November 2003 posts
Thoughts on Just Standing There (Slight spoilers
for last nights Angel) -- Ryuei,
10:50:22 11/06/03 Thu
To recap:
At the end of season one of Angle a prophecy is revealed that
a vampire with a soul (in other words an inhuman creature with
a human conscience - how is that for the mutual possession of
the ten worlds?) will be a key figure in a final apocalyptic battle
and will then be rewarded with a restoration of his humanity (ie
- salvation, liberation, etc...). Angle presumes this means him
as he is the only vampire with a soul at that point. But then
at the end of the sixth season of Buffy, the vampire Spike regains
his soul by undergoing several trials to get it back - and all
for the love of Buffy. At this point you can ask - did Spike win
back his soul on his own or was it all because of Buffy and a
chip in his head which was implanted at the beginning of season
four of Buffy by a secret military project called the Initiative
which prevented him from acting on his evil impulses? Spike's
first step on the road to salvation (and was it really the first
- there were several micro and false steps taken over the course
of three seasons) was the result of a confluence of interpersonal
relations, personal introspection, and sheer happenstance. Anyway,
at the end of the seventh and final season of Buffy, Spike gives
his life for Buffy and her friends (and as a side effect all the
world) by wearing a gem which allows him to channel the light
of the sun through his own body thereby consuming a legion of
uprimordial vampires and sealing the hell-mouth to this world
but being consumed in the process. It is said there is no greater
love than one who gives his life for his friends, so Spike's sacrifice
was also his redemption apparently. But wait! At the beginning
of the fifth season of Angel, the gem comes to Angel and Spike
appears with it as a ghost who is slipping into hell. Angel doesn't
really care as he has lost faith in the prophecy and believes
that he will go to hell someday too. He even says to Spike that
all the good they have done doesn't count - only the evil they
have done will matter in the end - betraying Angel's Jansenist
tendencies inherited from his father over 200 years ago in Ireland.
Anyway, this leaves Spike to uncover the fact that the prophecy
could just as well apply to him because he was a key figure in
an apacolyptic battle. But then he says - "but all I did
was stand there!" meaning all he did was stand there with
the gem which channelled the sunlight. And that is what I find
interesing - Spike's supremely self-sacrificial and redemptive
act was just a matter of standing there and letting things take
their course even at the cost of his own undeath. He channelled
the light (a metaphor for the light of awareness under which all
evil evaporates and the mouth of hell closes for good?) Spike
and Angel seem to believe that they must personally "do something"
to bring about their own salvation. Angel especially has a tendency
to cut himself off from others to brood about his salvation or
lack of it. Spike has a tendency to act without thinking on impulse
and gut-feelings alone. But when it comes down to it they both
do the right thing, even when the right thing is to just stand
there and be aware and to sacrifice themselves for love even with
no hope of reward. Only their own self-doubt and self-hatred holds
these two back and causes them to continually slip into hells
(Angel himself spend hundreds of years in a hell realm between
the second and third seasons of Buffy).
Anwyay, I just wanted to share that because I was really struck
my Spike's statement that "All I did was stand there!"
When in fact, just standing there and channelling the light of
the sun (supreme cleansing awareness) to the point where his own
undeath (selfhood) was consumed for the sake of those he loved
was the supreme redemptive act which a confluence of things (both
within himself and in relation to people and events around him)
had brought about over the course of six seasons. For Spike to
underrate what he had done and what had occurred struck me as
funny, ironic, sad, and very reflective about our own lack of
insight into our own condition.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Replies:
[> Re: Thoughts on Just Standing There (Slight spoilers
for last nights Angel) -- MaeveRigan, 10:56:31 11/06/03
Thu
Fabulous! Thanks so much--I really needed this very insightful
post!
[> "90% of life is just showing up." -- Woody
Allen. -- cjl, 11:11:03 11/06/03 Thu
When it comes to writing that novel, auditioning for the part,
going on that umpteenth job interview, a lot of people say, Why
Bother? I'm not going to get what I want anyway. Woody's little
aphorism says: You'd be amazed what you can achieve when you make
the effort, because a lot of other people HAVE given up. You might
be the only person left in the room when the call comes down.
Same thing goes for heroism. Spike could have left Sunnydale at
any time during S7. Spike could have looked at the amulet and
snarked, "Forget it, luv. Doesn't match the jacket."
He stuck around and he was at the right place at the right time.
So he "just stood there." So what? Who else was going
to do it?
That's what heroism is all about. Angel (the hero and the series)
has been telling us that for the past two seasons. It's not a
single, glorious sacrificial act and poof--you've gone to your
great reward. It's the everyday grind of being there when people
need you.
That's the hard part.
[> [> Re: "90% of life is just showing up."
-- Woody Allen. -- skeeve, 12:34:05 11/06/03 Thu
Does that aphorism get posted in maternity wards?
[> [> ab.so.lutely. -- anom, 10:02:28 11/14/03
Fri
Especially this part:
"It's not a single, glorious sacrificial act and poof--you've
gone to your great reward. It's the everyday grind of being there
when people need you."
Yup. For some people, it's "easier" to do the great
heroic act or to give their all for a cause on behalf of people
they don't even know than just to have real, sustained/sustaining
relationships w/the people they should be closest to. I'm thinking
of a line in a song from Hair: "Do you only care about
the bleeding crowd?/How about a needing friend?"
OK, I'm also thinking about a button (surprise!): "I can
stand anything but a succession of ordinary days." But that's
the 90% of life it's most important to just show up for.
[> My contention with this -- Lunasea, 11:34:47 11/06/03
Thu
Over on BtVS, Spike was representative of what was going on in
Buffy's shadow. The light of awareness and all that was what was
going on in Buffy. Spike just got to symbolize it. He didn't learn
much of anything. He got to feel his soul and it sort of burned.
That is why when they brought him over to Angel, he isn't redeemed
yet. He earned the chance to be redeemed, but he still has a lot
of issues to deal with evidenced by he has been in the words of
JM "a dickhead" this season.
Angel was cursed and had no motives attached to getting the soul.
There is no karma associated with the act of getting it. The karma
he is dealing with is what he did as Liam and Angelus and now
as a souled being. Spike had intentions up the wazoo and that
karma will have to be worked through. He admits he did it for
a girl. I don't see this being a good thing in a Buffyverse that
prizes indivualism and doing things for the right reasons. He
is still in entitlement mode and looking for his reward. He has
a lot of karma to work through in regards to that attitude.
All the soul did was give him the potential for redemption. Saving
the world by standing there earned him a chance to realize this
potential. Buffy and Willow are the ones that had the illuminating
experiences and changed the world. The amulet symbolized this
for Buffy. Buffy's desire not to be the only one had been pushed
into her shadow and that is where this realization came from.
Her intellect seconded the idea and her spirit than made that
a reality with the Scythe Spell.
[> [> Doing it for a girl -- skeeve, 12:32:47
11/06/03 Thu
seems like a good reason to me.
Given that it is good, pretty much any reason would seem to be
good reason to do it.
Pretty much any reason includes self-interest.
The only wrong reason I can think of is to hurt someone else.
[> personal vs. abstract good (5.6 spoliers) -- Miyu
tVP, 11:53:51 11/06/03 Thu
To me, Spike & Fred's exchange echoed some of the big themes of
Buffy S5 (probably my fav). Spike saved the whole world, and shrugs
it off as "standing there." Fred reminds him that he
saved her life - one life, and this thought reinvigorates him.
It reminds me of Buffy's struggle - unwilling to sacrifce a personal,
concrete value (Dawn) in exchange for a vague, abstract yet rationally
'bigger' and more imporant value (the rest of the world.) This
is reiterated by Xander and Anya's exchange - "...instead
I have inappropriately timed sex and try to think of ways to fight
a god ... and worry terribly that something might happen to you.
And also worry that something'll happen to me. And then I have
guilt that I'm not more worried about everyone else, but I just
don't have enough!" The needs of the one outweigh the needs
of the many. (my inner trekkie rears its head.) ;)
We see this in Angel as well. With a few flicks of the wrist he
bankrupts a polluting demon company, sets up an orphanage....
yet feels completely disconnected depsite all the good he does.
He was willing to sacrifce anything and everything to save Connor,
but now that he has 'lost' Connor from his life, he has failed
to connect with anyone, and all the good he does just seems to
drag him down further. As Wes said, he needs to get his heart
back in it.
Getting back to Spike, interesting that the first heroic act -
saving the world - involves standing in the right place at the
right time. And his second heroic act - saving Fred - involved
primarily *not* standing in the right place at the right time.
Yes he punched the Reaper and threw him around, but the real sacrifice
was that Spike did not step into the circle at the moment when
he could have been made corporeal again. They are perfect counterbalances
- enduring pain and forsaking pleasure.
[> [> That's lovely, and I hadn't thought of it.
-- auroramama, 19:24:35 11/12/03 Wed
[> Riding Westward (spoilers for last nights Angel & Chalion
books) -- fresne, 12:59:54 11/06/03 Thu
This reminds me of something from Lois McMaster Bujold's Chalion
books.
Some slight Chalion spoilers to follow.
Like the Woody Allen quote, there is this line in Curse of
Chalion where the hero says that prayer is just putting one
foot in front of the other. And given the nature of the final
resolution of the story, you might find the book interesting,
because it's all about just standing there. Do and do and do,
but in the end, huh, okay then.
In the sequel to CoC, Paladin of Souls the heroine, who
spent 16 years of her life praying that the main plot point of
CoC would pass her children by, is filled with rocky bitterness,
because, well, one of her children has died. Now another of the
gods (it's a Quintarian system) asks for her assistance and she
tells him that he can't lift a leaf without her will and she wills
it not because when she prayed, there was no answer. The god of
Bastards and Things out of Season replies that the gods heard
and set many on the path to save her child, but none of them choose
to show up. Now she has a choice, because someone else prays,
and she is on the path. It up to her to decide if she will arrive.
