November 2003 posts
Revelations
(Angel Odyssey 5.7) -- Tchaikovsky, 04:42:01 11/26/03 Wed
Hello everyone.
In some ways I'm lucky, since my relationship with my parents
has never echoed the relationships of the parents and children
in the Buffyverse. Biological parents are generally not shown
in the best of lights. And although Joyce does a little for caring
mothers, there's barely a father in the whole eight season spread
of the show that is worth his salt. Fred's father appears to have
done little wrong except for doxing off in front of Alien Resurrection,
but the rest of them are almost to a man vengeful, neglectful
jealous people.
And so when Wesley's father is mentioned in Sanctuary,
we are unsurprised to find out that there relationship is less
than rosy. The next year comes one of the best pieces of acting
on Angel, Wesley's phone conversation with his father in Belonging.
It is this persona, of the man ready to doubt his son's every
move, give him little opportunity to shine, and question the morality
of his choices, that we see so clearly in this week's episodes.
Ultimately, despite some fantastic plot twists and some excellent
dialogue, the episode loses itself a little bit in cross-purposes,
but there's still plenty of food for thought about lineage and
relationships.
5.7- 'Lineage'
Lineage's plot isn't the most original in the world. The Watcher's
Council have for years been known to be less than entirely honest,
and also prone to renegade charges disrupting the apparently trustworthy
facade of the age-old institution. Five years ago, in a plot which
was the advent of Wesley on the show, Gwendolyn Post appeared
as Faith's watcher, only to turn out to be a power hungry outcast.
If we learn anything from that episode, it is both to be careful
who we trust, and not to take supposed representatives of the
Watcher's Council at face value. It is Faith who is most scarred
by the encounter, not being able to trust the apparent authority
figure, and thereby beginning to lose trust in everyone. By the
time that Wesley arrives on the scene, particularly as a kind
of Ultra-Giles, he has already lost the Slayer.
But Wesley's transformation in the series is so great that by
the Faith arc in the fourth Season of Angel, he is unrecognisable
to Faith from the bumbler of Sunnydale or the object of torture
in 'Five by Five'. It is that phrase that signals the apparent
gradation of Wesley's change, him being able to get away with
Faith's catchphrase without just sounding daft. Yet hidden away
under the surface change, in a twist so ingenious that it vaults
Season Four into orbit, temporarily at least, is the fact that
Wesley may not have changed much at all.
The viewer who remembers back to 'Choices' knows that back in
that episode, Wesley is willing to sacrifice Willow for the Box
of Gavrok, or, more precisely, will not agree to the exchange,
until Oz' wordless anger settles the issue. It is his tendency
to attempt to win the battle despite the human cost which is just
another reason to dislike him at this point in the series. In
Los Angeles, Wesley's outer self changes completely, and is followed
slowly by his inner confidence. We see the sleek Rogue Demon Hunter
who still has the clownish klutziness to start with, but through
episodes like Guise will be Guise, and particularly due
to his heading of AI after Reunion, his confidence develops.
His underlying trait though, is still to do the greater good even
if at personal cost. And so in Season Three, in the superb Loyalty,
Wesley realises that the prophecy suggests that he must take Connor
away. He does so without consulting with Angel, and at whatever
cost to the relationship with Connor in which Angel has invested
all his hope for the future. The reverberations of the decision
create the deep and lasting schism in Wesley and Angel's relationship
symbolised by the shocking end of Forgiving. Then in Season
Four, with Wesley just back in the gang, he repeatedly reminds
Faith that she must be happy to sacrifice him if it is necessary
to beat the Beast and Angelus. Now, rather than this pragmatic
approach seeming like the over-formality of a stuffy Briton, it
comes across as brutalised and rejecting of human companionship.
But it is still the same trait, deep down, that Wesley has shown
since Bad Girls
So how does this lengthy history, part of which wiped from Wesley's
memory, rebound on Lineage? We are shown fairly early on
that Wesley remembers Lilah, a slightly surprising element of
the backhistory that Wesley knows, considering how directly Lilah
and Wesley's relationship relates to Connor. In 'cutting her into
little pieces' Wesley is again forced to reject human closeness
in the fight against evil. He is forced to look at the big picture,
and keep the niggling little human emotions thing to a minimum.
Knowing so much of this about Wesley, are we forced, as viewers,
to doubt his motivations? Can such an apparently cold, unfeeling
person really be on the side of Good? Two things remind me particularly
of Wesley's human character in this episode in particular. First
is the conversation between his Father and Fred, where he attempts
to resurrect a bird who has flown into his window, at age only
eight. It's a touch sledge-hammery, but it's there for a reason,
Wesley has always been fundamentally good-natured, aiming for
the best. It is the way in which his character manifests these
tendencies that makes him such a fascinatingly 3-D character.
Secondly, we have Fred.
Fred is used in a rather complex way in this episode. Angel chastises
Wesley for putting her in the firing line, telling him that he
overlooked her safety. When Wesley, worried and self-aware of
his own tendency to do this, attempts to apologise to Fred, she
calls him for being patronising to her. Firstly, this shows that
Angel's motives aren't entirely objective, motivated as they are
by his memory of Connor's loss, as Eve mentioned. Secondly, it
neatly shows Wesley stuck between two stools of his character,
the over-patronising coddling intellectual, and the cold, heartless
schemer. It is this tension in his character which makes him a
fascinating watch throughout all seasons. The Head Boy plays the
man who kills his own father.
That scene, lessened in impact only slightly by the revelation
that this Roger is merely a robot, shows an interesting facet
in Wesley's personality. Here, the two aspects of his character
outlined above pair up. We have the caring boy saving the helpless
dead bird, and the man with brutal instincts to protect what is
Good. Here Fred is good, and, after he has shown that he entirely
understands the situation, that his Father will not shoot him
while he has the ability to imbue Angel with his will, he shoots
him coldly as soon as he endangers Fred. He learns the lesson
of the beginning of the episode, where he allowed Fred to get
hurt, but, interestingly, it's still not Fred who gets a weapon,
but him protecting her above his father's life.
And so what of fathers and sons? Roger and Wesley's interaction
to me never quite hits the heights it should have been capable
of until the final scene on the roof. The Head Boy revelation
is marginally interesting- mostly in showing that even in achieving
something tangible, his supposed Father is not satisfied, citing
the 'slim pickings' form which the school could choose. It becomes
clear that it is not only Wesley's problems with Faith which have
fuelled his Father's harshness, but that he has been critical
of him even when he has done impressive and laudable things. That
he appears to be finally winning some respect for Wesley is touching,
but then, horribly and with excellent timing from Drew Goddard,
we find out that all is not as it should be, and that Roger is
not here for Wesley at all. As soon as Wesley wins a hint of respect,
it is undermined, much like Giles' finding out about the glove
to win Ms Post's approval in 'Revelations'.
Finally, if Roger the robot really is an accurate reflection of
Wesley's father, we learn the real truth of the relationship.
Sadly, this scene suffers in retrospect from much the same issue
as Mad Eye Moody's characterisation in the Goblet of Fire. Although
we see this fascinating character screaming 'CONSTANT VIGILANCE',
the fact that we never see the real Moody invalidates to an extent
what we have learnt- the human richness of the character. In the
same way, I found the Roger-Wesley dynamic undermined in the end
by the fact that what was portrayed was not really Wesley's father.
Like Rowling, Goddard to an extent attempts to eat his cake and
have it too. But assigning this robot Roger's characteristics
for the moment, the real story is that Roger is worried about
his son- the son that his mother labelled a prodigy, that read
in foreign languages whil still in single figures, and that became
Head Boy. He has been surpassed, and, unlike Giles in his relationship
with Buffy, cannot stand it. That is a powerful message, if blurred
a little by the logistics of the plot.
And so back to fathers and sons. What, ultimately do fathers,
parents as a whole, do for their children? One of the more bleak
interpretations of this episode is that they merely suck out the
children's free will, leaving them with nothing but hollow targets
and echoes of their parents' failure. It is not by co-incidence
that Angel's free will is denied him. In attempting to live up
to Roger's expectations, Wesley has made himself the multi-faceted
character that he is, but has also inherited some dangerous and
unhealthy traits. This is paralleled carefully both to Spike and
Angel at the end of the episode. Angel killed his Father, but
his spirit lived on so that he lived the waster for the next 150
years in his Father's shadow. Darla reminds him in The Prodigal
that physically killing his father is not all. Spike talks about
his Mother. Like Angel, he killed her, but it was not until Lies
My Parents Told Me that he comes to the realisation that before
Ann became a vampire, she did love him deeply. It is this moment
of resolution (also in a Goddard script), that Wesley must aim
for. Right now, he is somewhere between Angel- working slowly
to outgrow his Father's shadow, and Spike for whom one epiphany
was enough. Physically killing Roger, which as Wesley knows was
what he did- there was none of the subconscious doubt that Fred
posited- was not the end of his Father's influence over him. And
so he, like Angel, tries to work towards some resolution with
his Father, although he has the infinite advantage of the 'real'
Father still being alive over in England.
A couple of footnotes:
-I loved the line 'Like MC Esher, excpet with wires and flesh
instead of geese'. The robot aspect instead of the living being,
a foreshadow, and also a hint that this season may turn out to
be as labyrinthine as the last, in its own way?
-Spike is as self-obsessed as ever. He's certain that Eve is tracking
him, which is only subverted tidily when the lights go out and
he assumes it's Pavayne back to haunt him. Then later we get the
fact that his information on Wesley is already known, and he makes
himself look a little foolish talking about typing up reports.
However, the moment of personal achievement doing something for
the greater good, where he goes zen only to punch Gunn's adversary,
is a nice nod to his attempts at joining the gang, even if only
while still heavily bogged down in his own story.
And so the episode ends on a slightly wonky but interesting Waiting
in the Wings type triangle- with Wesley, who has just killed
his own father out of affection for Fred, once again being rejected
in favour of Knox. Life is complicated, the billboards scream.
I thought the parallels in this episode were a little scrambled,
and that the ideas lost a bit of emotional resonance from the
lack of clear direction in the Angel/Wesley supposed parallel
which never quite hit an idea. The dialogue was interesting and
the themes fine, but the execution could have been a few notches
better.
Thank you for reading, and remember, don't shoot your parents,
they might not just be robot imitations...;-)
TCH
Replies:
[> Very nice! -- Ponygirl, 07:19:42 11/26/03 Wed
[> A classic Jossian Theme- Parents who need to 'get a life'
and decide to take yours? (Spoilers A5.7) -- OnM, 08:19:56
11/26/03 Wed
*** And so back to fathers and sons. What, ultimately do fathers,
parents as a whole, do for their children? One of the more bleak
interpretations of this episode is that they merely suck out the
children's free will, leaving them with nothing but hollow targets
and echoes of their parents' failure. ***
Joss is often accused of being very one-sided on this issue, but
I think the point he is trying to make by emphasizing this theme
of the abusive/indifferent parent is that much of human society
as a whole fervently promulgates the idea of unquestioned love
and obedience to one's parents not as a privilege that need be
earned, but simply de facto, 'because'.
What starts out as a simple biological imperative-- namely, that
as a small child you need to pay attention to what your mother
or father says because they are looking out for your literal survival--
gets warped over time into the far more complex issues that arise
as you grow into adolescence and then adulthood.
At some point, you begin to understand that your parents are not
all-knowing, and having gained that understanding, you will naturally
begin to question their motivations. If over the course of your
young life you have seldom if ever known your parents to have
placed their interests above your own to your personal detriment,
then you will probably cut them some slack and accept that being
mostly right most of the time is certainly good enough. Even if
the negative action was severe, you can chalk it up to a momentary
lapse of reason or a simple misunderstanding and then let go of
it. (For example, Buffy forgives Giles for his actions in LMPTM
by the time Chosen rolls around-- she knows that Giles
loves her and for the vast percentage of their history together
has always looked out for her better interests.)
On the other hand, realizing the opposite is almost certain to
be profoundly wounding to one's psyche. We have to look no farther
than (what presumably) was Faith's situation with her parents--
an indifferent, alchoholic mother and completely absent father
to see the long term emotional damage that was inflicted on her.
Wesley's father exhibits a form of abuse on the opposite end of
the scale-- the obsessive pursuit of an impossible degree of perfection
in his progeny. (One thing that occurs to me as I write this is
that when all is said and done, Faith may eventually end up having
more sympathy for her mother's behavior than Wesley will have
for his father's.)
