and Angel....Intimate? What? -- Oh, 22:14:32 05/19/04 Wed

I always thought Spike was bi, but Angel was'nt. Spike was very much a sexual being, while Angel (partly because of the actor not caring anymore to look or feel sexual) was'nt anymore at a very early stage.
Spike also, unlike Angel, was always very much in touch with his femina side - he was Buffy's shadow for at least two Buffy seasons, his best friends were females, his famous coat came from a women.
I can actualy write a whole page on this.

Ground State question -- ghady, 07:59:50 05/13/04 Thu

Ok, Angel got his HEARTBEAT back. WHYYYY didn't he tell his friends about it?? They're gonna discuss that later on, right.

Replies:

[> Re: Ground State question -- Vickie, 09:16:01 05/13/04 Thu

As far as I can recall, it has never been mentioned again.

[> [> Re: Ground State question -- ghady, 09:28:51 05/13/04 Thu

Whattt??? How LAME and sillyy!! WHat the hell???! Why would they actually make it a POINT to show us that his heart is beating again by zooming into his chest and SHOWING us it's geting vascularized and BIG AND BEATING if all they were gonna do is forget about it??

[> [> [> Re: Ground State question -- Evan., 09:50:24 05/13/04 Thu

Well, it's not like it's STILL beating... it only was for a few seconds. It was just sort of a cool thing to have happened. Why do you think they should keep mentioning it? What significance does it have?

[> [> [> [> Re: Ground State question -- ghady, 10:13:45 05/13/04 Thu

Oh.. it was only for a few seconds? I must've not paid any attention to that. well, they should've showed us his heart degenerating or something.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ground State question -- just visiting, 21:03:44 05/13/04 Thu

When Angel's heart started beating again it was because of the electrical shock, similar to being shocked by paddles in a hospital. Even though the shock will start the heart beating again, it will not sustain it indefinitely. You have to be alive for you heart to continue beating, and Angel isn't. That's why I think they didn't bother to show that his heart was no longer beating. Just a thought.

[> Re: Ground State question (spoilers 4.9-15, 5.21) -- The Hat, 14:49:34 05/13/04 Thu

(delurking)

It wasn't until the gang unleashed Angelus in the second half of the season that I developed my theory about Gwen, namely: The writers planned early on for Angel to lose his soul in the latter part of season four, and they knew that they'd need someone with the ability to take Angelus down. Their first choice would be Faith, since it would make good narrative sense for her to bring Angel back, plus they could re-introduce her on the last Buffyverse show she'd appeared on before bringing her back to "BtVS". But since they couldn't be sure Eliza Dushku would be available, they would need to introduce a character capable of handling Angelus if the Faith guest-spot didn't happen-- thus, they created Electro-Gwen. What does this have to do with the heartbeat? They needed to forge some sort of emotional connection for good drama between Angel and Gwen later on, just in case, so they had her metaphorically "bring him back to life", if only briefly. In the actual course of events, they did get Dushku, so they never bothered examining the whole heart-starting thing, but I bet it would've come up again if ED had been unavailable. This isn't informed by anything I've read in interviews, etc, but I've always wanted to voice that theory, and this seemed like the right forum.

And as long as I'm posting, I mgiht as well say that I thought that last night's episode was absolutely awesome. Angel's new plan is a wonderful synthesis of his blaze-of-glory kamikaze mission in "Reprise" and his subsequent understanding of the scale of things in "Epiphany".

(relurking)

[> [> Re: Ground State question (spoilers 4.9-15, 5.21) -- Seven, 06:36:26 05/14/04 Fri

Interesting. You may be right about electro-Gwen there. It does make sense. Also, this is exactly the same kamikaze mission that Angel was after in Reprise. This is what "serve no master but your own ambition" means. Angel never wanted to play the game. He never wanted to be mentioned in the prophesy. He wanted to go in, guns a'blazing and take em all out. It has been a position he has wanted to take numerous times before but decided not to because of fear of the consequences. Look at, of course, Reprise (and the subsequent numerous Holland Manners references made this season - all in arc-driven episodes - Cautionary tale, Underneath, Powerplay) - look at Soul Purpose - "Can't we just kill them all?" - look at The girl in Question - Spike and Angel calling for an air strike. His ambition is to destroy the evil beings (luckily for him, they seem to be all demon oriented - intersting for a law firm that was originally thought to be human based) He didn't before because Holland told him it wouldn't make a difference. Angel believed this because it was true to an extent. It would not destroy evil, evil would go on. So what's the point? The point is if you don't try to defeat evil, then evil WILL win. It is all figurative of the prophesy. It won't happen if the only reason you do it is to win the prize. It has to be for yourself, or to show others that you don't have to play the game.

Lindsay says to Angel, "Did you ever prove him wrong?" referring to Holland's speech. No. Angel hasn't. But now he will. Just awesome.

7

Current board | More May 2004