Sword and theology books. Always fun. I'm reading the Hound
and Falcon trilogy by Judith Tarr right now and am in a bit
of a mood.
So, yes, just standing there and in other instances not standing
there.
The Day of the Dead. Leaving offerings in the hopes that your
brothers will find you worthy. Visit. When four parts of yourself
are missing. Four fingers in a fist. Now only the thumb, opposable
and sore as he is, remains. When it seemed to me that it was Five,
out of season, who thought himself unworthy. His heart a beef
jerky of a dried up thing. Three sizes too small. A walnut.
An amulet to channel and cleanse a cave. An amulet that holds
the power of the sun.
Memories forgotten. Unmade. Rewritten. Reality twisted according
to that memory. Angel attacked a geriatric. It's on the internet,
it must be true. The numbered brothers were a farce between main
acts. Prophecies are false. True. Languages can only be read by
people who understand them and translation is a tricky business.
Babblefish W&H books aside. Actions taken by those who can will
enough to lift a stick. To remember poetry. The sun. Who take
the bus and show up.
[> [> Re: Riding Westward (spoilers for last nights Angel
& Chalion books) -- mamcu, 19:26:09 11/08/03 Sat
I know the poem but don't see the connection?
[> [> [> Whirled by Primal Love (i.e. I don't mean
whirled peas)(spoilers 5.6 Angel) -- fresne, 12:37:34 11/10/03
Mon
Well, somewhat facetiously, Wesley means "Man from the West"
or serves as an Anglo Saxon term for a place name "The West
Meadow." Thus, Wes-ley. Or Wesleigh.
Not that I see Wesley as necessarily functioning as the cup, as
the sphere being pushed from the East (O' Jerusalem, that green
and pleasant land, England) to this far Western US Continental
sphere of influence. You know what they say, the USA is at an
angle (angelic) and all the nuts roll downhill towards California.
The question is do they go into the LA bowl or the SF drain into
the sea? What there are other areas of California?
Ahem...
Ryuei's comment,
Anyway, I just wanted to share that because I was really struck
my Spike's statement that "All I did was stand there!"
When in fact, just standing there and channeling the light of
the sun (supreme cleansing awareness) to the point where his own
undeath (selfhood) was consumed for the sake of those he loved
was the supreme redemptive act which a confluence of things (both
within himself and in relation to people and events around him)
had brought about over the course of six seasons. For Spike to
underrate what he had done and what had occurred struck me as
funny, ironic, sad, and very reflective about our own lack of
insight into our own condition.
made me think of Riding Westward,
Let man's soul be a sphere, and then, in this,
Th' intelligence that moves, devotion is ;
And as the other spheres, by being grown
Subject to foreign motion, lose their own,...
Burn off my rust, and my deformity ;
Restore Thine image, so much, by Thy grace,
That Thou mayst know me, and I'll turn my face.
Riding towards the west. Being pushed towards death and conversely
the land of eternal youth even as when bending towards the dawn
of things. The beginning. The end. It was a different time. All
things that begin, have an end.
The repetition of the idea of the sun, which rises in the East
and sets in the West and all the power of that celestial sphere
gathered up into a tiny sphere on a golden chain. Gold. The noble
metal, for that it's also an evil root. Celestial light channeled
through a gaudy gem and a soul. The process of yielding one's
soul as a sphere. Standing to give forth a purifying bubbling
cleanse. Like a spiritual loofa.
The concept of the sacrifice of the son into not so much death
as a new and different life.
And Wesley with his dark and questioning gaze seeing a loss of
hope and heart and inner fire. The father has killed the son.
The tapestry is rent in two and the threads of everyone's lives
are frayed with the reweaving. Weft is woof. The fabric was cut
against the bias and resulting garment of their lives doesn't
hang quite right.
Day of the Dead as we ride westward, half a year away from the
other Equinox.
[> [> [> [> Beautiful -- mamcu, 12:47:05
11/11/03 Tue
And Spike burning on the cross...
There I should see a Sun by rising set,
And by that setting endless day beget.
Thanks.
[> So, what do you think about.... -- Rufus, 16:33:25
11/06/03 Thu
The fact that Angel was so darn sure he was a hero til the Aztec
demon rejected his heart (gnarly-beef jerky it is)? The prophecy
isn't clear who the vampire with a soul is and that point seems
to have gotten Spikes attention. Is this a test to see who is
worthy?
[> Saving One Life vrs. Saving the World (minor spoilers)
-- Athena, 20:44:34 11/06/03 Thu
I like so far where this topic is going. It touches on a subject
that I've been wondering about for a while: is saying the world
such a great act of heroism?
Spike was there, he had the power to save everyone at the cost
of his own life and he did it. I'm not throwing away his sacrifice,
but I think the average person had a choice between themselves
and everyone else, they'd die to save the world too. Now compare
this to firemen for a moment. They risk their lives for complete
strangers. They have no special healing abilities and they go
into burning buildings fully knowing the dangers within.
With the exception of Spike, both the Scoobies and Angel Invisti...
er... Angel's private Wolfram and Hart division indanger their
lives for people they don't know. Only recently has Spike done
so without some exterior motivation, the act of doing good for
its own sake. He starts this when he is rewarded by helping Buffy
emotionally at the end of season seven, simply because he did
so, and continues when he helps Angel in Just Rewards and saves
Fred in Hell Bound. He is being initiated into a new feeling.
This is way to redemption, not by saving the world but by doing
relatively small things in comparison which come with much less
praise.
[> They also serve who only stand and wait -- mamcu,
10:30:21 11/08/03 Sat
What's
wrong with marriage? -- Ames, 09:20:19 11/10/03 Mon
What do the writers of BtVS/AtS have against marriage?
I was wondering while watching School Hard again the other day,
with Spike and Dru's first appearance, if they ever got married
in their history together. Then it occured to me that we almost
never saw any sign of marriage among the hundreds of individual
vamps on both shows (Lyle Gorch was maybe the only one that came
to me offhand). Then it further occured to me that not one of
the 100+ major characters on the two shows is married, human or
otherwise. Joyce Summers was the only divorced one, I think. Then
there was Hell's Bells - enough said!
Replies:
[> Re: What's wrong with marriage? -- Corwin of Amber,
09:43:16 11/10/03 Mon
Why would an undead creature of the night even care about it?
Could they find a minister that would marry them, or a justice
of the peace willing to work after dark?
As for the non-vamp characters - i have a meta-answer. In television
in general, marriage is seen as reducing possibilities for story
telling, except in the genres of sitcoms and soap operas. Which
is ironic, considering the limited range of stories we generally
get on TV these days.
[> Re: What's wrong with marriage? (spoilers for "Restless,"
"Hell's Bells," and "Chosen") -- Gyrus,
11:44:54 11/10/03 Mon
As far as vamps go, I imagine most of them would reject the concept
of marriage because, in most cultures, marriage is tied to religion,
which vampires reject. What pair of vamps would want to take vows
while standing in front of a guy with a big cross on his robe?
(Makes me wonder what the Gorches' wedding ceremony might have
been like.)
As for the Scoobies, most of them are simply too young to get
married. Xander demonstrates his unreadiness in "Hell's Bells,"
when he shows that he has too many unresolved issues about his
own family to go ahead and start a new one. In "Chosen,"
Buffy, too, recognizes that she's not yet ready for a long-term
commitment. As for Giles, our only older Scoob, his dream in "Restless"
suggests that he would have been interested in marriage and children
had being a Watcher not interfered so seriously with his relationships.
So, if BTVS has something to say about marriage, it is not so
much that marriage is bad, but that it is not something everyone
is ready for or that every lifestyle can support.
[> [> Re: What's wrong with marriage? (spoilers for "Restless,"
"Hell's Bells," and "Chosen") -- Ames,
12:09:55 11/10/03 Mon
All very logical, but there's just too many characters of different
ages in the show - all unmarried - to take the "too young"
explanation at face value. And the Gorches at least provide the
example that marriage was not unthinkable to a vamp, so why weren't
there any others?
I think there's more to it.
Although I did think of three more counter-examples of a sort:
1) Lindsey and Lila's boss at W&H was married (before the wine
cellar incident anyway). I guess he was a semi-significant character.
2) Mayor Richard Wilkins was apparently happily married in his
youth, before she got old and he didn't. She was long dead though.
3) Anya was apparently married to Olaf in her youth 1100 years
ago (Did they ever get a divorce? He wasn't exactly dead - would
she have been technically guilty of bigamy in Hell's Bells?)
[> [> [> Re: What's wrong with marriage? (spoilers
for "Restless," "Hell's Bells," and "Chosen")
-- Rob, 13:19:40 11/10/03 Mon
Successful marriage happens rarely if ever in the Buffyverse due
to the same reason that sex almost always leads to badness for
the characters who do it in the Buffyverse...Joss' characters
are by definition not allowed to remain happy for a long amount
of time.
And re: Anya, I don't believe it was ever stated that Aud and
Olaf were married, or Anya would have called him her "ex-husband"
in "Triangle". They lived together, and from the looks
of their life in "Selfless" would have probably been
married very soon, but I don't think we have no concrete evidence
that they were married.
Rob
[> [> [> [> Re: What's wrong with marriage? (spoilers
for "Restless," "Hell's Bells," and "Chosen")
-- skeeve, 15:02:55 11/10/03 Mon
Supposing that the question were actually decided in a human court,
my guess is that the judge would rule that becoming a troll terminates
a marriage to a human.
There was an actual ruling that complementary sex-changes terminate
a marriage.
[> [> Gorches -- angel's nibblet, 15:36:56 11/10/03
Mon
I'd say they must have been married before they were vamped, otherwise
how would they have been able to have children? They were probably
vamped and then decided to take their boys with them to "keep
the family together" ...or something
[> [> [> Re: Marriages -- LittleBit, 16:36:03
11/10/03 Mon
In "Homecoming" Lyle says he and Candy are using their
honeymoon stash for the Slayerfest fee. And in "Bad Eggs"
he and his brother Tector come to Sunnydale with no mention of
Lyle having a wife.