This latter situation, I might suggest, is potentially even more
destructive because it wraps the abuse in a thickly textured garment
of social desirability. After all, who wouldn't want their child
to 'succeed'? It's only natural, right? I still see bumper stickers
at regular intervals that proudly proclaim "My son/daughter's
an Honor Student at (whatever) school etc." I read those
banners and inevitably ask myself, who is the real person being
praised here, the child or the parent? I almost always come to
the same conclusion, and it's not a happy one.
So I think that Joss is just trying to hammer home the idea that
we, as a society, assume too much as a given regarding what I
think of as 'the inherent sanctity of parenting and the family'.
I think he views people as people, sometimes graceful and oftimes
fallable, and that becoming a parent doesn't automatically
confer one with a sudden wealth of altruism, dignity, compassion
or knowledge. There are quite a lot of emotionally/psychologically
damaged people out there who really should never have children
until they can fully understand their own problems and take steps
to correct them, as opposed to trying to 'fix' their children
instead.
Also, in fairness to Joss, he has provided a wide continuum of
questionable to bad behavior on the part of his parent figures.
When you think about it, although the theme itself is repeated,
no two parent figures in his universe are exactly alike.
[> [> Excellent points -- Tchaikovsky, 03:48:30
11/27/03 Thu
And I think that much of Buffy, the story about gorwing up, about
adolescent struggles, necessarily cast the parents in a bad light.
I mean, if you're doing a horror show about adolescent stresses,
parents as necessarily a rich source of metaphor. That's why Gingerbread
worked so well for me. Considering this, the fact that Joyce was
so humanised, so real, that by the time of 'The Body' her death
made such an impact on the series, shows how well Whedon did with
not merely turning parents into monsters.
And good point on the wide range of defects.
TCH
[> [> Re: A classic Jossian Theme -- Ponygirl, 10:48:39
11/27/03 Thu
I think it's also a method of exploring the theme of personal
responsibility. If a person does everything they do as a reaction
against their parents then it's still ceding them a tremendous
amount of control, as much as the child who follows completely
the parents' plans for their life. At a certain point in order
to become an adult a person must accept responsibility for their
own life and the direction it takes - some say this is the metaphoric
(or literal on BtVS/AtS) killing of the parent, but that doesn't
seem to resolve anything. I liked Buffy's closing the door on
Giles in LMPTM because it seemed more like a stepping around the
blocking parent - not a rebellion or even a reaction against,
simply a continuation of her own path, with the parent choosing
to either remain behind or follow.
Great post, OnM!
[> [> [> Very true. It's like, do you wear the love
beads, or do the love beads wear you? -- OnM, 20:14:36
11/27/03 Thu
(Sorry, momentary 60's flashback is all... ;-)
However, your point is right on-- while the scene at the end of
LMPTM is the more dramatic one, that scene was bookended
several eps earlier in First Date, with a somewhat more
innocent/humorous beginning that quickly segued into a far more
serious topic:
INT. SUMMERS' HOUSE - BUFFY'S ROOM - DAY (DAY 2)
Early the next morning. Buffy is in her room, deciding on a pair
of earrings. She's considering hoops when she
looks up to see Giles standing in the doorway.
GILES: You know this is very dangerous.
BUFFY: You've just heard horror stories, that's all. Wear hoops
and they'll catch on something, rip your lobes off, lobes flying
everywhere...
GILES: That's not what I mean.
BUFFY: You mean Spike not having a chip. Free-range Spike.
GILES: Buffy, I have to ask. Why on earth did you make that decision?
BUFFY: I guess it was instinct, like you were talking about.
GILES: What? I made that up! I knew the Bringer was behind me
because his shoes squeaked! Buffy, it's crucial that we keep these
girls safe, and I can't even keep track of the dangers: The First,
the Bringers, random demons and now Spike?!
BUFFY: And the principal.
GILES: What?
BUFFY: Oh, nothing much, just, he was in the school basement with
a shovel, acting kind of evasive. And he's got a "too charming
to be real" thing going on. I'm gonna look into it.
GILES: Well, that sounds very responsible of you. Balances out
the vampire-on-the-loose issue.
***
And of course by the end of the episode, Giles breaks into the
humorous way the gang is dealing with Xander's most recent demon-date
near-death-experience to bitterly denounce the lighthearted mood:
GILES: Have you learned nothing from tonight's assorted chaos?
There's no time for fun and games and quipping about orientations.
(Giles picks up the flashcards that are still lying on a table
where they were put earlier. He holds them up. The "Bringer"
one is on top.)
GILES: These aren't a joke. This is what happens. Girls are going
to die. We may die. It's time to get serious.
***
Of course, Buffy does 'get serious' after this-- and things go
downhill fast. Just the other day I was reading an article wherein
the writer (who very much disliked Season 7) commented "And
since when did Buffy turn into a humorless bitch?"
Well, maybe when she was caught between trying to please her father-figure,
whom she loves and respects, while still trying to follow what
her own instincts tell her is the right thing to do.
[> [> A classic Jossian Theme- Parents who need to 'get
a life' and decide to take yours? -- sdev, 09:08:41 11/26/03
Wed
I agree with your point about conventional abuse (Faith) versus
the more insidious situation Wesley faced. In the Faith situation
"divorce with no visitation" is possible and acceptable.
Faith can say this parent offers me nothing and deserves nothing.
Wesley OTOH is left still needing to interact with a father who
makes him feel like a bumbling idiot because Roger's behavior
is cloaked in caring and respectability, and perhaps sometimes
truly is, and thus does not justify cutting Roger off. But the
need to interact and keep Roger in his life leaves Wesley open
to repeated attack. Wesley's first act, born of guilt, is to call
his father.
anom, in the What's Wrong with Marriage thread below makes an
excellent point about the greater damage to the psyche sometimes
caused by neglect versus abuse which I believe comes from the
same place. Willow and Wesley I suspect have a lot in common.
[> [> [> thanks--but that's not exactly what i meant
-- anom, 22:06:23 11/30/03 Sun
"anom, in the What's Wrong with Marriage thread below makes
an excellent point about the greater damage to the psyche sometimes
caused by neglect versus abuse which I believe comes from the
same place. Willow and Wesley I suspect have a lot in common."
The distinction I wanted to make btwn. abuse & neglect isn't the
same as that btwn. physical & emotional abuse. Wesley got plenty
of attention from his father; unfortunately, it was mostly negative
attention. But even this was apparently more than Willow received;
her mother treated her as an indistinguishable member of her peer
group instead of as an individual. Willow may actually have more
in common w/Faith in this regard, even though the form the neglect
took in each case & its context were different--just as physical
& emotional abuse can have similar effects.
[> [> [> [> Re: thanks--but that's not exactly
what i meant (Spoilers Angel 5.7) -- sdev, 05:43:20 12/01/03
Mon
Sorry if I appeared to misrepresent your post.
I understood that was not what you meant. You in fact did not
address emotional abuse at all, nor, as I recall, did you give
a reason for what you said was the sometimes greater harmful aftermath
of neglect over physical abuse. I made the emotional abuse connection.
Nevertheless that is the point I am making-- that neglect and
emotional abuse have in common the fact that they are more insidious,
that their lesser nature often means the relationship continues
thus subjecting the recipient to more of the same. It also can
leave the recipient in a self-doubting and guilty position wondering
if they are being unfair or imagining or exaggerating the neglect
or emotional abuse.
I hypothesized that for the above reasons, not clear cut thus
relationship continues and ensuing self-doubt and guilt, both
may be more psyche damaging than actual physical abuse.
Those quandries seemed particularly apropos of Wesley's dilemma
in Lineage. He vacillates between resignation at Roger's put downs
and hope that Roger is acknowledging him. There are two particular
points when he perks up at the thought that Roger is praising
him-- the he was "Head Boy" comment before Roger deflates
him, and when Roger appears to be asking his advice and Wesley
actually questions that, afraid to be hurt again. I believe right
after that one Roger conks him on the head.
Wesley lacks the clarity that would give him some emotional closure
to his relationship with Roger. He still hopes for better. His
guilt at the end obviously is for shooting the man he believed
was his father. Was there also the guilt of actually wishing him
dead?
[> Self-Obssessed? -- Claudia, 11:21:55 11/26/03
Wed
"Spike is as self-obsessed as ever. He's certain that Eve
is tracking him . . ."
Are you certain about this? Granted, even Spike had commented
that he might be acting self-absorbed. But considering the revelations
in "Destiny", was he really wrong about Eve's interest
in him?
[> [> Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean we're
not out to get you. -- Dlgood, 12:59:38 11/26/03 Wed
[> [> [> in this case, i think it's the other way
around -- anom, 20:32:55 11/26/03 Wed
Just because they really are out to get you, that doesn't mean
you're not paranoid. Or in Spike's case, being right about Eve's
keeping track of him doesn't mean he's not self-absorbed.
[> [> [> [> Re: in this case, i think it's the
other way around -- Dlgood, 22:28:10 11/26/03 Wed
Thanks for the correction Anom. My phrasing left a bit to be desired.
in Spike's case, being right about Eve's keeping track of him
doesn't mean he's not self-absorbed
Right. Nice way to rephrase in order to show how the initial assumption
was a logical fallacy.
[> [> [> Huh? (NT) -- Claudia, 14:22:28 11/26/03
Wed
[> [> [> [> It's a saying -- Doug, 14:40:54
11/26/03 Wed
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out
to get you."
That's the version I'm familiar with, personally I prefer it because
the "they" has a connotation with conspiracy theories
that "we" just doesn't have.
[> [> I am yet to see 'Destiny' -- Tchaikovsky, 15:13:55
11/26/03 Wed
I shall be delighted to offer my perspective then. Until then,
I'm afraid I act without the benefit of clairvoyance :-)
TCH
[> [> [> There's more there than you've seen --
s'kat, 20:44:40 11/26/03 Wed
I've debated responding to this, because I know too much and don't
want to spoil you. But, I know people who weren't spoiled who
did see it, so maybe I can point it out without spoiling you?
How familar are you with a dramatic device, which I can't remember
the name of, but deals with a reluctant hero motif?
This type of hero is unpredictable. He/She on the surface appears
to be self-obsessed, self-centered, hedonistic, narcissitic, etc
- yet it's all just a facade, bravado, underneath is someone who
is vulnerable and afraid and doesn't like themselves very much
- they reason we believe in the facade is they do - it's easier
than the vulnerable portion beneath.
Examples of this motif are:
1. Han Solo in the Star Wars series
2. Sinbad (in a recent Disney movie)
3. Parsifal Knight in Excaliber, the least likely Knight does
save the king
4. Indiana Jones
5. Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind
Harrison Ford has made a living playing this type of hero.
In comics - this hero is best portrayed by Wolverine and
Gambit in the X-men, not sure who in DC, not really a DC fan.
In literature you find him as Lymond in The Lymond Chronicles
by Dorothy Dunnett, or possibly Heathcliff and Lestate in the
gothic tradition - although he's rarely seen in gothic literature
- gothic preferrs their heros a tad more straight-forward. You
see him more in adventure fiction.
He jumps in at the last minute, reluctantly, usually when you
are convinced he'd be the last person to help. Dramatically this
is important, the writer has to fool the audience with the facade,
convince them the character is too self-obsessed to do the heroic
thing - so the audience is surprised when he does. It's the old
sleight of hand magic trick, TCH, - hey look other there, don't
focus on my right hand, look to my left. You should know by now
not to trust what ME tells you, it will always twist around when
you least expect it.
With Spike? I'll caution you to pay more attention to what the
character actually does and less to what he says.
His story is partly about growing up and finding himself. As Buffy
said in NLM - you don't even know you. I think that line still
holds true.
Spike is the demon with the man inside. The demon doesn't want
you to see the man, he wants you to think he's self-obsessed,
spiteful, and cares only about himself. (Those who buy that are
forgetting some things in the characters history that make 0 sense
under that analysis. Spike has done some things that a character
described in this manner would never do, heck characters who aren't
described in this manner wouldn't do it.) Yet I ask you - who
saved someone in this episode without killing another? Who saved
the world and let himself be consumed by fire? Who saved Fred
and gave up his chance to feel, taste, smell without a second
thought? Can you see the complexity or are you fooled by the sleight
of hand? Also, what makes you think Eve wasn't tracking Spike?
Re-watch that scene in the lab again, she certainly seemed oddly
pre-occupied with him. Staring at him. Watching him. Ever since
he did two things. What were those things TCH? Why did they cause
her to watch him? And why did Spike notice? Wouldn't it be interesting
if Spike was right? What layer does that add to the proceedings?
Lineage was not "just" about parents, it was also about
will and control and manipulation - like Coppelia manipulated
by her master and Angel who manipulated the minds of his friends
when he removed Connor from them.