Also, both Willow and Xander's parents were married, not necessarily
happily, but married. Riley and Sam were married. Willow and Tara
might have considered it had it been a possibility.
Giles had a lifestyle that made it difficult for him to maintain
a regualar relationship, but it was clear that marriage did occur
among the Watchers...both Giles and Wes came from Watcher families.
[> [> [> [> Re: Marriages -- Ames, 20:35:53
11/10/03 Mon
We only ever saw Willow's mother once, and her father was never
mentioned. Xander's parents were a nightmare - they should only
wish they weren't married.
But I forgot about Riley and Sam. I guess you could count them
as the only successful example of marriage on either show - unless
you think that Sam is some sort of freakish alien pod person from
the way she behaved. :-)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Marriages -- LittleBit,
21:24:51 11/10/03 Mon
In "I Robot, You Jane" when Willow comes home to the
empty house she calls out "Mom? Dad?" Later when the
doorbell rings she answers it with "Dad, did you forget your
keys again?"
In "Passion" she tells Buffy ahe's gonna have a hard
time explaining the crucifix she's nailing to her wall to her
father.
In "Becoming, part 2" when Willow is unconscious in
the hospital Buffy asks Xander where Willow's parents are. He
tells her they were visiting relatives in Phoenix and were flying
back.
In "Gingerbread" Willow's mother shows up at the meeting
at the school and tells Willow that she "read about it in
the paper, and what with your dad out of town..."
So while we never saw him, there were numerous indications that
he was around, just offscreen.
[> [> [> [> [> Other Married Couple -- dlgood,
21:39:24 11/10/03 Mon
Other married couples:
Oz's Aunt Maureen & Uncle Kevin. (parents to his wolfy cousing
Jordy)
Roger & Trish Burkle. (Fred's parents)
[> [> [> [> [> [> One more couple --
Lunasea, 07:25:57 11/11/03 Tue
Riley's parents are pressumably still married.
From Pangs:
Riley : That sounds so great, but I'm outta here tonight. I caught
a last-minute flight back to Iowa.
Buffy : Iowa. That's one of the ones in the middle, right?
Riley : My folks are there. We always do thanksgiving at my grandparents'
house. A little farm outside Huxley.
Buffy : Sounds nice.
Riley : It is. After dinner, we all go for a walk down by the
river with the dogs. There's trees and... And I know what you're
thinking. It's like I grew up in a grant wood painting.
Buffy : Exactly. If I knew who that was.
Riley : Just a guy who painted stuff that looked like where I
grew up.
Buffy : Well, have fun at the homestead.
Riley : Always do. What's the line? Home's the place that, when
you have to go there...
Buffy : They have to take you in.
Sounds to me like Riley had a nice happy childhood with a nice
happy family. Surprisingly, he was the nice normal character for
a while, derogatively referred to by some as "Captain America."
And no one trumps Fred's parents. They are the epitome of good,
supportive, caring parents.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: One more couple
-- Vlad, 17:53:30 11/14/03 Fri
I suspect Angel's mother died rather than left -it is clear that
he is Irish Catholic... or was before that whole satan groove?
[> [> [> [> 2 more -- anom, 22:45:12 11/11/03
Tue
Doyle was still married to Harry at the beginning of Season 1--she
showed up wanting a divorce when she wanted to marry someone else.
That didn't work out too well either.
Then there was the rogue watcher who was careful to identify herself
as "Gwendolyn Post, Mrs."...wonder what happened to
Mr. Post?
Neither case exactly provides a positive image of marriage.
[> [> [> [> Holland Manners -- tomfool, 11:20:36
11/12/03 Wed
In Reunion we see Holland Manners' wife Catherine serving as a
perfect corporate spouse. Of course, she doesn't last long after
inviting Dru and Darla in. Interesting that the epitome of pure
evil has one of the most normal appearing marriages.
[> Re: What's wrong with marriage? -- Dlgood, 21:47:07
11/10/03 Mon
Then it occured to me that we almost never saw any sign of
marriage among the hundreds of individual vamps on both shows
Not entirely correct. We do so a sign of marriage from one vampire
- Angel.
The exchange of Claggadh rings, proffering of vows, and consumation
in "Surprise" actually would have constituted a handfasting.
In the Ireland of Liam's human existence, this actually would
have been recognized as a temporary marriage, permanent presuming
they would appear before a Priest within one year. Additionally,
there is his "wedding" dream in "The Prom".
Granted, Angel did not explicitly tell Buffy of the handfasting.
Not that something legal in Ireland of 1750 is standing in contemptorary
society. Neither did he actually ask her to marry him, nor get
a priest. And he left Sunnydale. However, it seems that he certainly
did consider marrying Buffy, and likely wanted to.
So, I'm confused as to what you mean by "enough said".
One presumes there is much to say on the topic.
[> [> Did Angel ever marry? -- Ames, 08:45:14
11/11/03 Tue
Interesting thought about the handfasting, but I think Angel presented
the ring to Buffy more as "going steady", which would
be clearly distinct from marriage or even getting engaged in her
mind. Since they were in modern-day California, it couldn't constitute
marriage anyway.
I think we can be fairly sure that Angel was never married, since
we know a lot about his past, first with his family as Liam, then
with Darla and the others, then as a loner for the 90 years before
he met Buffy. Not the details (look at how much was revealed about
one short period in Are You Now..., and the many casual comments
Angel has made about his travels around the USA), but enough to
know his general state of mind and attitude to relationships.
(and by "enough said" in my original post, I was referring
specifically to Hell's Bells, not the topic in general - sorry
if I wasn't clear)
[> [> Agree w/ D1good. There are many ways to wed without
the whole Religious thing. -- Briar Rose, 17:40:47 11/14/03
Fri
For all intents and purposes I think that Anya and her Troll were
considered "married" by Brehon laws.
And the Claddaugh rings certainly were used in such a way as a
handfasting. Angel allowed Buffy to make her choice as to what
they meant. You are correct that a handfasting does not need an
officiate. However, there was a time before Christianity when
no priest/priestess was needed to perform a ceremony within a
year or at anytime... Handfastings were binding "for a year
and a day" or whatever time the participants decided upon
together and without any other ceremony or officiate needed.
What makes marriage anyway?
To many Native American tribes, it consisted of moving in together.
To the early European cultures, it meant moving in together. Usually
once you had stolen your bride from another township or souvreignity
(or clan in Northern and Southern Europe.)
Many people in the US still consider common law marriages as legal
marriages and many courts agree.
Marriage in the sub continents can still require nothing more
that one man exchanging monetary good with a woman's family and
one woman's family accepting them.
In the most basic and important of ways, Spike and Dru were "married."
Willow and Tara, as well as Willow and Oz were "married"
(I would say that was true of Willow and Xander as well...)So
were Buffy and Angel, and even Buffy and Spike;
They put the other partner first.
They respect and support the decisions of each other.
They share love and comfort for/in each other.
They co-habitate and share monitary and physical survival needs.
They trust each other.
They defend and protect each other.
Marriage is not about having children or sex. It isn't about rings
and vows said in a certain way... It is about accpeting another
person into your heart and your life.
In a way, all the Scooby Gang was married to each other, as were
Angelus' little Vamp family.
[> [> [> I think you have an unusual definition of
marriage -- Vickie, 15:40:27 11/17/03 Mon
At least, I don't myself think that two people could be married
without the express intent of being married. In that sense, I
can agree about Willow and Tara, and maybe Buffy and Angel, but
the others simply don't work for me.
Technically, even in Christianity, no officiant is required for
a marriage. The two people marry one another. The officiant witnesses
for God and the community, and may conduct the ceremony. It is
(I believe) the only Christian sacrament that is normally performed
by laypeople.
There is even an example of this in the Old Testament somewhere.
I cannot recall it, and am too lazy to look it up.
[> [> [> [> Re: I think you have an unusual definition
of marriage -- Dlgood, 23:21:27 11/18/03 Tue
In the most basic and important of ways, Spike and Dru were
"married." Willow and Tara, as well as Willow and Oz
were "married" (I would say that was true of Willow
and Xander as well...)So were Buffy and Angel, and even Buffy
and Spike;
I'd agree with Vickie. This definition seems so expansive as to
devalue the meaning of the term. While also not really holding
up for several of the cases. (Willow & Xander?)
As Xander notes in S6, there is a distinction between the marriage
as an organic relationship, and the wedding as ceremony. Nevertheless,
the two are linked - as the ceremony and institutional behaviors
serve to solidify otherwise ephemeral bonds.
I brought up Buffy & Angel, in particular, because "Surprise"
quite literally features a marriage ceremony (the Handfasting:
Exchange of rings, vows, and consumation) as symbolic representation
of the type of relationship both strove to attain. And not necessarily
the case for most of the other pairings suggested.
(Spike & Dru, Willow & Tara, Xander & Anya I might think consider
in similar lights)
[> Re: What's wrong with marriage? -- sdev, 16:14:19
11/12/03 Wed
Amy Madison's parents were divorced as well. Can they all be coincidence
or to serve the plot? I think not.
[> [> I think this has been said but... -- angel's
nibblet, 17:49:03 11/12/03 Wed
I think the main reason so many of the parents in the Buffyverse
are divorced/absent/dead/otherwise is because it allows the characters
to develop on their own. Initially I believe Joss planned to nto
even have onscreen parents for Buffy.
Imagine if Buffy's Dad had been there? Double the parents=double
the supervision, it would have been a lot harder for her to get
out and have so many cool adventures before her mother found out.
Joyce was an extremely busy, who, it seems to me, was always working
hard for her kids and therefore had perhaps less time to notice
what was happening in Buffy's life. I in no way blame Joyce, nor
am I accusing her of being a bad parent in any way, but there's
just the simple fact of that she had to work extremely hard to
support her family since she was a single parent.
Willo and Xander's parents, though they did at least in Xander's
case have an effect on their personalities and life choices, didn't
really play a very important part in their lives as teenagers
dealing with dark forces. There would have been only so much interest
you could get out of having a scene every week showing how disconnected
everyone was from their parents.
That's another thing, by not having them present, it was possible
to emphasise how separate they felt from the world, the 'normal'
world, which is how you feel when you're a teenager (speaking
from experience). When they went off to college, their parents
had even smaller roles to play as they were now independent young
people.
Hope this is somehow relevant...
[> [> [> plotting the plot -- sdev, 20:53:38
11/12/03 Wed
It's all relevant, but I think you are putting the cart before
the horse. I think someone (JW?) decided to write a story about
young people and an adult who formed their own nuclear family
and thus the parents had to be left out (see the episode Family).
The story could have just as easily been written to include Joyce
Or Hank Summers in Bufy's slaying life, but that would have been
a different story. All conceivable plots did not require the absence
of parents. That was a decision made about this plot.
In that sense I agree with your conclusion:
by not having them present, it was possible to emphasise how
separate they felt from the world, the 'normal' world, which is
how you feel when you're a teenager
But even here choices were made.
[> [> Well... -- Random, 22:42:05 11/12/03 Wed
In this particular case, it served to advance the plot -- Amy's
dad's absence was specifically addressed and rationalized. Had
he still been around, the plot would have been...different. Such
as dealing with whether sleeping with his wife while her body
was inhabited by his daughter's personality was incestual and
really icky, or just really icky. Nibblet makes some excellent
points, and I would add that drawing conclusions from the rate
of divorce/single parentage has validity only in the sense that
one can rationalize any conclusion by ending with the hypothesis
rather than starting with it. Coincidence? Not all. Serving plot?
Probably most. I tend to doubt that sinister motives can be attached,
after all. Xander's parents, Willow's parents, Cordelia's parents,
Fred's parents, even (I believe) Lorne's parents...all are counterexamples,
even if they aren't always good examples of parents. We
only saw Joyce regularly...parents, unfortunately, just didn't
play an enormous role in either AtS or BtVS (untilA Angel/Darla/Connor,
I guess)...not surprising since BtVS was, like Peanuts, a show
that took us into the world of the kids.
[> [> [> what sinister motives? -- sdev, 00:40:34
11/13/03 Thu
Alternative ways to plot the father sans incest-- in the military
and stationed overseas, away on extended business trip to the
ends of the earth, dead, very ill/enfeebled and therefore not
sexually active, switching bodies back when the father/husband
was around. Or very simply, the mother could have been controlling
Amy's every move rather than actually inhabiting her body.
one can rationalize any conclusion by ending with the hypothesis
rather than starting with it
Actually I see this as what you are doing. I think the writer
starts with the idea or message and the plot is the vehicle to
convey it, not the reverse. The plot serves the story. If they
wanted to show strong familial relationships they would and could
have manipulated the plot accordingly.
Are you saying they could not have shown two parent families within
the context of the show? Are we even debating this in a series
that used two deus ex machinas as the ultimate plot device to
resolve the entire series and make their point?
[> [> [> [> Why should they? More dead horses for
the glue factory -- Lunasea, 08:32:10 11/13/03 Thu
This is one of the dead horses that needs to be dragged off to
the glue factory (I have this image of ATPo Glue with a logo and
everything. Maybe one of our graphic geniuses could design it
and Masq could have a page listing all of them. Just an idea).
ME has shown that families are important consistantly. From the
strength that Fred gets from her parents and Buffy gets from Joyce
to the lack of self Willow gets from the neglect of her mother
to the outright dysfunction of Xander, parents shape their kids.
We have the loving couples of The Burkles and the Finns and that
love shows in how they raised their children.
But to say that ME is against couples? Joss has Kai and a baby.
He even thanks her in the liner notes to OMWF. Marti has a baby,
too and Riley is patterned after her husband in many respects.
Lots of babies and couples over at ME, some even with marriage
licenses. To say they are anti-couple, marriage, family, mothers
who work outside the home, etc is to say they are against themselves.
[> [> [> [> [> analysis not rewrite -- sdev,
12:13:17 11/15/03 Sat
I had to first get over the disturbing image of those horses.
Animal lover here.
Why should they what? Portray parents/couples differently? Is
that what you think I am saying? If it is, you are mistaken. Never
said it; never meant it. I'm not looking to rewrite here simply
to analyze what is. Why is that so troubling on this topic?
ME has shown that families are important consistantly. From
the strength that Fred gets from her parents and Buffy gets from
Joyce to the lack of self Willow gets from the neglect of her
mother to the outright dysfunction of Xander, parents shape their
kids.
I absolutely agree, and I am confused as to where you think I
said otherwise.
But to say that ME is against couples?
Never said that (see my post to Random below). Nor, I am adding
here, do I believe that in any way. Au contraire.
Joss has Kai and a baby. He even thanks her in the liner notes
to OMWF. Marti has a baby, too and Riley is patterned after her
husband in many respects. Lots of babies and couples over at ME,
some even with marriage licenses.
I didn't realize you were intimate with the Whedon's as to vouch
for their idyllic relationship, or that you knew Marti's husband.
Public portrayal is meaningless in my opinion. Also assuming you
are correct and the Whedons are a happy loving family (I wish
them only well), that would affect how Kai would portray families
not JW who as we know had divorced parents. I believe that JW's
portrayal of families would be affected more by his past baggage
than his future aspirations. I would have thought you, a quoter
of Jung, would have that view as well.
To say they are anti-couple, marriage, family, mothers who
work outside the home, etc is to say they are against themselves.
Again, never said it. But even if that was my take, people are
sometimes down on themselves. So yes that reading is possible.
I did find an interesting quote from JW that I will leave you
to ponder:
SE: Anyway, I've noticed how the main characters on the show
really act as a family. Is that another thing you intended to
show all along? That when your family doesn't understand or if
they're not around you can sometimes find other `family'?
JW: Well, that's something I've always believed, and not just
with Buffy. You know, everybody always talks about the family
as being important, and I always want to just create one. Not
an actual family, because actual families don't get along, and
they never do. It's always the ones you build yourself that work
the best, when people build bonds together because they actually
need and love each other. It's not really the genes that count
so much. And, things are going to get harder for the family on
the show. It's going to get a little dysfunctional like any other
family, just because it gets more complicated. (Dark Horse
Comics 7/98)
http://www.darkhorse.com/news/interviews/z_buffy/sku_97796int/
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: analysis not rewrite
-- Dlgood, 19:55:34 11/15/03 Sat
Not an actual family, because actual families don't get along,
and they never do. It's always the ones you build yourself that
work the best, when people build bonds together because they actually
need and love each other.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
See, I read that Wheedon quote and scratch my head. Because -
gosh - my blood family actually gets along fairly well. And not
just 'cause we're family, but because we love each other and work
to keep close with each other.
It's great that he wanted to show that people don't need to be
blood relatives to form familial bonds - but, on some level I
do feel like Whedon had an unconscious bias. Because, hey, some
blood families really are close, and have worthwhile, strong,
and loving bonds. And by and large, that really isn't the story
of BtVS/AtS.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: analysis not
rewrite -- sdev, 21:25:12 11/15/03 Sat
And by and large, that really isn't the story of BtVS/AtS.
Do you mean here that family was not an issue they were addressing
at all in the story or that when they addressed the isssue of
family they did not portray blood families as close and loving?
Sorry, I wasn't clear from your post.
At any rate we can infer from this early quote that JW was thinking
about families and their portrayal in creating the story. I think
early on, in an episode like Lie to Me in S2, Giles is clearly
subbing as father in his scene at the end.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: analysis
not rewrite -- Dlgood, 22:00:49 11/15/03 Sat
Do you mean here that family was not an issue they were addressing
at all in the story or that when they addressed the isssue of
family they did not portray blood families as close and loving?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Far more the latter than the former. And not even that families
couldn't be close and loving per se.
Whedon's agenda, IMHO, seemed to be that people need to go out
and create these families. Not simply because creating a family
is of the good. But because the "blood" family can't
possibly offer that which we need.
At least, in my experience, that's not always how life is. There's
a certain level of support and love that I can get from my sisters
or my parents, or some of my relatives that I don't get from my
friends. On the other hand, there are certainly situations where
I'd much rather rely upon my friends rather than my sister or
my dad.
IMHO, underlying Whedon's storytelling, there's a certain sense
of subtle contempt for the blood family. It's not just that one
has to look outside the family for support, love, and such...
but that looking for such things inside the blood family is mostly
fruitless.
Unless you have perfect parents like Fred.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: analysis
not rewrite -- sdev, 22:58:36 11/15/03 Sat
Yes, that's my take as well. The interview comment supports that
view as well as the portrayals on the show of which Family is
the epitome of that belief.
I could soften that a bit and say when blood family does
not offer what you need go out and form your own family, but there
are times when the feel is even more down on blood families than
the word when.
Certainly individual experiences of family varies, not monolithic
by any means (yours sounds nice and multiple sibs). I think JW
was early teens 11-12 when his parents divorced.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Individual
Experience -- Dlgood, 10:52:37 11/16/03 Sun
See, I'm fortunate to have had a good family. My mother's parents,
OTOH, were awful.
It's just watching the show and looking at families, I can see
how Whedon can't satisfy anybody. Or that he shouldn't have to
write in a token "perfect family" just to shut up folks
complaining about an "anti-relatives" message. But it
really does seem to me like Whedon writes of the blood family
as if it were an obstacle to overcome and defeated - and that
frustrates me because I think it's a overly simplistic.
But that's been my sense of Whedon on a lot of other things. His
frame of reference, is not that of the pragmatist/Realist. He's
not going to tell stories that way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Or that's just not what drives him creatively. -- Arethusa,
08:17:35 11/17/03 Mon
The Whedonverse is filled with bad fathers, sick mothers, and
reluctant heroes. Whedon explores what drives people to do terrible
and heroic things-and notes in passing that both actions often
have the same psychological source. Perhaps he does have an agenda
to portray families as an obstacle to be overcome, but I doubt
it. I think he starts at the other end of the equation--how did
these complex, fascinating people become who they are? How were
they affected by their relationships with their parents, both
good (Fred) and bad (almost everyone else)?