There's a lot in Lineage that you miss without a second or third
viewing - I blame Drew goddard for that. Remember what Fred says
about the Robots, a MC ESCHER perspective - in Escher - outside
is in, inside is out, up is down, down is up, or as Gilbert and
Sullivan would say:"nothing is what it seems, skin milk masquerades
as cream.."
[> [> [> [> Re: There's more there than you've
seen -- dlgood, 22:43:12 11/26/03 Wed
Spike is the demon with the man inside. The demon doesn't want
you to see the man, he wants you to think he's self-obsessed,
spiteful, and cares only about himself.
IMHO, that's a surface reading - and the obverse also holds. Because
he's also a man with a demon inside. And just as he tries to present
the facade - "I've always been bad" - there is another,
earlier facade. "I'm a good man." And that was lurking
underneath William long ago.
The petty, self-absorbed jerk that he can be is not just a facade.
It's also who he is. Spike blames Angelus, but in doing so, denies
that he chose to follow his example. Indeed, Spike embraced it
with glee. When Angel says that getting turned just let who Spike
really was out, he's got a valid point. Over those 120 years,
Angelus didn't force William to become anything he didn't want
to be.
He jumps in at the last minute, reluctantly, usually when you
are convinced he'd be the last person to help. Dramatically this
is important, the writer has to fool the audience with the facade,
convince them the character is too self-obsessed to do the heroic
thing - so the audience is surprised when he does.
It's also the trope ME used in S6 with Spike, in reverse, though
a bit artlessly and unwittingly. The audience (and the character)
becomes convinced that he is too kind and loving to do the villainous
thing, and is genuinely surprised and angry when he does. But,
it's also set up and foreshadowed earlier on.
I'm of two minds. Is Spike being set up as reluctant hero again,
as Demon who can be a man, or is he being set up as the eventual
fallen - the man with an unacknowledged demon inside of him.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: There's more there than you've
seen (Spoilers Angel 5.8) -- sdev, 00:00:10 11/27/03 Thu
When Angel says that getting turned just let who Spike really
was out, he's got a valid point.
The Angelus we first see after Darla turns him (The Prodigal)
is quite different than the William we see even several days (or
more) after Drusilla turns him (LMPTM and Destiny). Angelus jumps
from the grave ready to commit maximum damage including killing
his baby sister:
DARLA: You can do anything, have anyone in the village. Who
will it be?
ANGELUS: Any *one*? I thought I'd take the village.
This is prior to any coaching from Darla.
================
FATHER: Be gone, unclean thing! A demon can not enter a home where
it's not welcome. He must be invited!
ANGELUS: That's true. But I was invited.
(Angelus indicates with his eyes. His father turns and sees his
daughter Kathy slumped against the wall.)
FATHER: Oh!
ANGELUS: She thought I returned to her. An angel.
FATHER: Murderer!
ANGELUS: Strange. Somehow you seemed taller when I was alive.
FATHER: Lord, bind this demon now.
ANGELUS: To think I ever let such a tiny, trembling thing make
me feel the way you did.
Contrast William's behavior to his Mother within days of being
turned:
MOTHER: Are you drunk?
WILLIAM: A little bit. (Mother coughs, he walks forward) Think
of it. No more sickness. No more dying. You'll never age another
day. Let me do this for you.
MOTHER: What are you talking about, a-and why are you acting so
strangely?
WILLIAM: It's all right, mother. It's only me. (hugs her) We'll
be together forever.
MOTHER: William...
WILLIAM: (vamps out) It only hurts for a moment. (bites his mother's
neck)
And in Destiny up until William first meets Angelus he still has
that naivete and belief that his love for Drusilla will salvage
his new existence.
It appears that Angelus was born and Spike was made.
Having said that, it is still incumbent upon Spike to take responsibility
for becoming a monster regardless of the catalyst or tutelage.
Getting the soul was such a step. As Buffy says in NLM:
You faced the monster inside of you and you fought back. You
risked everything to be a better man
Both Angel and Spike are works in progress with "human"
qualities missing. They are even missing the insight needed to
comprehend their faults. Does Angel realize he wronged Wesley,
Fred and Gunn by the memory wipe? Does Spike see the bigger picture
of what Angel is trying to do from inside W&H? I think both
are being set up like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that interlocks.
Neither will reach completion without the other.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Spike's character --
Dandy, 04:31:14 11/27/03 Thu
As I see it, Spike has as much of a split personality as Angel
does. It's just integrated, not split into two whole personalities.
He gives up his chance to become corporeal to save Fred's life
one week and uses Harmony shamelelessly the next. He tries to
rape Buffy, then endures the demon trials to get a soul for her.
He's both good and bad, incredibly intiutive about other people
while lacking in self-awareness about himself. It is the dichotomy
that makes Spike such a fascinating character. The want/take/have
philosophy of Angelus and the bad Faith is still very much alive
within him. He's not the leader who will interrupt a sexual encounter
to command the troops. He's not gentlemanly in the aftermath of
his sexual encounter, as Angel is. He will knock one woman half
way across the room and leave her there, yet sacrifice his chance
for corporeality for another. He covets the perks of Angel's position,
yet cannot be bothered to call maintenance when Eve is stuck in
the elevator. He won't take the reposnsibility of being leader,
as Angel will. He's the guy who can see the poetic connections
in the world around him while being blind to his own flaws.
[> [> [> [> [> [> William's Mother vs. Liam's
Father -- Valheru, 15:06:02 11/28/03 Fri
The Angelus we first see after Darla turns him (The Prodigal)
is quite different than the William we see even several days (or
more) after Drusilla turns him (LMPTM and Destiny).
IMO, not quite so different as you infer, but much different than
you assume.
There are many parallels between Liam and William, Angelus and
Spike, and Souled!Angel and Souled!Spike, so much so that we are
all inclined to see parallels where there probably are none. Liam's
father/William's mother is one such false parallel.
Liam's relationship with his father is adversarial; Liam seeks
approval, his father never gives it, and the resulting lack of
self-esteem in Liam sends him down the path of self-destruction,
which leads him to Darla. Now the conventional wisdom is that
the creature that Darla greets at the graveyard is Angelus. I
don't think so. Angelus isn't born until Liam's father is killed
and he comes to the realization that he has denied himself forever
his father's approval. No, what we see first is simply Liam the
Vampire, a being of two particular goals: 1) the vampire nature
to commit Evil, the instinctive desire to do that which
the soul had denied, and 2) Liam's own self, the personal
desire to do that which the soul had denied. The former is indicated
in the graveyard scene in The Prodigal, when VampLiam expresses
his want to "take the [whole] village." The latter is
his want to exact revenge upon his father.
But William is almost the total opposite. His primary desire,
post-siring, is to exact revenge on basically everyone but
his parent. IOW, it is William's personal desire to "take
the village," not just his vampiric instinct. Remember his
conversation with Dru before he reveals his plan to sire his mother:
WILLIAM: We'll ravage this city together, my pet. Lay waste
to all of Europe. The three of us will teach those snobs and elitists
with their falderal just what -
So in this sense, the villainy of Spike was a carryover from his
human desires, whereas the villainy of Angelus was created of
his post-siring experiences. IOW, the base nature of Spike was
born, but the base nature of Angelus (namely, his sadism) was
made.
Therefore, it stands to reason that the transition from William
to Spike to Souled!Spike appears naturally progressive, since
Spike's self is so tied up in his personal desires-the wants of
the present. And it also makes sense that the transition from
Liam to Angelus to Angel is so self-contrary and divided, since
Angelus/Angel's self is so tied up in an unsouled/souled, past/future
dichotomy-the regrets of the past and the hopes of the future.
But Spike's mother isn't as central to this as Liam's father.
Anne's primary role is in the creation of William, where Liam's
father's primary role is in the creation of Angelus. Anne is the
Mother, representing the Kindness, the Humanity, the Soul. Liam's
father represents the Hatred, the Inhumanity, the Demon. Anne
is Eden; Liam's father is the Outside World. So when VampWilliam
goes to his mother, it signifies the reluctance to accept the
ability to sin, Adam and Eve pleading with God not to banish them
after eating the Fruit; when VampLiam goes to his father, it signifies
the ignorance of redemption, Adam and Eve believing the absence
of Eden automatically damns them to Hell.
What I'm reaching for here (and am probably not touching very
well), is that VampWilliam's confrontation with Anne connotes
Spike's want to return to being William, where VampLiam's confrontation
with his father connotes Angel's aversion to return to being Liam.
However, they both seem to do the opposite: Spike usually changes
when he doesn't want to, where Angel doesn't always change when
he does want to. So while we want to see parallels here, there
are in truth perfect non-parallels.
And while I'm thinking of it, a question for you psychological
minds out there: could Spike and Angel perhaps represent two halves
of a single Oedipal whole? Spike, who wants to sleep with the
mother, and Angel, who wants to kill the father?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: William's Mother
vs. Liam's Father -- Ann, 16:27:57 11/28/03 Fri
"And while I'm thinking of it, a question for you psychological
minds out there: could Spike and Angel perhaps represent two halves
of a single Oedipal whole? Spike, who wants to sleep with the
mother, and Angel, who wants to kill the father?"
This is brilliant. I have been saying that they are two sides
of the same coin (even their name Wil/liam) and you so much better
described what I have been sensing about them especially with
the last episode. They will need to battle this Oedipal thing
between them whether with fists or with a coming together of sorts.
A peace treaty possibly. The reverse of the Oedipal almost holds
true - Angel killed his son and Spike almost slept with his mother.
I wonder what that complex is called?
I think this also holds true for their relationships with Buffy.
Each has something they give to her but neither were enough for
her for good, bad and very practical reasons.
What a great idea this is Valheru. Thanks.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oedipal, Parental
Issues, Buffy Metaphors, Divorce, Connor (spoilers 5.7) --
s'kat, 11:27:44 11/30/03 Sun
"This is brilliant. I have been saying that they are two
sides of the same coin (even their name Wil/liam) and you so much
better described what I have been sensing about them especially
with the last episode. They will need to battle this Oedipal thing
between them whether with fists or with a coming together of sorts.
A peace treaty possibly. The reverse of the Oedipal almost holds
true - Angel killed his son and Spike almost slept with his mother.
I wonder what that complex is called?
I think this also holds true for their relationships with Buffy.
Each has something they give to her but neither were enough for
her for good, bad and very practical reasons. "
I'm wondering if the split of William = mother issues and
Liam = Daddy issues, may not be a metaphor the writers have used
to illustrate what happens to children who deal with divorce.
We have William - and really only see his close relationship with
a mother who is deathly ill.
Then we have Liam (subtract the Wil) and while a mother is present,
he seems to not see her, the main character is his father.
Extend this to BTVS and when Buffy got romantically attached in
some way to each. Or rather when each got romantically attached
to Buffy, without her knowledge.
Angel falls for Buffy when her father abandons her, we see him
lurking outside her bathroom window, while her parents are fighting
over her. The mother is defending Buffy, while the father is deriding
her behavior. Angel is overhearing the conversation and we get
through Angel's pov. LAter when Angel does find Buffy, he takes
on an almost paternal aspect with her - doing things, like giving
advice, comfort, figure skating that her father may have done
with her.
Spike first falls for Buffy after her mother is diagnosed with
a brain tumor. He comes to her to kill her in FFL but changes
his mind and comforts her instead, when he finds her in tears.
She's crying because her mother may be dying and is going into
the hospital. He comforts her the way a mother would and takes
on a more maternal aspect - caring for Dawn, attempting to help
Dawn bring Joyce back to life,
staying with Dawn while Buffy attacks the big evil, remaining
with Dawn when Buffy dies.
And we see the vamps do these things before the writers tell us
about their parental relationships. So it's not surprising to
learn Angel's biggest issue is his father's lack of approval or
that Spike's biggest issue is he couldn't save his mother from
death's embrace (instead he became death's embrace). Sex = death
metaphor is pretty much what the vampire stands for in lots of
mythology.
It's no coincidence that Ann, Spike's mother, is dying of a blood
related illness, literally coughing up blood and that her illness
in effect is leeching away at her son, binding him more to her
than less, he wants to save her. Nor is it a coincidence that
Ann is also Buffy's middle name.
Same with Angel - his desire for approval equals in some ways
Buffy's desire for approval. In Nightmares - Buffy's greatest
nightmare about her father is literally echoed in The Prodigal
with Liam experiencing it.
I wonder if the writers at some point decided to use vampire as
a metaphor for parental issues. Did Ann also create the vampire
Spike? Was her sickness a drain on him, as Joyce's is on Buffy?
Is this a metaphor for the feelings Joss Whedon had regarding
his own mother who died of Cancer just a few years before the
series started? A mother he spent most of his childhood with,
while his father was elsewhere? Is it a commentary on divorce?