I think it's especially important to note that most of the "bad"
parents tried to be good parents. Liam's father tried to raise
his son to be God-fearing and hard working, probably raising him
as he had been raised. His methods were unenlightened, and he
got the exact opposite of the results he wanted. Spike's mother
probably thought she was giving her son the love and support he
needed to be a good person. She didn't realize that she was stunting
his emotional growth. Joyce always tried hard to communicate with
Buffy, even after repeated failures on both sides. Hank started
out trying to stay connected to Buffy, but time, distance and
changing lives pulled them farther apart. There are almost always
obstacles to growing up, and families are (literally) breeding
grounds for psychological issues. It's not simplistic-it's human
nature, and, I think, psychologically realistic.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Or that's just not what drives him creatively.
-- sdev, 22:28:26 11/19/03 Wed
Yes, could be. He seems to want to create the family anew in a
way that resembled his own experience more. At least that is what
the quote suggests to me.
Whedon explores what drives people to do terrible and heroic
things-and notes in passing that both actions often have the same
psychological source.
Not sure I understand here. Could you elaborate?
Also hypothetically, if the character from the dysfunctional home
becomes dysfunctional I can not help but note that someone is
saying there is a connection. Does it matter if we call it an
agenda or just note in passing the correlation? Does it matter
whether the character was drawn first and his home filled in later?
They are still connected.
And I have a very contrarian view on Spike's relationship with
his mother. I always thought it demonstrated the positive effects
of unconditional motherly love and acceptance. I am aware this
is a minority view.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Or that's just not what drives him creatively.
-- Arethusa, 07:46:35 11/21/03 Fri
First, Spike. I think mother love should be unconditional, but
a mother needs to help her children relate to the real world,
where acceptance is not unconditional. For instance, many children
are given so much praise and acceptance from their parents that
they develp an unrealistic attitude toward learning and other
people. Every little achievement is praised, leaving the child
with an inflated sense of self-worth and inability to handle set-backs.
I don't think it's a huge problem, usually, but it happens.
Poeple write from their own experience. Whedon's experiences are
not uncommon. Many people have to create their own families for
many reasons-divorce, distance, disfunction, additional needs.
And many people re-form connections with their families as adults,
since the change from child to adult can create many rifts or
separations in a family. We might be seeing this with Wes in the
future (just a guess); did he leave to visit his father?
As for my statement "both actions often have the same psychological
source," I think that often the needs that drive us to do
positive things can also drive us to do negative things. Angel's
need for validation led him to become a champion, but also sabotages
him if he becomes focused more on achieving this goal rather than
helping others. That's perhaps why he called being a champion
a burden and a cross. As s'kat put it in her excellent metaphors
and misleads post, "Angel does not tell Spike not to drink
from the cup just because he wants it, because as he tells Gunn
later, he's not so sure that's still the case...no he tells Spike,
because he knows what wanting it, what pursuing it, what believing
in it and other prophecies has cost him over the years."
I wrote a post a while back about how Xander and Willow's issues
influenced their decisions to fight monsters that I'll just paste
here because I'm lazy. ;)
I've always had enormous sympathy with Willow and Xander despite
their faults just because it's so clear they had nobody but each
other to support them while growing up. It's no wonder that both
looked to Buffy and Giles to feel important and give their lives
direction. What's really interesting is that what makes them so
flawed also makes them monster hunters. Why, of all the people
in Sunnydale who know something is very wrong, do these two kids
feel obligated to dedicate their entire lives to helping Buffy?
None of the others that Buffy saved, except perhaps Cordelia,
did.
I'm slowly working my way through William James' The Varieties
of Religious Experience, and he states, "...the psychopathic
temperment...often brings with it ardor and exciteability of character.
The cranky person has extraordinary emotional susceptibility.
His conceptions tend to pass immediately into belief and action...."
The same emotional susceptibility that makes Xander and Willow
insecure and full of self-hatred also makes them unwilling to
hide in comfortable disbelief. Having found a source of self-affirmation,
they can't go back to the sterile lives they lead before Buffy
arrived.
Xander especially, having the more toxic home life, developes
an idee fixe regarding monsters, to the point of being unable
to tolerate Angel. It's like he has finally found some beings
he feels superior to, and I'm still convinced that part of Xander's
rejection of Anya has something to do with her having been a demon.
Agree? Disagree? Note: I'm not calling X and W psychopaths-just
people with serious self-esteem problems.
http://www.atpobtvs.com/existentialscoobies/archives/aug02_p05.html
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> abuse vs. neglect -- anom, 22:29:57
11/24/03 Mon
"Xander especially, having the more toxic home life, developes
an idee fixe regarding monsters, to the point of being unable
to tolerate Angel."
On the other hand, many people in child development/social work
say that neglected children grow up less in touch w/their feelings
than abused children, are harder to help, & become worse abusers.
Willow's rampage at the end of season 6 fits right it w/that.
[> [> [> [> No, never said that... -- Random,
15:36:13 11/13/03 Thu
...they couldn't show two parent families within the context of
the show. Just that they did show them. I tend to find the argument
that a work of art is anti- anything, or willfully neglecting
a particular aspect to be rather circular -- who's to say that,
say, making Amy's dad a soldier stationed overseas, or completely
removing the body-switching aspect to make a point about strong
familial relationships is better than, say, expressing the narrative
that the artist actually did convey? Had Amy come from a two-parents-in-the-home
situation, what exactly would the message ME sent to the viewer
have been? That marriage leads to such situations as we saw in
The Witch? What if Amy's dad had been there and ignored
what was happening? Wouldn't that make him an enabler? What if
he had been overseas fighting? Would that be an implicit condemnation
of military fathers who leave their children alone to suffer?
And what of the single parents out there who struggle everyday
and see few positive role models like Joyce or, hell, Angel? There
is quite a bit of evidence for strong portrayals of various types
of relationships -- some are shaped by the plot (Joyce/Hank),
some are implicit in the portrayal of the positive portrayal of
the child (the Finns), some are icky (everyone's favorite piece
of work widower Mr. Maclay and his kin)...the evidence spans
the spectrum. We see very little of parents anyway. Willow's mom...once.
Xander's parents...once. Fred's parents...once. Spike's mom and
Angel's dad...once. Oz's/Giles/Riley's/Cordy's/Gunn's/Wes'...never.
Joyce is really the only exception unless we count Angel or, god
forbid, Holtz. What does this say? Depends on your perspective.
But I tend to believe it says that ME chose to focus -- in the
42 minutes or so that they had to work with in each episode --
on the children, specifically the Scoobies.
Terribly circular indeed. It ends up with a single conclusion:
ME is never going to please everyone.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: No, never said that...Nor
did I -- sdev, 11:03:28 11/15/03 Sat
It seems to me this board (and others) constantly questions "plot"
decisions so why decisions to make parents divorced or the dearth
of married people or parents in general is immune from this kind
of questioning seems highly suspicious to me of an agenda on the
part of the people unwilling to examine this issue.
Questions on the Board right now which could also be dismissed
as merely necessary to the plot or other non-essential purpose
and devoid of underlying meaning:
Discussion of Wesley's critical decisions including bringing back
Angelus in S4-dismissive answer-audience loves Angelus and ME
wants ratings increase
Decision to make Roger Wyndam-Pryce a cyborg not the real thing-dismissive
answer-may want to bring the character back
Why Wesley emptied the entire clip into cyborg Roger-dismissive
answer-dramatic impact
I tend to find the argument that a work of art is anti- anything,
or willfully neglecting a particular aspect to be rather circular
How is it circular? It seems to me that eschewing the idea that
a work may have anti-something meanings embedded or right out
there in the open is to warp the meaning of many works of art
(Guernica comes to mind here). I don't see anything circular in
seeing meaning of any kind in a work of art. You may not agree
with the meaning I see, as is your right, but that does not make
my view inherently flawed.
to make a point about strong familial relationships is better
than, say, expressing the narrative that the artist actually did
convey?
That is your value judgement, perhaps, not mine. I made no such
remarks about better or worse. I simply said it had meaning. That
was the point of the title of my last post "What sinister
meaning?"
And what of the single parents out there who struggle everyday
and see few positive role models like Joyce or, hell, Angel?
Again your judgement, not mine.
I made no comments about the relative values of two parents versus
one. My comments simply said that there were deliberate choices
made, not accidental plot needs, that dictated the decisions to
exclude parents from the plots and show few happily married families.
I never even got so far as analyzing the meaning ME might have
intended let alone did I ever say they were criticizing single
parents as you have suggested I said. But it seems like you are
also arguing in contradictory ways here- there is no meaning but
ME is showing single parents as positive role models.
We see very little of parents anyway...What does this say?
Depends on your perspective. But I tend to believe it says that
ME chose to focus -- in the 42 minutes or so that they had to
work with in each episode -- on the children, specifically the
Scoobies
As to this last point, I believe ME fully capable of including
whatever they wanted to include in their 42 minutes otherwise
what is the point of all this analysis if in the end we just throw
up our hands and say they did not have time?
[> Buffy's take? -- MsGiles, 07:55:14 11/18/03 Tue
Buffy doesn't seem to be *opposed* to marriage. She splits up
with Angel because they can't have a proper relationship (implied
marriage - she could have gone on seeing him on an uncommitted
basis). She wants to settle with someone. She happily officiates
at Xander and Anya's wedding, and goes all dewy-eyed for Xander.
She envies Riley and Sam their relationship. I don't get a big
feeling of 'Marriage - Bad' from Buffy.
She does live her life without any immediate prospect of marriage,
though, and she lives with the possibility that her lifestyle
may exclude it. She is depressed but not devastated by that. It
is possible to carry on, to have an unconventional family, a family
composed of friends. This is not a denial of marriage, but an
assertion that it's not the only way to go forward.
Looking back, although her own parents have split up, and she
regrets it, and feels partly responsible, she doesn't blame or
resent either of them, though she is worried by the prospect of
her mother marrying again. This is more to do with worry about
the impact on her relationship with her mother, than any feeling
that Joyce shouldn't marry again.
I think it's right to say that Joss is being pragmatic, in his
treatment of relationships. The series seems to me to be saying
that formulae, including the traditional 2 person male-female
first-love, total commitment, together for ever happy-ever-after
formula, don't always work out, but that's not the end (cough)
of the world. However, if we follow our hearts and disregard conventions
things don't always work out either. We just have to do what we
can with what we have.
Vamps not getting married? Apart from the obvious points about
marriage being a church ceremony, I thnk there's relevance to
the role vampires play in the Sunnydale mythos. Being unsouled
and possessed by demons puts them outside society, literally,
in that they live in the churchyard and in abandoned buildings,
and figuratively, in that they don't hold jobs or office. When
they enter the economy it's the underground economy of stealing
and gambling, and the social groupings they have are of the loosest,
with the expectation of mutual exploitation and betrayal. That
goes for Angel's vamp relationships as well as Spike's, and it
goes for Drusilla, even if, uniquely, not for Spike in his relationship
with Dru, and later, with the Scoobs.
[> [> Re: Buffy's take? -- sdev, 10:45:57 11/18/03
Tue
In Season 7 Conversation with Dead People Buffy makes some pretty
damning remarks about her father cheating and Holden suggests
that therefore she does not really think much of men.
BUFFY: Um, I think he cheated.
HOLDEN: So, of all of these relationships of yours-that you knew
subconsciously were totally doomed-Whose fault is that?
BUFFY: It's incredibly different.
HOLDEN: I was just wondering, is it possible, even a little bit,
that the reason you have trouble connecting to guys is because
you think maybe they're not worth it? Maybe you think you're better
than them.
BUFFY: (glares) Say, there's that bloodlust I was looking for.
HOLDEN: Struck a nerve.
If we are to believe that Holden's insights were correct, and
I think we are especially given Buffy's sudden surge of "bloodlust",
Buffy did place blame on her father. There is another remark somewhere
about her father abandoning Dawn and being incommunicado in Spain?
I think with a girlfriend.
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's take? -- Gyrus, 12:05:32
11/18/03 Tue
There is another remark somewhere about her father abandoning
Dawn and being incommunicado in Spain? I think with a girlfriend.
With his secretary, "living the cliche," as Buffy put
it.
I do have to wonder if the bit about Hank cheating is a retcon.
Certainly, infidelity was never mentioned early on as a reason
for Hank and Joyce breaking up; they simply seemed to have "irreconcilable
differences". Joyce never even seemed to be very angry with
Hank, at least not after the divorce. Then again, Joyce and Hank
may simply have done their best to conceal the more sordid details
of their breakup from Buffy.
[> [> [> [> which episode if you know? -- sdev,
12:51:46 11/18/03 Tue
Yes, I can see the cheating being a possible retcon but not the
abandonment issue as that came up repeatedly and earlier.
[> [> [> [> [> "Family" -- Gyrus,
12:05:16 11/19/03 Wed
[> [> [> older and bleaker? -- MsGiles, 03:58:19
11/19/03 Wed
Fake Holden's little analysis session with Buffy gives a different
slant to that in 'Nightmares'. In that episode, all the Scoobs
were facing nightmares made real, and Buffy's great fear was that
she was to blame for her parents splitting up, and/or that Hank
would blame the split on her, and stop seeing her. This is her
imagination, though, and at the end of the episode he does come
on his scheduled visit, and is happy to see her, as she is to
see him.
In response to Holden's prodding in CwDP, as you point out, she
clearly places responsibility on Hank. Maybe a retcon, but maybe
she has been thinking about her parent's split, and has decided
to clear herself of blame. I wonder how much the events with Spike
in S6 have influenced the way she responds to Holden, though?
In S5 Buffy faced enormous work-related stress, and her relationship
with Riley broke up, partly due to Riley losing his superstrength.
In S6 she came back exhausted and depressed, and jumped into a
relationship with a man (vampire variety) whom she had very mixed
feelings about, many of them negative. She despised Spike for
a) going with it, and b) being a vampire, and herself for getting
into it, but Spike slightly more. By CwDP she has pulled herself
out of this morass, but has not really dealt with it, although
Spike getting a soul has put a new light on things.
'Holden' identifies these negative feelings as a weakness in Buffy,
and works on them as part of the campaign to demoralise her.
Buffy's very negative feelings at this point about herself and
her relationships with men still persist from S6, and S7 really
leaves the theme of personal relationships to concentrate on the
survival of the group. So I suppose you could argue that there
is an increasingly bleak view of sexual relationships in general
and marriage in particular developing in the series, as Buffy
progresses from the relatively normal mistakes and disasters of
a teenager to an age where she would be expecting to make more
stable relationships. The strength of the Scoobies as a quasi-family
group fills the vacuum left by the lack of conventional families.
(Hells Bells might seem to sound the death knell for marriage
in BtVS. However, although in Hells Bells the only Scooby attempt
at a wedding crashes on takeoff, it's never quite clear whether
the disastrous future vision that makes Xander break it off is
rooted in truth, or whether the fake vision is playing on unfounded
fears. Before the wedding, as X and A cower in the shower, they
talk about Sam and Riley, and about the *wedding* not being the
*marriage*. At this stage, it doesn't seem impossible that they
could overcome the doubts they voice in OMWF and formalise their
affection for each other in a long term way, despite the actual
ceremony being doomed.)
Does BtVS, by suggesting that there are alternative ways of surviving
when conventional families break down, criticise the conventional
family, and marriage? I'm not sure it does. Though I accept that
BtVS isn't exactly campaigning to promote marriage as an ideal,
either. But that would make it a different kind of show.
[> [> [> [> Re: older and bleaker? -- sdev,
22:06:04 11/19/03 Wed
First, I liked your post above on fan fiction.
In some ways I saw the writers meaning that blood families are
replaceable. So that was kind of hopeful because the other piece
seemed to be that surrogate families, here friends, are essential.
Some of the positive potential side of the created family broke
down when Willow fell apart, when Holden I thought hit home with
his Buffy doesn't think men are worth it because of the betrayal
by Hank, and especially when Buffy and Giles had their rift both
in S6 when he left and after LMPTM.
I gather you don't feel anything genuine in Holden's "analysis?"
Buffy's very negative feelings at this point about herself
and her relationships with men still persist from S6, and S7 really
leaves the theme of personal relationships to concentrate on the
survival of the group.
I very much agree with your pithy statement here.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: older and bleaker? --
MsGiles, 09:12:12 11/20/03 Thu
I'm a bit suspicious of the picture that Holden gets Buffy to
paint, because of the context. He isn't doing this counselling
session with Buffy's best interests at heart. On the contrary,
he is aiming to pull out of her her bleakest, darkest feelings,
because he wants her to be depressed and demoralised.
Which is not to say he's getting Buffy to invent stuff, or planting
ideas in her head. That doesn't seem to be within the remit of
The First. Maybe that would be too easy to identify, dismiss.
The First is incredibly good at winkling out people's weak points:
the self doubts, the negativity and fear. The stuff Holden brings
out is all there in Buffy, I wouldn't quarrel with that.
I think what Holden does is bring it out in a certain way, that
creates for her the gloomiest of self-images, and images of the
men in her life. He's not asking her to remember the good part
of the relationship she and her mother had with her father, and
yet there were good things about it, even after the split, on
the evidence of 'Nightmares'. He's not asking her to remember
her positive feelings about Xander and Giles, two men with whom
she has had long and trusting relationships, or even the positive
things about her relationship with Riley. He's craftily pulling
out every single negative thing she can think of, and making it
look as if that is the whole story, that is all there is. For
a bit, that seems real to her.
Perhaps there is truth in the accusation that she looks down on
her men, and expects the worst. There was certainly an element
of that in her split with Riley, and more in her liaisons with
Spike. Holden isn't about picking out the real reasons behind
that, though - he's just about making Buffy feel like dirt, again.
[> [> A proper relationship? -- mamcu, 08:37:05
11/20/03 Thu
She splits up with Angel because they can't have a proper relationship
(implied marriage - she could have gone on seeing him on an uncommitted
basis).
I think the biggest problem was that they couldn't have sex, if
that's not being too gross. I know what they teach in abstinence
classes, but I used to be a teenager...
[> [> [> You're right -- MsGiles, 02:07:09
11/21/03 Fri
That would have been a more important!
Pity Willow couldn't have worked out a different method of soul
restoration.
I have to say though, when I'm looking at the curse i've still
half got my metaphorical head on, and saying it's not just a vampire
and a curse, it's that he's a much older guy with a history and
she's a teenager.
Maybe that undermines my argument just as much: teenage Buffy
still isn't thinking about marriage, except in a fantasy way.
I don't think at this point in the show there's a big down on
marriage, but perhaps that's because it hasn't really become an
issue, yet. Buffy is still trying to hang onto a 'normal' adolescence,
and she hasn't got as far as trying to work out what being a Slayer
may mean for adult Buffy, if she survives that long
[> [> [> [> It's so unfair -- Gyrus, 13:53:38
11/21/03 Fri
I mean, here's a guy who can't possibly get her pregnant or give
her an STD, and sex with him STILL leads to disaster. If only
there were a condom for the soul...