Did Liam's father in a sense create the vampire Angel? Was the
father's distance and lack of warmth something a child who only
gets to spend weekends and summers with their father feels? Does
this reflect Whedon's own complex feelings towards his father?
And his later respect for him?
And finally realization that being a parent isn't as easy as he
thought?
Also the name William, which makes protector, and is used throughout
the series in increasingly ironic ways.
Billy - the boy in Nightmares S1 BTVS who desires protection and
causes chaos by making everyone's nightmares real.
Willy - the snitch, who spreads information instead of protecting
it.
William the Bloody - who gives the illusion of providing the girl
with protection, but instead embraces her with death and torture
Liam - who like William the Bloody, seduces the girl, only to
dump her the next morning as nothing more than an object
Billy - ATS S3- the man who infects other men with misogyny or
desire to destroy women
Also in S7 BTVS - the SG refer to William the Bloody as the soulless
vampire and Spike as the ensouled one - specifically in the episode
NLM.
Is this another way of commenting on the child's desire for protection,
warmth, and nurturing from the parental figure and the inability
to get it? What happens when they don't?
Do they become an emotional vampire?
The Oedipus story is interesting because what we seldom seem to
discuss why Oedipus sleeps or wants to sleep with Icosta or wants
to kill his father. I think it has do with something Oedipus desperately
needs and doesn't have. Oedipus as a child is sent away, separated
from his parents, he never gets his mothers nourishment or his
fathers approval. So seeks it out in the worst way possible.
Connor is like Oedipus - he never got his mother's love or nourishing
unconditional love and kindness, he never had his father's approval
- if anything he was taught that his father was a horrible enemy
that if he wasn't careful he'd become. So Connor plays out the
Oedipus tragedy for much the same reasons Oedipus does.
Spike and Angel are another story - they really aren't in the
Oedipus role. Both received love on some level.
They are in some ways more in the child who lacked one parents
love or attention. One lacked a father. The other appears to have
lacked a mother's support and relied solely on the father's approval.
We don't know. But I'd agree they do seem to be ill-fitting parts
of each other's puzzel.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oedipal,
Parental Issues, Buffy Metaphors, Divorce, Connor (spoilers 5.7)
-- sdev, 12:22:17 11/30/03 Sun
Is this a metaphor for the feelings Joss Whedon had regarding
his own mother who died of Cancer just a few years before the
series started? A mother he spent most of his childhood with,
while his father was elsewhere? Is it a commentary on divorce?
------------------------------
Is this another way of commenting on the child's desire for protection,
warmth, and nurturing from the parental figure and the inability
to get it? What happens when they don't?
Do they become an emotional vampire?
Or a monster?
I instinctively feel there is much commentary, intentional or
just seeping in, going on about families, maternal love, and the
effects of divorce. Recently I looked around and discovered that
JW went to boarding school in England after his parents split
up. I believe he was about 14.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Oedipal, Parental Issues, Buffy Metaphors, Divorce, Connor (spoilers
5.7) -- s'kat, 14:59:47 11/30/03 Sun
sK:"Is this another way of commenting on the child's desire
for protection, warmth, and nurturing from the parental figure
and the inability to get it? What happens when they don't?
Do they become an emotional vampire?"
s'deve: "Or a monster?
I instinctively feel there is much commentary, intentional or
just seeping in, going on about families, maternal love, and the
effects of divorce. Recently I looked around and discovered that
JW went to boarding school in England after his parents split
up. I believe he was about 14."
I think you may be right. The reason I came up with it is I knew
a woman who due to factors beyond her parents' control was sent
to live at an orphanage run by nuns at an early age: 12. She lost
her mother to sickness at the age of 10.
Her father unable to handle all the children sent part of them
off to live with the nuns. Later he remarried and sent for her
and her brother to live with them. This woman was emotionally
scarred by the experience, no matter how much love or attention
you gave her, it was not enough. Her daughters regarded her as
monsterous, b/c she gave little and expected much in return. She
was not a bad woman, and she did love, but she did not know how
to show love - nor did she know how to receive it - much like
a vampire in whedon's mythology. It's not that they don't "love",
it's that they don't know how to demonstrate and recieve it.
I think.
Whedon like many adolescents sent to boarding schools, struggle
with these issues. Without the parental role model who do you
look up to? Who do you rebell against? Wes clearly is a comment
on this - he was head boy after all and I'm not sure, but I think
Giles, Spike, and Angel may be as well. Whedon was not in England
alone - he'd gone with his mother who had a sabbatical there -
but while he was grateful to be with her, he does note in the
interview with IGFN that he resented it as well - the separation
from his father and everything he knew.
Getting back to Frued's Oedipus Complex - Frued hypothesized that
our parents construct the super-ego, that they build it in the
child and pose the model for it. The soul in whedonverse seems
to be a metaphor for the super-ego, so is the vampire the result
of the parents not creating this model?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Small
mythological correction -- KdS, 15:06:31 11/30/03 Sun
The Oedipus story is interesting because what we seldom seem
to discuss why Oedipus sleeps or wants to sleep with Icosta or
wants to kill his father. I think it has do with something Oedipus
desperately needs and doesn't have. Oedipus as a child is sent
away, separated from his parents, he never gets his mothers nourishment
or his fathers approval. So seeks it out in the worst way possible.
We never seem to discuss it because it is not in any sense a conscious
or unconcious decision in the story - it's just the Fates f*cking
with him. He's dumped as a newborn baby because of the prophecy
and never knows who his parents are, and he doesn't find out his
true identity until after the father-killing-mother-marrying happens.
He kills Laius because of a random altercation on the road, gets
to Thebes, kills the Sphinx terrorising it, and marries Queen
Jocasta who happens to be newly widowed. None of the mythological
sources suggest Oedipus consciously knows who either of them are.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Small mythological correction -- leslie, 17:34:56 11/30/03
Sun
Furthermore, the reason Oedipus is on the road when he kills Laius
and is a free agent capable of eliminating the Sphinx and marrying
Jocasta is that when he heard the prophecy about killing his father
and marrying his mother, he left the loving family that had raised
him precisely because he didn't want to fulfill the prophecy.
His adoptive parents treated him like their own flesh and blood
and never told him he wasn't their biological child. Part of the
reason Oedipus is a tragedy is that the message appears
to be that no matter how wonderful your childhood, no matter how
well-intentioned you are, you can't escape the Fates.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
So in short -- s'kat, 18:40:05 11/30/03 Sun
So Freud made it more interesting than it was? sigh.
I like ME's version better than Sophcels, far more interesting.
But then I'm not a structuralist/deist/fatalist but
a post-structuralist/existenialist/who thinks you make your own
fate...which I suppose explains a lot. ;-)
So let's just dump the Oedipus crap and examine Connor, who did
know Angel was his father, and did know Cordelia was the surrogate...and
was raised by a substitute father to kill the biological one.
(Question? Did Oedipus' adoptive father hate his real one?
I can't remember.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: So in short -- leslie, 18:52:41 11/30/03 Sun
I don't think anyone knew who Oedipus's real father was until
the whole reason for the plague afflicting Thebes was revealed.
He had been abandoned by his real parents when the prophecy was
first revealed, found by a shepherd, and turned over to the childless
king of Corinth.
I don't know that Freud made Oedipus more "interesting"
but he certainly reinterpreted the myth to fit his theory. His
point was that even though Oedipus didn't know who he was or who
Laius or Jocasta were, unconsciously he really did want
to kill his father and sleep with his mother, as does every boy.
The whole beginning of the myth, according to Freud, is an exercise
in denial and rationalization to cover up this fact.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> catharsis -- sdev, 19:01:35 11/30/03 Sun
Also, don't sell the Greeks short. The play had meaning and impact
on the audience because of the audience's Oedipal/Electra issues.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Myth and meaning -- mamcu, 20:38:08
11/30/03 Sun
You can read the whole play of Oedipus online at http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/library/classics/oedipus2.html
It's really not very long--and it's a neat detective story, too.
It's interesting that on one level it's true that the essence
of the story is the irony of running directly into your fate as
you try to escape it--but we have that in lots of stories, jokes,
epics, etc., and none of them grab us the way the Oedipus story
does. And Sophocles didn't choose those other stories for his
play, either.
I think it's clear that myths carry a weight of meaning that shines
through no matter what the intention of the teller may be. To
me the heart of the Oedipus story is not just the conflict with
the father but the desire to re-unite with the mother, to be unborn.
(Sophocles says in another place that the best thing is not to
have been born, and next best is to die as a baby). The Oedipal
impulse is Eros, the life instinct, in that it's sexual, but in
a way it's Thanatos, the drive toward death, in that yearning
to return to oblivion.
So it fits really neatly with any vampire's story, since their
symbolism too combines sex and death.
More Whedon brilliance in adapting myth. And being unborn is what
finally happens to Connor.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Myth and meaning -- sdev, 13:04:30
12/02/03 Tue
To me the heart of the Oedipus story is not just the conflict
with the father but the desire to re-unite with the mother, to
be unborn.
Add to that the sire sex connection and the undead want to be
unborn.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> only if freud was right! -- anom, 13:42:34
12/02/03 Tue
Which in many areas he may not have been, or at least not as universally
as he claimed. However, the fact that in the myth Oedipus doesn't
know he wasn't actually born to the parents who raised him & carries
out the prophecy without knowing the man he kills is his father
& the woman he marries his mother is a perfect metaphor for the
subconscious nature of the complex named for him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> What Freud was missing -- Lunasea, 10:10:57
12/02/03 Tue
was his own obsession/complex with things like the Oedipal Complex.
The complex itself was HIS complex. Not that he defined it (the
term Complex comes from Jung and is why Freud saw potential in
him/wanted him to be his intellectual heir), but that he HAD it.
And that is where the story rests. It isn't what Oedipus knew
consciously or unconsciously that is important and that is typically
why it isn't discussed. It is how the story grabs some people.
That "feeling toned" reaction that people get from the
story is the definition of a complex. There various things the
audience can latch onto, as in any good myth. If it is just one
issue, it won't hit as broad an audience.
Personally, I'm not too big on Oedipus the King or Oedipus at
Colonus, but Antigone hits me somewhere deep. Loved Electra as
well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> another
Billy-- Billy Ford in Lie to Me -- sdev, 17:10:57 11/30/03
Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: William's Mother
vs. Liam's Father -- s'kat, 16:57:11 11/28/03 Fri
Interesting post Val, I enjoyed it but disagree with your take
a bit.
I'm puzzled by something I've been seeing on the boards.
Why does everyone keep posting that Liam's father was bad and
Liam was good? If I had a son who got drunk every night, seduced
my maids and summarily dumped them, did 0 work, whined incessantly,
and used our money to spend all his time drinking and womanizing?
(The way Spike treated Harmony? Liam treated every woman he met
that way according to the flashbacks...heck who do you think taught
Spike? )I'd yell at him too. And they should since the kid is
a borderline alcoholic using people for his own pleasure. (Yet,
every poster starts out by saying how bad Liam's father was to
him and how good or lost poor Liam was? ) What did Liam's father
do in the Prodigal? He told Liam to take responsibility for himself.
To get off his drunken ass, to stop being such a disappointment.
Tough Love.
What does Liam do? He leaves home, steals his father's silver
with a bunch of his friends, gets drunk, gets turned by a vampire,
kills the entire village (he killed the village before he killed
his father by the way, his father was last on his list. He kills
his entire family before Dad).
Now I don't know about anyone else, but Liam did not sound like
a nice guy even before he became Angelus. He was hedonistic -
loved booze, women, the good life - hated working. He was into
seducing women without providing for them. (Remember the time
period - 1700s, you get a girl pregnant or sleep with her without
marrying her and she's discarded. )
Something I've always found interesting about Angel is how completely
reprehensible Liam was and how justified his father was for kicking
him out (the FE makes a huge point of it in Amends, so much so
that Angel tries to kill himself out of self-hatred - not for
Angelus but for Liam), the twist is his father loses his son and
his family, because that was not the best idea. The father's mistake
is telling Liam he's a disappointment. But the father is only
human and this may have been the final straw? In Prodigal - Kate's
father states to Angel, he'll never understand his father's pov
until he has kids himself. Ironically when he does have a child,
Connor, who acts in a similar manner to Liam (they really compare
the two in Spin the Bottle, where teenage Liam bonds with teenage
Connor in a really odd way), Angel finds himself forced to do
the same things his father did with him - kick Connor out until
he takes responsibility for his own actions and sees things Angel's
way. While he doesn't tell Connor he's no good, and does let Connor
know he loves him, at the same time he doesn't do a good job of
expressing this, letting jealousy for Cordelia and the desire
to be a champion get in the way - which is understandable yet
leads to the same result that his own father reaped. Is this good
parenting? Well, depends on your pov. PArenting is a tough gig.