[> [> [> [> [> Never been explicitly stated
if vamps can carry human diseases.... -- KdS, 15:41:27
11/21/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Never been explicitly
stated if vamps can carry human diseases.... -- Gyrus, 18:53:26
11/21/03 Fri
I just can't imagine that they could. Most STD germs can't survive
at room temperature for more than a few hours, and (as I understand
it) HIV can't even last that long.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Diseases (STDs specifically)
-- DorianQ, 21:27:43 11/21/03 Fri
They probably can't. Otherwise Buffy would have had syphillis,
since Darla was dying of that and she and Angel had sex and Angel
and Buffy had sex and the germ (virus?) would have passed though
to her.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Diseases (STDs
specifically) -- Dlgood, 22:06:35 11/21/03 Fri
Now remember Buffy, when you sleep with a vampire, you're also
sleeping with everyone they've ever slept with, and everyone that
person had slept with too.
Damn. That would be one very long list. Thank goodness for his
cold dead seed, huh.
[> [> [> [> [> "condom for the soul"
ROFLMAO -- sdev, 19:01:21 11/21/03 Fri
Replies:
[> Always a pleasure, TCH. (spoilers for ANGEL 5.5 and 5.6)
-- cjl, 12:20:16 11/10/03 Mon
I'm a lot more positive about "Life of the Party" than
you are, possibly because I witnessed (both first and second-hand)
shadowkat's encounters with a RL British Lorne (yep, he's just
like the unreal thing) and because of some of the truly bizarro
spins in Edlund's script. Sebassis and his court were unusually
distinctive for a demon-of-the-week posse; Devlin's mask and "human"
imitation ("my other car is a Lambourghini"), Artaud's
Pylean skin coat and the sheer freakish spectacle of Sebassis'
living decanter were unique touches.
I can't quite understand why Lorne-as-protagonist throws off some
people. The fact that he's an empath and usually reflects on everybody
else's problems doesn't mean he's not entitled to desires, conflicts
and miseries of his own. As for the Hulk bit? It was so obvious
and tempting (hey, they're both green--nyuk nyuk nyuk), maybe
ME should have resisted. But if I were in their place, I don't
know if I would have had the strength, either.
My reaction to "The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco,"
in some ways, reflected Angel's reaction to the events of the
episode. (Always a good sign when the writer puts you squarely
in the POV of the main character.) If Marx is right, and history
repeats itself--the first time as tragedy, and the second as farce--Angel
must feel himself trapped in the bitter farce that is his chairmanship
of Wolfram and Hart. Just as I viewed the Mexican wrestling movies
of the 1960s and 1970s with complete detachment from the passions
that original created the genre, Angel has been wandering through
the hallways of Wolfram and Hart cut off from the passions that
original drove his mission. Angel rediscovered some of his passion
at the end of the episode, and I rediscovered some of the reasons
why I loved those wrestling shows when I was a kid.
Jeffrey Bell messed with my head, and in a good way. If they keep
going like this, maybe the stand-alones won't be so bad, after
all. And I certainly don't miss the "previouslies."
[> [> Yes, the previouslies are unnecessary for us hardy
perennials -- Tchaikovsky, 16:14:35 11/10/03 Mon
Thinking about it, I'm not sure I object per se to Lorne
as protaginist, it's just that I've found the episodes with Lorne
spotlit a lacking a certain something so far. Belonging
was quite fun if a little silly, but gained it's brilliant moments
from Gunn's return to his dead gang member and Wesley's conversation
with his Father. Everyone now knows my views on The House Always
Wins and Life of the Party, so I won't re-iterate too
much. I suppose if Spin the Bottle counted then that was
a Lorne episode I really liked, but the trouble was it's only
because they were playing with his character, taking him outside
the story. The artiste as the writer and all.
Although I have little wrestling knowledge, I slipped easily into
Angel's perspective in Bell's episode, as also into Spike's and
Wesley's and Numero Cinco's. By contrast, I felt alienated by
everyone but Wesley in Edlund's, which is never a good sign.
TCH
[> [> [> Re: Yes, the previouslies are unnecessary
for us hardy perennials -- Lunasea, 07:15:20 11/11/03 Tue
By contrast, I felt alienated by everyone but Wesley in Edlund's,
which is never a good sign.
but wasn't that the point? None of them were acting themselves.
They were acting what Lorne suggested. They were alienated from
themselves, every bit as much as Lorne was alienated from his
sleep/subconscious. I think we are going to see this more and
more as the gang develop masks to survive the belly of the beast
and try to silence their nagging doubts that won't be silenced.
They will become alienated from themselves and each other.
When the writers can make us feel as the characters, I say they
did a good job. Not just give us the characters' perspectives,
but really make us feel like the characters. It is one thing to
sympathize with Buffy as she sends Angel to hell. It is quite
another to feel the loss of Angel ourselves. It is one thing to
feel for Angel having to give up Connor. It is quite another to
miss the character. Some of us even can feel Angel's annoyance
at having to put up with Spike and his wise-ass comments.
I'm not in Angel's perspective. I am Angel.
[> One more nice detail (spoilers 5.06) -- Lunasea,
13:48:51 11/10/03 Mon
This was something Hubby noticed and I don't think I've seen it
mentioned before. The demon rose 1953, if it was 50 years ago.
1952 is when "Are You Now or Have You ever Been" occurred.
I thought as a chronicler of the Odyssey you would find it interesting
what was going on in Angel's and Numero Five's lives at the same
time.
[> [> Interesting detail- more synchronicity -- TCH,
16:01:47 11/10/03 Mon
[> Boring Tuesday morning? -- Tchaikovsky, 16:30:30
11/10/03 Mon
Why not visit the website,
where you'll find reviews of every aired episode bar one, plus
some interesting Buffy stuff?
This has been a commercial for Tchaikovsky's non-sequiturs
TCH
[> Previously on Angel (angel 5.6) -- manwitch, 20:55:27
11/10/03 Mon
" And so, extremely tenuously, we reach Angel. Angel is
the bloke working 18 hour days, with no time to get emotionally
involved in what he's doing. He's CEO-ing so much he barely has
time to watch Ice Hockey. Lorne's situation is just a shadow,
the long-needed reflection into Angel's life, his disconnection,
is inability to consider what he's doing under the stress of a
million little tasks- killing, signing, discussing things with
Eve the tempter. Self-awareness is the thing that Angel is lacking
at this stage in the season, swept under the carpet where family
and emotional investment lived, to be finally rediscovered by
a veteran wrestler. For now, Lorne's situation is merely Angel's.
"
I think this season is more "buffyesque" in its writing
style for precisely this reason. It really struck me in the last
couple of episodes, from the Spike ep you haven't seen yet through
these last two, that the characters aren't just walking along
a parallel path with Angel, they metaphorically are Angel. Angel
has certainly been much less explicit, and I would say less structured
in that regard in earlier seasons. But here they are really hammering
it home.
Lorne is Angel's compassion or empathy. His emotional connetcion,
as you say. But the direction of causation is not clear. Is Angel
losing his empathy because he is in bed with Wolfram and Heart,
seduced by their temptations, or is he seduced and in bed with
them because he has lost his empathy? At any rate, his spirit
and mind (Wesley and Fred) are off balance as a result, as Angel
now merely protects his territory and denies the practical efficacy
of his own will.
Angel used to have multiple protagonists in a way that Buffy did
not. This season, its all Angel. At least it appears that way
to me.
No value judgement is intended. As per usual, I have complete
confidence in Mutant Enemy.
I figure the "previouslies" are gone because of the
memory wipe. they'll be back once that gets sorted out, don't
you think?
[> [> I wonder... -- Tchaikovsky, 06:29:48 11/11/03
Tue
Whether the one protagonist with the reflecting minor characters
is a consequence of having the more standalone type episode structure.
Whereas in the earlier Seasons, (and particularly in the turgid
spuernatural soap opera of Season Four), there was time for the
arc of each character to emerge, develop, subvert, triple salco
and resolve, here we're doused with a new storyline and theme
every moment. So maybe there's only time for one character's journey,
being narrated in parallel to another. That cold all be false
of course.
If the memory wipe is sorted, getting the previouslies back would
be an interesting meta-narrative touch, but I'm not sure ME are
being that clever. I'm usually wrong about these things though.
TCH
[> [> [> Re: I wonder... -- El Diablo Robotico,
07:47:50 11/11/03 Tue
Whether the one protagonist with the reflecting minor characters
is a consequence of having the more standalone type episode structure.
Whereas in the earlier Seasons, (and particularly in the turgid
spuernatural soap opera of Season Four), there was time for the
arc of each character to emerge, develop, subvert, triple salco
and resolve, here we're doused with a new storyline and theme
every moment. So maybe there's only time for one character's journey,
being narrated in parallel to another. That cold all be false
of course.
The beginning of Season 1, which was also stand-alone, was also
all about the MOTW mirroring aspects of Angel.
This could also be a Jossian favorite ploy in storytelling, a
personal quirk, and something that Tim Minear was less interested
in.
I miss TM. He writes better for Angel than Joss does.
But, then, I also think that one reason everything is a reflection
or mirror to Angel this year is because "this is the world
that Angel made", all derived from his choice. Angel is front
and center in this little world and responsible for all the ways
it goes to hell.
[> [> Bringing it all home (general non-spoilery observations
of S5) -- Lunasea, 06:46:52 11/11/03 Tue
I was thinking about this yesterday afternoon, how the characters
have been representative of what is going on in Angel before (I
have written about this before We're
Off to See the Wizard), but now it is more up front. The writers
admit that they are writing it more ala Buffy, focusing on "what
the Angel of an episode is," but I think this is a natural
progression in the story.
The various characters on Angel have been forms the archetypes
have taken. As Angel works on truly individuating, it would follow
that these forms become more reflective of him.
From "Man and His Symbols" Joseph Henderson writes:
These godlike figures are in fact symbolic representatives
of the whole psyche, the larger and more comprehensive identity
that supplies the strength that the personal ego lacks. Their
special role suggests that the essential foundation of the heroic
myth is the development of the individual's ego-consciousness--his
awareness of his own strengths and weaknesses--in a manner that
will equip him for the arduous tasks with which life confronts
him.