Both Liam's father and Connor's reap the same result - the loss
of their son. The only difference is Liam kills his father and
Connor's father metaphorically kills him.
William is a whole other story. Spike unlike Angel, kills his
mother first before anyone else, so actually it is a combination
of Angelus and Anne that bring out the killer in Spike (your statement
that William always wanted to kill people to get his own desires?
Doesn't hold water - since William is only shown killing Anne
prior to meeting Angelus, while Angelus killed his whole village
before killing Daddy). At least that's the impression I got from
LMPTM and Destiny. He really doesn't seem to be into killing as
much as Angel is to start out with. Angel tells Darla he wants
to kill the whole village and let's his father know he's accomplished
it. William tells Dru he wants to show the elitists a thing or
two and have his mother join him. Sounds to me like William was
actually a nice guy. I don't see any evidence from the text or
screen of nastiness in human William, he may be wimpy, and a geek,
but he's not the drunkard, womanizing all around bastard Liam
is shown as being in flashbacks as early as AMends. William is
actually a lot like Wes and Giles in flashbacks - very repressed
British dandy, with a huge mother complex. When he becomes a vampire,
he holds on to this aspect for a little while - or at least until
he meets Angelus who succeeds in beating it out of him, which
is both a good and bad thing.
The two have opposite issues - Angel hates the man he was, because
he was such a pathetic rousteabout, Spike hates the man he was
because he was such a pathetic fool. Angel desires his father's
approval - his mother seems unimportant somehow, Spike desires
his mother's yet also to an extent his father's.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: William's
Mother vs. Liam's Father -- leslie, 19:13:36 11/28/03 Fri
I realize we're getting into the whole messy grey area of what
vampires say about themselves versus what we actually see them
do, but it seems that Angelus has a much greater taste for torture--physical
and psychological--than Spike does. I know there's that one point
when Spike alludes to the things he's done to girls of Dawn's
age, but given that he doesn't supply details, all we really know
is that it's something that tortures his conscience, post-soul.
On the whole, Spike seems to prefer to seduce his victims on some
level, whether straightforwardly sexually or simply through chumming
up with them, then turning on them before they really know what's
happened. (And I can see why this kind of betrayal of trust is
something that would haunt him once he's souled.) Angelus is just
plain a mean bastard. Drusilla is the most extreme example of
his methods, but every time Angelus comes out, I start to get
the feeling that death would be a relief in comparison to being
harassed by him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: William's
Mother vs. Liam's Father -- s'kat, 22:04:34 11/28/03 Fri
Thank you, from some of the posts I've been reading lately I've
begun to wonder if I'm watching the same show everyone else is.
Part of what fascinates me most about Angel The Series is the
writers don't shy away from showing us just what a mean bastard
Angelus really was. And how that meanness still resides in Angel.
It's the tough hardboiled noir hero character - the character
who is a bit like Dirty Harry or the man with no name Clint Eastwood
used to play in all those Westerns - "you really don't want
to piss me off".
Part of the reason I watch every week and have been addicted to
Angel's arc is I'm never sure what Angel will do. How much is
Angelus part of him? How much of the meanness/the sadism that
we see in Angelus was part of Liam and part of Angel and how much
is it the demon? This I suspect is something Angel isn't sure
of himself and fears the answer to. Part of him may fear becoming
a human again, because what if the part of himself that he despises
wasn't the demon at all, but actually him? This fear is heavily
reflected in the conversation with Spike in Destiny as it is also
reflected in his conversation with Buffy in Amends, with Faith
in Enemies and with Angelus in Orpheus. What excites me the most
about this season is I think the writers may actually begin to
explore it in depth.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
William's Mother vs. Liam's Father -- alcibiades, 07:22:44
11/29/03 Sat
How much is Angelus part of him? How much of the meanness/the
sadism that we see in Angelus was part of Liam and part of Angel
and how much is it the demon? This I suspect is something Angel
isn't sure of himself and fears the answer to. Part of him may
fear becoming a human again, because what if the part of himself
that he despises wasn't the demon at all, but actually him? This
fear is heavily reflected in the conversation with Spike in Destiny
as it is also reflected in his conversation with Buffy in Amends,
with Faith in Enemies and with Angelus in Orpheus.
That's a good way to put it. And when you think about it that
way, at the end of Spin the Bottle, it is incredible sadism on
Higher!Power!Cordy's part , at the very moment that Angel had
ceased to be Liam, where he wasn't evil, but just a lazy, womanizing,
frat boy type (in comparison to the obsessive, highly teenagers
that Gunn and Wes both manifested, both of whom were in the know),
Cordy broke up with him because of Angelus. So there, Angel had
just palpably reexperienced his teenaged self only to have Cordy
reject him for the horror that was Angelus.
Of course, this was part of her evil machinations to drive both
Connor and Angel to distraction by playing with their emotions.
But for Angel, so unsure of Liam and who he is at heart, before
all the other layers are added on, to have Cordy reject him at
that very moment -- and when his son for the first time ever saw
him nakedly -- must have been very wounding to his essential self.
Just another layer, another reason to distance his heart from
the world with reason and rationality and never to use his instinct.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: William's Mother vs. Liam's Father -- s'kat, 09:35:34
11/29/03 Sat
But for Angel, so unsure of Liam and who he is at heart, before
all the other layers are added on, to have Cordy reject him at
that very moment -- and when his son for the first time ever saw
him nakedly -- must have been very wounding to his essential self.
Just another layer, another reason to distance his heart from
the world with reason and rationality and never to use his instinct.
This may in fact be at the crux of Angel's psychological dilemma
this year - hence all the holy grail metaphors and the ghostspike
metaphors - Angel is cutting off a part of himself, sealing it
off much like the wounded king in the Fisher King myth, who is
so filled with self-loathing, that all he sees is tainted with
it. He becomes rational, he can't trust his gut, and mercy is
no longer his friend.
Evil!Cordy and Jasmine did a wonderful job of convincing Angel
of something he's always feared, that he is not a good man, not
really a champion. (I don't agree with them by the way - I think
he is and can be, but what I find interesting about him is how
he fears he's not - he reminds me a lot of the character Lymond
in the Dunnett books (near the end of Queen's Play at the moment),
a character who hates himself and manipulates others for a greater
good, despising himself while he does it. Angel similarly has
done this with the mindwipe, yet he's not happy about it.
Every time it comes up, watch Angel's face, he cringes ever so
slightly. Spike is only half right when he says that Angel can't
stand the sight of him because Angel is the one who created him
- that's not quite the full story - what Spike doesn't know is
that the reason Angel can't stand the sight of Spike is every
time Angel looks into Spike's eyes he sees Connor and what Holtz
did to Connor. And has the knowledge that he, Angel, was to Spike
what Holtz was to Connor. That must really burn. Spike in an odd
way is the ghost of Connor haunting Angel...and by association
W&H, he's a representative of the forgotten child. Of course
Spike has much bigger role in the show than just that, but I honestly
believe psychologically that's part of his role at least to Angel,
who is holding onto a powerful secret.
Thanks for these posts btw! Terrific!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: William's Mother vs. Liam's Father -- Claudia, 12:12:35
11/29/03 Sat
Isn't it possible that a combination of the "Tough Love"
that Liam's father gave him, along with his own insecurities that
led to Liam being such a reprobate before Darla had sired him?
Yes, Liam had to take responsibility for his actions, but perhaps
his father's "tough love" approach may have not been
the best idea - at least for Liam.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Being a parent
is a thankless job (unless you're dead)...(5.7 spoilers) --
Valheru, 00:35:50 11/29/03 Sat
I don't think there's a Good/Evil distinction between Liam and
his father. They are both human people, capable of both but beholden
to neither. Nor do I think the blame for what happened to Liam
should be dropped on his father. But what matters is what they
think of each other.
Forget for the moment the Liam of Many Flashbacks, the drunken,
whoring layabout. Instead, remember the teenage Liam of Spin
the Bottle, who believed himself to be a relatively good son.
He thought that he was trying hard to live up to the person his
father wanted him to be, at least as much as his individuality
would allow. He wanted his father's approval, believed that he
had earned it, yet all he seemed to get was derision and scorn.
The parallel here is Wesley in Lineage. To be fair, we
don't know enough about Liam's father to compare him exactly to
Roger, and I very much doubt that Liam was too much like Wesley,
but I don't think it's too far-fetched to assume that there are
a great many similarities.
Sometime between his late teens and the bad-seed Liam of The
Prodigal, Liam stops trying to live up to his father's expectations,
resigning himself to live down to his father's disapproval. Is
his father mean? Abusive? Does he call Liam names for no reason
or insult every inch of his son's being? It doesn't matter. His
father could have been as nice as Richard Wilkins, but as long
as Liam thought his father was like Roger Wyndham-Pryce,
Liam was going to spiral further down the path of self-destruction.
Liam was fitting himself to the image he imagined his father saw
of him.
Now the truth is probably somewhere between Saint Liam and Satanic
Father. Personally, I think Liam was nothing out of the ordinary,
leaning only slightly toward the wrong road, while his father
was similarly average, though perhaps caring more about his family
as a whole than the members as individuals (which probably passed
for a stay-at-home dad in the 1700s upper class). No, what led
to their downfalls was their relationship, how these two otherwise
unremarkably neutral forces repeatedly smashed into one another
so many times that they exploded. It cost Liam's father his life;
it cost Liam so much more.
As for Angel and Connor, I'm working on an essay comparing the
father/son/brother dynamics between Angel, Connor, and Spike which
goes into greater detail, but for the time being, I'll leave this
question: Does Connor have the same relationship with Angel
as Liam did with his father? My answer would be "no,"
that while both have father issues (as discussed in Spin the
Bottle), the specifics aren't that close. In fact, if anyone
can be compared to Connor re: Angel, it is Spike.
With Spike, LMPTM can't stand on it's own without FFL.
FFL tells us that Spike was William's unsouled reaction
to the scorn of his peers and his own insecurities. Spike is William's
revenge. But Anne isn't a part of that. He did not return home
to exact vengeance on his mother as Liam did his father; he went
home to reward his mother. My point was that the direct causes
of Spike (Cecily, the ridicule of his peers, being a momma's boy)
did not require him becoming a vampire to avenge, only that he
grow a pair; Angelus, however, required more dramatic events to
create from Liam. Angelus was a much more difficult being to create
than Spike; and conversely, it was much easier to create the current
Souled!Spike than the current Angel.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Being
a parent is a thankless job (unless you're dead)...(5.7 spoilers)
-- alcibiades, 07:43:45 11/29/03 Sat
Forget for the moment the Liam of Many Flashbacks, the drunken,
whoring layabout. Instead, remember the teenage Liam of Spin the
Bottle, who believed himself to be a relatively good son. He thought
that he was trying hard to live up to the person his father wanted
him to be, at least as much as his individuality would allow.
He wanted his father's approval, believed that he had earned it,
yet all he seemed to get was derision and scorn.
The parallel here is Wesley in Lineage. To be fair, we don't know
enough about Liam's father to compare him exactly to Roger, and
I very much doubt that Liam was too much like Wesley, but I don't
think it's too far-fetched to assume that there are a great many
similarities.
Huh.
But the difference between teenaged Wes and Liam is that even
in Spin the Bottle, Liam really manifests nothing particularly
positive, he's trying to get into Cordelia's pants, he shows no
leadership, he's not in the know the way both Gunn and Wes are
and even Fred is well informed. He's just sort of a beefy frat
boy type who even after he discovers his vampiric powers, is too
terrified to leave the house but instead turns into a hunter,
even if only to scare off the others from hunting him.
At that point, he could have just left the family bosom to start
his own destiny. But instead chose to stay at home to destroy.
Isn't that, in a microcosm, a repetition of what he did as an
adult.
So I agree with s'kat about the evaluation of Liam's father. We
know that Rodger is a terrible father. It has been built up for
years. We don't know that about Angel's father. We know in the
end he kicked Angel out of the house. Well Angel kicked Connor
out of the house when he crossed the line. Does that act alone
make him a terrible father with expectations all too high?
We see Angel taking to heart his father's criticisms in Spin the
Bottle while at the same time all he really wants to do, as he
admits to Connor, is sample Cordy's charms. So he is not taking
those criticisms to heart too much.
But otoh, we see something else with Wesley, a pathological father
trying to destroy the genius in his son from a very young age
and doing a very good job of squashing him underfoot entirely
until he is too bumbling and dislikeable to come across positively
to others. Rodger was trying to breed and destroy a genius simultaneously,
with the highest expectations and a perfectionism no one could
live up to.
Angel's father just wanted a decent bourgeois son that wasn't
a layabout and a wastrel.
So I am not seeing a good comparison.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Being
a parent is a thankless job (unless you're dead)...(5.7 spoilers)
-- s'kat, 09:22:55 11/29/03 Sat
Ah...finally some good character analysis to sink my mind into.
I missed you Val, where have you been? Also missed alcibades -
who debates wonderfully with you.
Forget for the moment the Liam of Many Flashbacks, the drunken,
whoring layabout. Instead, remember the teenage Liam of Spin the
Bottle, who believed himself to be a relatively good son. He thought
that he was trying hard to live up to the person his father wanted
him to be, at least as much as his individuality would allow.
He wanted his father's approval, believed that he had earned it,
yet all he seemed to get was derision and scorn.
I find myself agreeing with alcibades on this one. Let's revisit
Liam in Spin The Bottle - is he really that likable?
Wes and Gunn manifest as well-informed knowledgable teens with
a sense of leadership. Stoner Fred comes across as well-informed
on a certain level. But Liam? He's either interested in getting
into Cordy's pants (he's "not" interested in Cordelia
as a person, he wants to get laid) or fleeing or getting back
at the people hunting him. If Fred hadn't interfered he would
have probably killed Connor.
We don't know what Liam's father was like, but Liam is hardly
a Connor. Connor as rebellious as he is, actually shows some great
qualities in this episode, we don't see in Liam. Does Connor want
Cordy? Yes, but there's a big difference here, he loves her. He
does not remember her as his mother (which is similar to Oedipus
who didn't know Icosta was his mother and Cordy biologically isn't
Connors).
He knows she is kind and loving. And he fell in love with her
when she removed his pain in A New World. S3. He wishes to protect
her. Connor is exactly the same age as Liam in Spin The Bottle
- and Connor like Liam in Spin the Bottle fears he may be a monster,
is angry at his father, and believes he'll never gain his father's
approval - yet in this episode he exhibits daring, leadership
and holds back from killing Liam. The main aggressor is Liam.
It is Liam that is considering biting Cordy's neck, when Connor
shows up. What is fascinating about the Connor/Liam comparison,
is ironically Connor was a better human being and a better son
in some respects than Liam was - even though he did horrible things
to Angel, he legitmately saw Angel as a threat to humanity. Connor,
also, unlike Liam was psychologically tortured by Holtz. You are
right I think when you state that Connor and Spike actually have
more in common father wise than Angel and Connor. Why? Both had
surrogate fathers who psychologically tortured them while befriending
them. Connor's was Holtz. Spike's was Angelus.
To have Spike tell Angel that he created him is an echo of Angel
telling himself that Holtz created Connor...and the question suddenly
becomes how much influence does a parent have? How responsible
are they? Are we just their puppets?
Taking this back to Wes/Roger - Roger is a verison of Holtz and
Angelus in Wes' life. He sees his role as molding his son. This
reminds me of an interesting film called The Emperor's Club based
on the short story The Palace Theif (I think), it stars Kevin
Kline as a teacher at a boy's prep school who believes he can
affect the education of a disgruntled youth. In one pivotal scene
- Kevin Kline meets with the youth's father, a State Senator,
and discusses the boy. The Senator turns to Kevin Kline and tells
him - your only role is to teach my boy information, it is my
job to mold and shape him into the man he will become. The boy
by the way is a cheater and stays a cheater throughout his life.
IS the father responsible for that?
That's the question posed at the end of Lineage - by Roger to
Wes, as Wes grabs the puppeters stick, Roger wishes to use on
Angel. Am I the puppet or the puppeter? Can I pull your strings
and get you to do my bidding? The twist is when Wes fires the
bullets into the person he believes is his father, the person
who has been pulling his strings throughout the episode and possibly
before that - what he sees is in fact another puppet, not his
father at all. OR is it his father? He calls him at the end to
make sure.
The issue with father's and son's is often the same as the one
between mother's and daughter's - the child's worste fear is looking
in the mirror one day and seeing their parents reflection staring
back at them. Some children even blame their parents for all their
adult mistakes - I'm the man or woman you made me. As if we are
nothing but real life pinnochios carved by our parents hands.
Yet even in Pinnochio, Gepetto never held the strings, Pinnochio
did.
Angel blames much of who he was on his father, Spike's and Connor's
comments may in fact be a psychological commentary on that. But
was it Liam's fathers fault? Seemed a pretty standard Dad to me.
And Wes, who truly had a nightmare for a father as alcibades points
out so well below, seems to have conquered it and does not blame
his father for the man he is - Angel excuses Wes's actions, but
what's really interesting is that Wes doesn't.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Another
father/son relationship for Angel -- Jaelvis, 15:54:06
12/02/03 Tue
You mention Angel as a father figure to Spike and I'm reminded
of another "son" Angelus had. In AtS, S1 episode Somnambulist,
Penn was a Puritan that Angeleus sired. In the flashbacks, Penn
is shown drinking his sister dry and Angelus concurring that family
blood is the sweetest and suggests Penn get back at his Puritan
father. The implication here is that Penn's father was stern and
disapproving just like Angel's. (Angel may have been projecting
some in that regard.)
In the present day, Penn is killing people and carving a cross
in their left cheek. It was Angelus' custom to do that as Wesley
points out. When Angel and Penn have their first confrontation,
he accuses Penn of still trying to get back at this father after
200 years. In a later confrontation, Penn tells Angel he is right,
he has been getting back at his father. He has come to realize
that Angelus is his father. He accuses Angel/us of making him
who is today: a viscious killer. It echoes the same words that
Spike says to him in Destiny. You made me a monster. Seems that
Angelus enjoyed teaching newly turned vamps how to be ruthless
and viscious.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> what makes a monster?
-- sdev, 00:46:52 11/29/03 Sat
Now the conventional wisdom is that the creature that Darla
greets at the graveyard is Angelus. I don't think so. Angelus
isn't born until Liam's father is killed and he comes to the realization
that he has denied himself forever his father's approval. No,
what we see first is simply Liam the Vampire
I'm not understanding your point. Mine is quite simple. Regardless
of what name you choose to call him or whether his motive is personal
or generic, Liam/Angelus literally gets out of the grave and goes
on a killing spree of the town, including his own family, on a
scale that surprises even Darla. I do believe his motive is revenge
in the first instance thus the grand scale which surpasses instinct
and blood lust and his specific choice of killing his immediate
family.
William acts differently after becoming a vampire. He does not
kill on that scale, he begins to develop devoted (loving?) feelings
for Drusilla, retains his devotion to his mother, and in a vampirically
twisted fashion turns his mother in an effort to cure her disease.
Even at the time of the flashback scene in Destiny which was at
some uncertain later point in time William still seems to have
retained a softer side. In the coach with Angelus, he laughs at
Angelus' deeds but does not seem to have joined in, and he opts
to leave to find Drusilla as soon as he can get away.
But William is almost the total opposite. His primary desire,
post-siring, is to exact revenge on basically everyone but his
parent. IOW, it is William's personal desire to "take the
village," not just his vampiric instinct.
I do not agree that William, despite his rash and boastful statement,
has the desire to exact revenge. His actions, or should I say
non-actions, belie that intent. That statement has a parallel
in Becoming 2 and Spike explains it there:
===========================
SPIKE: I told you. I want to stop Angel. (snickers) I want to
save the world.
BUFFY: Okay. You do remember that you're a vampire, right?
SPIKE: We like to talk big. Vampires do. 'I'm going to destroy
the world.' That's just tough guy talk. Strutting around with
your friends over a pint of blood. The truth is, I like this world.
You've got... dog racing, Manchester United. And you've got people.
Billions of people walking around like Happy Meals with legs.
It's all right here. But then someone comes along with a vision.
With a real... passion for destruction. Angel could pull it off.
Goodbye, Picadilly. Farewell, Leicester Bloody Square. You know
what I'm saying?
=========================
I don't think the series has ever shown a Spike with Angelus'
kind of destructive ambitions even after Spike did become a monster.
Angelus was the Big Bad of S2 for a reason - he had the desire
to suck the world into hell. Spike never goes near there. Angelus
also had a sadism "the artistry of the kill" Spike does
not appear to have.
So yes I made the logical assumption that the one who from the
grave committed the monstrous acts was born a monster. And that
the one who from birth retained some human qualities such as caring
about a sick mother and devotion to a paramour was not yet a monster.
Is monstrous from the grave Angelus suprising? Of course not.
Angelus was the worst vampire ever for a reason. Spike is only
second and even that may have more to do with his Slayer killing
than anything else, I suspect. Angelus is a creature of grand
scale; Spike developed a niche. In S4 Angelus is willfully brought
forth and is the only one capable of defeating the Beast who caused
the sun to disappear and destroyed all of LA W&H in a day. Is
it a stretch to say that Angelus can defeat the Beast because
he is worse than the Beast? I believe that is implied.
I also don't understand your depiction of Liam and his father.
Liam made one comment about trying to please his father but the
Liam portrayed is clearly not trying to please anyone but his
own urges. I won't go into it further since s'kat laid it out
so well. Suffice it to say that the father has every right to
be critical of Liam.
In terms of the Oedipal question. I suppose it hinges on how you
view the Spike and Anne scene in LMPTM. Is Anne telling the truth
here or is William?
=============================
MOTHER: You want to run, don't you? Scamper off and cry to your
new little trollop. Do you think you'll be able to love her? Think
you'll be able to touch her without feeling me? All you ever wanted
was to be back inside. You finally got your wish, didn't you?
Sank your teeth into me. An eternal kiss.
WILLIAM: (horrified) No! I only wanted to make you well.
MOTHER: You wanted your hands on me. Perhaps you'd like a chance
to finish off what you started.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: what makes
a monster? -- Dlgood, 06:55:44 11/29/03 Sat
I don't think the series has ever shown a Spike with Angelus'
kind of destructive ambitions even after Spike did become a monster.
That's true. He's less ambitious in that regard, but the "Becoming"
quote doesn't accurately describe Spike either, because at the
end of the episode he walks out with Drusilla fully believing
that Angelus will kill Dru and send the world to Hell. He doesn't
really care about much of anything other than maintaining possession
over Dru.
Which does fit his pattern. One the one hand, turning his mother
can be seen as an act of twisted kindness. But on the other, it's
about getting to maintain possession of her forever. It's about
what Spike wants, not about what she wants, and he's more crushed
to learn that she does not want what he does than by the realization
that he's just violated her in a horrific way.
He does not really make the connection that he should not do unto
others what he did not want done unto him. It allows him to engage
in cruetly without even recognizing it as such.
Angelus' evil is more direct and intentionally cruel. Spike's
evil is monstrous of it's own sort, but it is more subtle and
based in Spike the commodity fetishist, seeing people as objects
to fill his needs. That others have worthwhile wants, that might
not coincide with what he believes they are supposed to want,
doesn't occur to him. On a certain level, Spike can still remain
a little bit naive about how terrible his acts were because, soul
or no, he's still not given to empathizing with others and self-reflection.
And his comparisons with Angelus also allow him to maintain that
naivete. He can claim that he wasn't really all that bad, and
that Angelus (or Dru, or the pain of rejection) made him a monster
instead of having to face that he very gleefully embraced 120
years as a brutal murder by his own choice.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: what
makes a monster? (spoilers through Angel 5.8) -- sdev, 08:20:18
11/29/03 Sat
Hope you had a nice holiday.
but the "Becoming" quote doesn't accurately describe
Spike either, because at the end of the episode he walks out with
Drusilla fully believing that Angelus will kill Dru and send the
world to Hell. He doesn't really care about much of anything other
than maintaining possession over Dru.
You are correct. Spike, of course, is an evil vampire and by this
time a monster himself. His agenda in Becoming is self-involved,
of the see, want, take Drusilla variety. My point is not that
Spike was in any way acting noble in Becoming, but he was not
ambitiously 'desire to end the world evil' either. The second
point is look at what he wants (to be with his lover) not
just the why of it. Scale and ambition to commit large scale harm
are paramount as we viewers have come to learn from all the run-of-the-mill
vampires we have seen slain compared to the apocalypses averted.
One the one hand, turning his mother can be seen as an act
of twisted kindness. But on the other, it's about getting to maintain
possession of her forever. It's about what Spike wants
I partly agree. But just to say that William/Spike acts selfishly
here is to miss the point. Again what does William want is more
the question, not why. I do believe he is interested in sparing
his mother the wasting illness. But even if his motive is just
to "maintain possession of her forever" that is a desire
coming from a loving place that has quite a different feel than
the desire to eliminate her from the face of the earth as an act
of revenge and demonstration of newly found power. Is it warped?