Angel has always been working on development of the ego-consciousness
by dealing with his various complexes/issues that are unknown
to him. He has done this by dissociating (The splitting of a personality
into its component parts or complexes) and developing masks/personas
such as the dreaded "c" word. As such, the supporting
characters have been relatively independent of Angel. Now, the
libido is such that it pulls for reintegration.
A dissociation is not healed by being split off, but by more
complete disintegration. All the powers that strive for unity,
all healthy desire for selfhood, will resist the disintegration,
and in this way he will become conscious of the possibility of
an inner integration, which before he had always sought outside
himself. He will then find his reward in an undivided self. ["Marriage
as a Psychological Relationship," Collected Works of Jung
17, pars. 334f.]
It may appear that Angel has asserted his individuality by claiming
the mantle of Champion, but It is, as its name implies, only
a mask of the collective psyche, a mask that feigns individuality,
making others and oneself believe that one is individual, whereas
one is simply acting a role through which the collective psyche
speaks. When we analyse the persona we strip off the mask, and
discover that what seemed to be individual is at bottom collective;
in other words, that the persona was only a mask of the collective
psyche. Fundamentally the persona is nothing real: it is a compromise
between individual and society as to what a man should appear
to be. He takes a name, earns a title, exercises a function, he
is this or that. In a certain sense all this is real, yet in relation
to the essential individuality of the person concerned it is only
a secondary reality, a compromise formation, in making which others
often have a greater share than he. ["The Persona as
a Segment of the Collective Psyche," Collected Works 7.,
pars. 245f.]
As Angel works through realizing that his mask isn't a sign of
his individuality, who he is, it would logically flow in the story
that the other characters no longer maintain the illusion of being
individuals also.
What Angel needs to realize is that he isn't a hero. It is but
a mask that he wears. However, that mask comes from what he is.
There is, after all, something individual in the peculiar choice
and delineation of the persona, and . . . despite the exclusive
identity of the ego-consciousness with the persona the unconscious
self, one's real individuality, is always present and makes itself
felt indirectly if not directly. ["The Persona as a Segment
of the Collective Psyche," Collected Works 7, par. 247.]
As the season progresses, his unconscious will assert itself more
as the pull to integration gets stronger and stronger. Although
the ego-consciousness is at first identical with the persona-that
compromise role in which we parade before the community-yet the
unconscious self can never be repressed to the point of extinction.
Its influence is chiefly manifest in the special nature of the
contrasting and compensating contents of the unconscious. The
purely personal attitude of the conscious mind evokes reactions
on the part of the unconscious, and these, together with personal
repressions, contain the seeds of individual development.[The
Persona as a Segment of the Collective Psyche," CW 7, par.
247.] The supporting cast will probably also reassert themselves
as Angel goes through this process.
A note to Masq: parts of the unconscious (the cast) TOGETHER with
personal repressions (the mind wipe) contain the seeds of individual
development.
That is just how I see the story developing this season.
[> [> [> Excellent insights -- sdev, 17:44:14
11/11/03 Tue
I think this is a great read on Angel the character/persona and
where his story is heading. It explains many of the inexplicable
choices he has made over the course of four seasons which conflict
with his stated desires.
A dissociation is not healed by being split off, but by more
complete disintegration. (Jung)
How do you think this applies to the Angel/Angelus/Liam dissociation?
I note that art therapy is a well-utilized treatment for Dissociation
Disorder. Has Angel been drawing lately? Might work better than
hockey.
[> [> [> [> Re: Excellent insights -- Lunasea,
09:26:36 11/12/03 Wed
How do you think this applies to the Angel/Angelus/Liam dissociation?
A real answer would require a lengthy essay with lots of references
to Dr. Jung's work. I'll try to give a cliff notes version.
A man cannot get rid of himself in favour of an artificial
personality without punishment. Even the attempt to do so brings
on, in all ordinary cases, unconscious reactions in the form of
bad moods, affects, phobias, obsessive ideas, backsliding vices,
etc. The social "strong man" is in his private life
often a mere child where his own states of feeling are concerned.["Anima
and Animus," CW 7, par. 307. ]
Angelus is Liam's shadow. The boy that would do anything to avoid
a hard day's labor as a vampire works pretty hard to prove himself
to Darla. He is a bit of an over achiever. You don't get a reputation
by being lazy. Still, Angelus is just Liam's shadow and isn't
any more whole than any other persona.
That persona is still in pain, as he tells Faith in "Release"
"I know how it feels-forced to be someone you're not. Hurts
to the bone. You try to bury the pain, but you can't get the hole
deep enough, can you? No matter how much you dig, it's still there.
Broken shards stabbing every time you breathe, cutting you up
inside. You know, there's only one way to make the pain stop.
(jumps down from the scaffolding) Hurt someone else."
As Angel tells Cordy in "Billy"
"I never hated my victims, I never killed out of anger, it
was always about the - pain and the pleasure."
Angelus is causing pain to relieve his own pain and bring himself
pleasure. He is in pain because he is a persona and not the fully
individuated creature. A vamp has a demon soul and it relegates
things to the shadow every bit as much as a human soul, just different
things. In "The Prodigal" we can see this process as
Darla tells Angel that he will never beat his father.
Souled, Angel has to reorder is psyche, making Angelus his shadow
once again. He disavows Angelus more and more and pushes him deeper
and deeper into the shadow. This sets up the libido that will
push for reintegration. It is like stretching a rubber band. The
more you stretch it, the more energy wants to pull it back together.
The Angelus we see Season 4 is a bit different from Angelus of
previous years. He is the classic under achiever now, since Champion
Angel is the over achiever.
Angel is going to have to find a balance between under and over
achiever. The more he is either, the more the pull will be to
find this balance.
[> [> [> Joss Whedon said this about Angel........
-- Rufus, 19:07:36 11/11/03 Tue
From a Dreamwatch interview "Taking the Fifth" with
Joss Whedon transcribed by Setje who deserves all credit for the
transcription.
The whole article is on Angel
after Spike there are only mild spoilers that would do little
more than fuel existing speculation.
Whereas Buffy's arc was, from the start to finish, obviously
about empowerment, Angel's underlying theme has always seemed
less clear-cut. Whedon, however, feels that the show was and continues
to be based on a particular concept.
"I believe that the overall themes of Angel are redemption
and morality," he notes. "When we started the show we
had a kind of alcoholic metaphor. Angel was a guy who was
recovering from the terrible things he's done, who was trying
to atone, and was occasionally tempted to
do something terrible again. Angel, to me, has always been
structured around the idea of Angel trying
to find his place, trying to find a reason to go on helping people.
And he's had different variations of that."
Angel has always come back to this one place that he keeps stuggling
with and that's retaining the heart to continue helping people.
Each year he has had a new stuggle to overcome. It's kinda like
once he gets it right without doubting himself he will be the
hero he took for granted he was. Angel does the heroic acts but
his heart isn't in it because of his losses that he can't be consoled
about or recover from because not many people know about them.
Number 5 showed us that even heroes can burn out, become discouraged
and decide to pack it in...meaning they really are closer to being
us than we thought...;)
[> [> [> [> Don't you ask yourself why? --
Lunasea, 08:59:00 11/12/03 Wed
Angel, to me, has always been structured around the idea of
Angel trying to find his place, trying to find a reason to go
on helping people. And he's had different variations of that.
Don't you ask yourself why? Buffy always had the burden of being
Slayer because "she alone." The series is resolved by
her no longer being alone. She empowered others and through that
freed herself. What about Angel? Why is he always having to find
a reason to fight?
The answer is in his heart, his hero's heart. Why is that constantly
being obscured? Circumstances? That's a bit of a cop out. After
Angel's epiphany, Darla no longer had any hold over him. It isn't
circumstances that matter. It is what we believe that does and
how strongly we believe in it. Conviction is important and mercy
trumps it, but having conviction about mercy, that will save the
day.
Why does Angel lack conviction? Not the circumstances, but what
in him is lacking.
I love all the psychological yummies this season. Enough of the
existential dilemmas. Where does libido come from? It might be
something Joss is asking himself now.
[> [> [> Re: Bringing it all home (general non-spoilery
observations of S5) -- aliera, 20:37:53 11/11/03 Tue
Here's something that has a few interesting pieces. http://www.brysons.net/teaching/heroes101/hero_patterns.html
I feel that Rufus is right about the search for meaning also,
but that is fairly easy to integrate with the other aspects of
the show. What keeps me hooked into Joss's work is the way he
pulls in the different elements and makes them work, all while
creating good television. Quite remarkable.
[> [> [> [> Re: Bringing it all home (general non-spoilery
observations of S5) -- Lunasea, 08:05:45 11/12/03 Wed
I've written about the Jungian way of writing that is compared
to a bird circling the tree before. That can be found in two threads:
Prophecy
Girl: The Bird Takes Flight (four parts) and the conclusion
Prophecy
Girl: Joss' Wider Truth Revealed In those I write about how
the pattern that manifests itself reveals the underlying message
of the shows. It may be a message that Joss is unaware of himself
at first. The best stories are written through us, not by us.
On Buffy, he was writing the story of a girl growing up. On Angel,
he is writing the story of a recovering alcoholic. Both these
stories are vehicles to even larger stories. That is what makes
them mythology and not Dawson's Creek. Just as I took the pattern
that BtVS is written with (probably unconsciously at least at
first) and showed how the pattern itself revealed Joss' wider
truth that he was illustrating with Buffy, I can do the same with
Angel.
I can focus on the alcoholic metaphor and as a recovered alcoholic
that has a lot of resonance with me. I can focus on the rape metaphor
for vampires and again we are with the resonance. The extreme
dissociation of Angel/us is another branch that makes up this
tree that I can identify with. but they are all just branches.
As the series goes on the bird circles more and more and the tree
itself starts to be revealed.
I think that is why the new format is working out so well. Instead
of taking several episodes to circle the tree, they are doing
it more compactly within each episode. When we stack all these
on top of each other, we get not just branches, but a tree, a
tree that makes sense, a tree where each circle is a variation
on the theme.
That is just how I see it.
Current board
| More November 2003