Of course, he's still a soulless vampire with evil judgment.
On a certain level, Spike can still remain a little bit naive
about how terrible his acts were because, soul or no, he's still
not given to empathizing with others and self-reflection.
Here I really don't agree. Spike can and does empathize with some
characters. Even soulless, for some odd reason, he seemed to empathize
with Tara in Family. Is it selective? Yes. Is it affected in a
most puerile way, as in Unleashed, by his real and overriding
fears for his own well-being, yes. Also I thought the speech in
the fight scene in Destiny demonstrated that Spike does reflect
on self. Also he gives Angel a self-reflective speech in Just
Rewards when he first materializes.
As I said in my earlier post, Spike does not and should not get
a free pass because of Angelus' tutelage. What matters in the
end for Spike (and for Angel as well) is where they are going
with this now. How can they unmake the monster? I do think the
how of creation may affect the how of recreation. Thus the answer
for the two may be quite dissimilar because the origins were different.
This is consistent with Spike having already taken a very different
route than Angel to get where he is now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good
post s'deve! -- s'kat, 08:52:55 11/29/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: what
makes a monster? -- Claudia, 09:14:33 12/02/03 Tue
"He can claim that he wasn't really all that bad, and that
Angelus (or Dru, or the pain of rejection) made him a monster
instead of having to face that he very gleefully embraced 120
years as a brutal murder by his own choice."
Can we really say this about Spike? Can we make similar statements
about Angel, Drusilla or any other vampire (I'm not sure about
Darla, or Billy Ford)? I mean, when you think about it, did any
of them make the choice to become a vampire? To be infused with
a demonic essence?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
what makes a monster? -- Dlgood, 01:13:40 12/03/03 Wed
IMHO, we can certainly say such things. Because Spike's assertion
isn't that he would have still been a regular human.
He's asserting that while Dru may turned him into a vampire, he
was only a particularly bad one because Angel made him so. Not
indirectly through Dru, but because of how Angelus treated him.
And perhaps, without Angelus, he would have been a fluffy kitten
of a vampire with bad teeth just trying to have a lovely time
with his girl. That he might otherwise have just been at the "Harmony"
level of evil. But regardless, Spike chose to embrace what Angelus
showed him, and to continue to be William the Bloody, slayer of
slayers, long after Angelus left the picture. Angelus didn't make
him do that - it was his choice to accept Angelus' teachings and
embrace the century of mayhem on his own.
That's the responsibility Spike is avoiding.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> William and Anne
-- Claudia, 12:30:09 12/01/03 Mon
"And while I'm thinking of it, a question for you psychological
minds out there: could Spike and Angel perhaps represent two halves
of a single Oedipal whole? Spike, who wants to sleep with the
mother, and Angel, who wants to kill the father?"
How do we know that William wanted to sleep with his own mother?
What if it was the reverse? That Anne wanted to sleep with her
own son? I found it interesting that VampAnne had brought up the
matter of incest, after she had commented derisevely on VampWilliam's
relationship with Drusilla.
[> [> [> [> Marvellous post- thank you -- Tchaikovsky,
03:45:36 11/27/03 Thu
I'm interested by Spike as reluctant Hero. He's just such a mass
of contradictions that I really don't know whether charaterising
him is all that easy, but you do an excellent job of trying.
I've rewatched Lineage, and frankly, the scene with Eve and Spike
in the elevator is enough of a mislead that I don't suspect that
without having seen 5.8 I would have garnered anything different
on repeated viewings from what I posted. Although Eve is interested
about the effects of the amulet, and who it was sent for, the
fact that Spike is paranoid about being tracked by Eve is supposedly
played up by the Pavayne line. I mean, if we are supposed to go
out of the episode believing that Spike is correct in his suspicions,
then you wouldn't expect a line where he clearly assumes something
entirely unrelated to him is all about him straight after his
interrogation of Eve.
The fact that I've been done by a mislead doesn't surprise me
much though- I'm a sucker for plot twists. But go back and watch
Lineage on its own, and tell me that the characterisation of Spike
in the episode is more than based around his own interest in self.
I'm not arguing that this is a bad thing, per se. It is his heroic,
life-giving climax to his story that saved the world in Chosen.
But in Lineage we have:
1) Spike leaping in to tell Angel about his discoveries about
Wesley at an inopportune moment.
2)Spike with the over-rehearsed sympathy to Wesley, talking about
his own mother.
3) Spike's assumption that the elevator incident is Pavayne.
4) Spike being useful, but as an expression of his inner belief
in himself by saving Gunn. Look back to his punch- is he happier
that he has the self-belief to connect with the robot's jaw, or
that he has saved Gunn?
As Buffy said in NLM - you don't even know you. I think that
line still holds true.
Oh, absolutely, and for more than one reason. Firstly, because,
as Spike also reveals around that time in Season Seven 'It's all
about you Buffy'. His self is trammelled underfoot by his incredible
love for this figure. Secondly, as I've written about at length
before, Spike is throughout the series leashed by something or
other- his wheelchair, his chip, his soul, the amulet. His character
comes from a place of constant conflict between what he wants
to do (the id, one might postulate), and what he's allowed to
do by his conditioning, (maybe the superego). In which case, we
might wonder just where the ego is, and come to the conclusion
thatit's under-developed. His sense of self is still weak, and
this may be part of the reason why he's so interested in his own
worries.
What I should note is that I believe Spike has made the noblest
sacrifice so far this season- that of the end of Hellbound.
That he remains a fascinating character to me. That I'm looking
forward to 'Destiny'. And that in 'Lineage' we see one of the
trickster's many sides- which I seem to have failed to get across
without appearing to belittle him. That was not my intention.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [> Looking in the wrong direction
-- Ponygirl, 08:28:02 11/27/03 Thu
It's interesting that this entire episode is based on misleads.
No one's watching when Fred gets hurt, no one's watching when
Roger gets the gun. Wesley seeks to protect the books when really
they're just an excuse to get to the real prize. Only Spike is
paying attention to Eve, but then she's the only one watching
him.
Eve's words in the elevator, about Spike "affecting the world"
are worth pursuing. Didn't think that moving a glass had such
broad implications. Unfortunately Spike's insight and menace in
the elevator are a bit of a mislead too since his reaction to
the lights going out seems to me to indicate that everything he
is doing, has been doing, is an attempt to cover his terror. He's
dancing as fast as he can.
Fred's tired of being helpless and wants a gun of her own. Wesley
is trying to assert his own power against two separate authority
figures. Spike is afraid of being powerless. And then there's
Angel lying on the roof of the building his will completely drained,
all control in the hands of another.
[> [> [> [> [> Ah thank you! Regarding Puppets
-- s'kat, 14:32:07 11/28/03 Fri
The episode in Lineage is all about being a puppet. A puppet to
our parents, a puppet to our job or workplace, a puppet to our
own desires, even a puppet to the super-ego.
The enemy in Lineage are puppets themselves - controlled by an
unseen external force. And their purpose is to get a stick that
would make Angel nothing more than a puppet by removing his will.
To get this stick, they send a puppet that looks exactly like
Wes' father in order to pull Wes's strings, and Roger does, he
pulls the strings necessarily to get Wes to show him where the
stick is. What the cyberborg doesn't understand is that Wes has
already broken some of Daddy's strings. Wes is "no longer"
head boy.
"1) Spike leaping in to tell Angel about his discoveries
about Wesley at an inopportune moment."
Very important scene, but so many viewers missed it. Why? for
the same reasons you did. Look at the scene again and compare
it to one that happens before - the scene where EVE starts to
take an interest in Spike. Spike discovers from Roger, Wes' father,
that Wes used to be "head boy". Roger makes a huge point
about this. Sort of like stating - "Wes is my puppet".
Head boys are the kids who do whatever the authority figures tell
them, they get high grades because they parrot back the information
the best, they are considered teacher's pets by the other students
(I got this from the Harry Potter books). Roger goes out of his
way to remind Wes he is a puppet - through the mention of being
evaluated by the Council, how Roger saved him from doing a ressurection
spell, and of course the head boy remark.
Spike who can't effect his universe, because he's a ghost and
can't leave W&H b/c of the amulet - keeps getting his strings
yanked. Before Roger makes the comment about Wes being headboy,
Spike affects the physical universe and disrupts everyone at an
inopportune moment. That's when Eve gets interested. Later Spike
jumps in at another inopportune moment to make the head boy comment
- this is a metaphor for both Spike and Wes' current emotional
states and how both are dealing - they've both been puppets before,
both are attempting to break those strings. Spike's comment is
to Angel, who is currently holding both Wes and Spike's strings.
"We're your head boys for now"...The fact he jumps in
at that point and out again, shows the resistance.
"2)Spike with the over-rehearsed sympathy to Wesley, talking
about his own mother."
Again an interesting parallel - Spike was in a sense a puppet
to his mother, actually Spike's relationship to his mother may
in some respects have more in common with Wes' to his father,
than it does to Angel, hence Wes' comment to Angel (not the same
thing) and creeped out reaction to Spike. William was all about
doing whatever mother wanted, when he finally breaks her apron
strings is when he is turned into a vampire - but he's not ready,
so he attempts to take hold of the strings and make his mother
his puppet by turning her, he finally breaks them when he stakes
her. Metaphorically the same thing happened to Wes yet in a twisty
way - Wes has broken or so he though Daddy's strings by leaving
the Council, but Dad shows up and Wes is back to where he started.
He finally breaks the strings when he kills his father and his
father turns out not to be his real father at all just a puppet.
Just as when William finally breaks free by staking his mother,
who isn't really his mother at all but a demon. The writer uses
Spike's over-rehearsed monologue to emphasize the metaphor. (yes,
it's rather clunkily written, but I believe that was the point.)
"3) Spike's assumption that the elevator incident is Pavayne."
You've forgotten what PArvayne symbolized - Parvayne is like the
villain in Coppelia, a puppeter, he bends spirits to his will.
He also may be a metaphor for Angel who is manipulating his friends
with the mindwipe. When Spike screams out Parvayne, the writer
is reminding us that Spike is still a puppet, he can't leave,
he can't really affect the physical plane. But Angel can leave
and affect the plane and it is partly because of Angel that Spike
is
a ghost and stuck in W&H.
"4) Spike being useful, but as an expression of his inner
belief in himself by saving Gunn. Look back to his punch- is he
happier that he has the self-belief to connect with the robot's
jaw, or that he has saved Gunn?"
Why can't it be both? I honestly think it is. Since if you go
back to Tale, Spike is trying to help Gunn and is prevented. Also
remember he can't affect the physical plane, he is like a puppet.
When he bends his will to knock out the robot, he actually shows
he's more than a puppet, he can affect his own reality - this
happens shortly before Angel almost gives up his ability to affect
his reality when Roger attempts to take his will.
Also, if he just wanted to kick a robot? Why do it only when Gunn
was attacked?
Each character has a role to play. The episode wasn't really about
Wesley, it was about not letting others manipulate us like puppets.
It was all about "will".
[> [> [> [> [> [> And so we return to the
essential conflict of the Season -- Tchaikovsky, 06:11:27
11/29/03 Sat
How much are we in control of our own actions? How much our the
decisions that we make, rebounding on other people necessarily
collective, or individual? Angel restoring the world's free will
from Jasmine in 'Peace Out', and then declining Connor's in 'Home'.
Spike sacrificing his ability to carry out his will in 'Hellbound'
for the sake of others who would suffer, becoming puppets themselves.
Part of the question of the season is, how much is Angel the puppet
and how much the puppetteer. He's controlled Connor, and he's
trying to play puppetmaster to Wolfram and Hart. But how much
is he actually having his strings pulled by Eve and the Senior
Partners? It all reminds me of the interesting film 'Being John
Malkovich' with the puppetteer helping the obsessive lady get
inside Malokvich's minds. Just who is playing who?
Note that Pavayne originally casts himself as puppetmaster, but
that it only takes Spike realising that he might not be, that
lovely harnessing of doubt, to allow him to revoke Pavayne's power.
Then we get 'Tale' and Number Five allowing his life to be puppetted
through Wolfram and Hart because of his loss of his family (an
obvious parallel to Angel in 'Home').
At the end of 'Lineage', we see Wesley, not becoming the puppetteer,
but trying to negotiate an honest two-way relationship with his
father. And that's why that ending is a more successful one than
a Wesley/Fred scene might have been, in my opinion. We've got
Angel drawing Fred as Wesley's puppet, but a valued one not to
get hurt. Fred rejects the puppet role.
All interesting themes for the season.
TCH
Euro Trip (OT) for Michele Tract.. fans --
neaux, 07:28:29 11/26/03 Wed
this has been circling the net this week.. so I'm posting this
here only for the Dawnie fans out there.
She is being very UN-Dawnie like in these photos.
check out Euro Trip shots HERE
Replies:
[> (OT) Xena Fans Lucy Lawless in this picture too --
Cleanthes,
07:55:40 11/27/03 Thu
[> oh........ my.... -- Sheri, 11:12:57 11/27/03
Thu
Gee, she sure is... rib-y, isn't she?
[> [> Yeah... -- Philistine, 08:58:22 11/28/03
Fri
But at least you can't - quite - pick out individual vertebrae
from the front.
[> [> [> Re: Yeah... -- CTH, 20:24:17 12/01/03
Mon
She's stretching... gonna make you "rib-ey". Nice word.
[> Child actresses moving into adult roles. -- Darby,
14:04:19 11/26/03 Wed
It's interesting how actresses that transition from child roles
to adult roles often have to (or feel they have to) go
through a period of ADULT roles. Drew Barrymore, Christina
Ricci, Jodi Foster, Alyssa Milano, all seemed to feel that they
had to have a statement role that no, they weren't little
girls anymore. This looks like another example of that. It's interesting
that SMG kind of stumbled into an adult role on her soap, and
seems less inclined to such a pattern (well, with Cruel Intentions
and Harvard Man, maybe not).
And there's another, more blatant MT example here.
'Big bad, little bad'?: seasonal patterns on AtS
and BtVS (spoilers, AtS s. 1-5) -- Masq, 09:47:28 11/26/03
Wed
I've seen some posts speculating about this season's "big
bad" and "little bad" and I've been much too busy
to post any replies to the use of those terms, so now that I have
a free minute, I decided to create a whole thread on the topic.
Posters more astute than I can explain to you all about the thematic
differences between AtS and BtVS, including the darker tone, the
noir influences, blah blah blah. I just wanted to comment on the
seasonal arc pattern.
On BtVS, there always seemed to be a bad guy introduced who was
built up slowly and then finally defeated in episode 22. Before
or after his/her introduction, a lesser bad guy was introduced,
and various trials and tribulations ensued.
* In season 1, you get the Master as the Big Bad. Not really a
little Bad in that season, which was shorter than the others (some
of you might have theories about a possible Little Bad).
* In season 2, you get the introductin of Spike and Drusilla,
but they are the little Bads before the big turn in Innocence
which gives us an unexpected Big Bad, Angelus.
* In season 3, little Bad Trick is introduced in ep 3 and dusted
in episode 15. But it the Mayor, and the Mayor's seduction of
Faith, that is the Big Bad of the season.
* Season 4 gave us something much more morally ambiguous, the
Initiative. They seemed to have the same purpose as the Scoobies,
but corruption in their ranks led to the creation of Adam, the
season's Big Bad (defeated in ep 21 for a change).
* Season 5 had Glory as the Big Bad, with some different little
Bads including suspicion about Dawn and Joyce's cancer.
* The Little Bads of Season 6 of course, were the Trio, who kept
us entertained until Willow vowed revenge against them and turned
into the Big Bad who couldn't be killed, only saved from herself.
* Season 7 had the First Evil as a Big Bad, with the Turok-han
holding court for a while as the little Bads.
There were always variations on this theme, but the theme was
pretty clear: on BtVS, the Big Bads were usually unambiguously
Bad, and not only needed to be defeated, but outright killed to
achieve that end.
AtS has its own pattern, or perhaps, no consistent pattern at
all, which is part of its more ambiguous world-view.
Season 1 of AtS introduces us to Wolfram and Hart, who plague
Angel all through the season in various ways (mostly in an attempt
to kill him). I remember expecting them to be neutralized somehow
at the end of the season. Instead, in episode 22, they are still
around, healthy as ever. They have just changed their strategy.
These guys aren't going away.
They go from wanting to eliminate Angel as an adversary to courting
him as a possible ally (following the prophecy that the Vampire
with a Soul's role in the apocalypse was unclear--he would be
a key player, but whether on the side of good or evil was unknown).
Wolfram and Hart is about as evil as the various adversaries Angel
and Co will face get, and yet we will come to see a vulnerable,
morally uncertain side in some of their employees, like Lindsey
and Lilah.
In season 2 the "little Bad" appears to be Darla, but
she is human, a tool of Wolfram and Hart, and she soon comes to
feel the stirrings of her soul. Then, just as she is about to
accept her human life and sins and her human death, Wolfram and
Hart step in and make her a vampire again.
But the evil reign of Vampire Darla (and Drusilla) doesn't last
long. The real focus of mid-season is Noir Angel and his vendetta
against W&H. And then that comes to an end as well.
If you're looking for a build-up towards a Big Bad to match Darla's
"little Bad" in season 2, it ain't gonna happen. It's
not about the final defeat of the enemy in episode 22. It's about
the journey. It's about Angel changing his reasons for fighting
the good fight between episode 1 and episode 16 and episode 22.
Because lo and behold, in episode 16 Darla disappears, W&H goes
back into the background, and in episode 18, the show veers sideways
and there's a whole new arc in the last 4 episodes of the season
that is really about revealing who the characters are as people,
not defeating a season-long villian.
Season 3 has something that resembles the little-Bad/big-Bad pattern,
with the demon Sahjahn being the "little bad" that makes
life miserable for Angel and the new hope (the new reason for
fighting, 'cause it's always about Angel's reasons for fighting)
he has in his son.
Sahjhan stirs up the waters and introduces Holtz, who will be
the one to make Angel's life miserable in the second half of the
season. But Holtz isn't a "Big Bad". If ever there was
a sympathetic "bad" guy, it's Daniel Holtz. And Angel
isn't Buffy; he's got a long, dark history, including killing
Holtz's family. So when Holtz comes after Angel and steals Connor
and ruins Angel's hopes, there is no clear black-and-white. There
is just two men and their families and pain. Holtz dies at the
end of episode 21 by his own choice in one last act of vengeance.
Wolfram and Hart, in the meantime, has been ever in the background
plotting and scheming, a player in the action, but not really
a major player.
Season 4 is probably the closest we come to the Buffy formula,
with the Beast serving as the Little Bad and Jasmine/Evil!Cordelia
serving as the Big Bad. But while the Beast is unambiguously Bad
(and AtS got a lot of flack for that, because it isn't normal
for them), Jasmine, like Holtz, was really more of the Big Moral
Ambiguity. She was doing a lot of good things. She was doing a
lot of bad things. When Angel deposed her and brought back free
will to the world, he also brought back darkness and despair and
pain.
No easy answers here.
Wolfram and Hart was once again plotting and scheming in the background,
but in episode 8, they were knocked out of the picture violently
and unambiguously and would stay that way until episode 22.
So is season 5 the season when Wolfram and Hart will finally be
the "Big Bad" (instead of the ever-present "Big
Pain in the Neck")? Or will it be someone else who has been
introduced in the eps we've seen so far (won't mention names here,
you can rattle off a list if you want)?
Or maybe those are the wrong questions to ask. While it's true
that ME might decide to go with the BtVS pattern to make things
familiar and comfortable for the newbies, I don't see any reason
to assume there will be Big Bads and Little Bads this season.
There will be obstacles, there will be Wolfram and Hart plotting
and scheming as usual, this time in the foreground instead of
the background, and Angel will struggle with his personal issues.
And like every other season, it will be about the journey, Angel's
journey, his hopes rising and crashing, his motives going from
pure to tainted to everything in between.
All we can say for sure is that BtVS is about empowerment, about
fighting and defeating the metaphorical demons of youth, and that
is what Buffy and her friends did, time and time again. And Angel
is about fighting one's inner demons, about finding reasons to
live and embrace life and finding reasons to fight the Good fight
and not give in to darkness and despair.
Replies:
[> choices -- manwith, 07:26:17 11/28/03 Fri
I pretty much agree. AtS tends to suggest and illustrate choices,
and what matters is really not who Angel vanquishes, but how he
chooses to continue. Buffy's concern was always to progress spiritually
or psychologically, and that progression was shown in her defeat
of the obstacles to that progression. Angel's concern seems to
be stasis. How can he maintain himself and his journey. He has
opportunities to progress, to alter or to end his journey, and
he consistently chooses to remain in the same struggle.
Again this season seems to be offering choices for Angel. On one
side is the societal structure of rules, laws and obligations
that crowd out morality and compassion. This structure seems represented
by Wolfram and Hart. On the other side seems to be some religious
codification of moral behavior, as suggested by all the religious
imagery we've been bombarded with, from Eve, to Hell, to the Holy
Grail.
Both systems offer rewards that will change Angel and his journey
forever. Wolfram and Hart can give him corrupting power. Religious
morality can give him sanshu. But as you correctly point out,
Angel is about the journey, not the end. He must find a way to
continue his journey without corruption or rewards, a way to choose
to stay Angel, helper of the hopeless.
In Wagner's Parsifal, the title character's name means "Pure
Fool," and he achieves the Grail through that purity. Neitzsche,
a huge lover of Wagner, hated Parsifal, and said that Wagner
had "collapsed helpless before the Christian Cross."
He said Parsifal's "message of chastity is an invitation
to pathology, and I despise anyone who does not consider it an
attack on morality itself."
Nietszsche was, of course, familiar with Wolfram's story from
the 11th century or so which Wagner had significantly altered.
In Wolfram's story the character is named Perceval, and his name
translates to "Through the Middle." Perceval explicitly
goes beyond religious codes of morality and beyond the societal
structures represented by the Arthurian court. In Wolfram's story,
Perceval achieves the grail through an act of will based on lived
experience of love and sacrifice.
So once again, even with the grail imagery, we seem to be offered
choices. One can follow this system or that, or one can go through
the middle, exercising free will in accordance with lived experience
of love and sacrifice.
Which will Angel do?
(I will mildly disagree about Buffy being about youth. Its about
the metaphorical demons of life, whatever age you are. Buffy's
popularity with the older crowd was not by way of nostalgia. I
liked the way lunasea worded it. Buffy is the buddha, Angel is
a bodhisattva. Buffy's found nirvana and now she's gone. Angel
is making sure everyone else has a chance to get there. Buffy
had to fight her inner demons, find reasons to embrace life, to
fight the good fight and not give in to despair. She had to do
all that as steps towards bliss. Angel continues to do this because,
having been offered bliss, he declined to go.)
[> [> Re: choices -- sdev, 22:37:28 11/28/03 Fri
I saw your very interesting earlier post on this subject but it
was gone so quickly I did not have a chance to ask. Guilt is a
very immobilizing emotion. My sense is that Angel's stasis is
his problem, but I somehow do not think that is what you are saying.
Could you clarify? Do you think through stasis he will acheive
redemption which I believe you have stated is his goal?
I apologize if I have misstated you I am going in part from memory
of your earlier post.
[> [> [> Re: choices -- manwitch, 22:05:11
11/29/03 Sat
I guess I don't really think he's guilty. At least that's not
the primary force with him. He will decline redemption for himself,
because he isn't sure whether or not he's worthy of it. But he's
going to do whatever he can to help other people get it.
so whenever he has the opportunity to be redeemed in some tangible
way, like becoming human or being with buffy or walking in the
sunlight, he ultimately rejects it in favor of helping someone
else. Other people deserve the reward not him. So he ends up in
a sort of stasis.
I expect there's a form of redemption in that, but he's not looking
to "move on" the way Buffster was.
If that helps.
[> [> [> [> thanks -- sdev, 23:34:02 11/30/03
Sun
[> [> pure speculation--or pure foolishness? -- anom,
11:11:03 11/30/03 Sun
"In Wagner's Parsifal, the title character's name means 'Pure
Fool,' and he achieves the Grail through that purity.... In Wolfram's
story the character is named Perceval, and his name translates
to 'Through the Middle.' Perceval explicitly goes beyond religious
codes of morality and...societal structures.... [He] achieves
the grail through an act of will based on lived experience of
love and sacrifice."
Parsifal...Perceval...more familiar in English as Percival...& which
character is referred to as "Percy" in Lineage? Yes,
I know (though I had to be told!) that's a character in the Harry
Potter books, & of course Wesley has no need to shanshu. Not literally,
anyway. I suppose it could mean he'll be instrumental in the events
leading up to shanshu for whichever vamp achieves it, & maybe
regain more of the humanity he's shut himself off from in the
process (hey, there've been lots of character parallels this season),
more likely through will based on experience than through purity.
Or it could mean nothing, just a tossed-off HP reference.
[> The Big Bad for season five Angel (spoilers, AtS s. 1-5)
-- Rufus, 18:08:00 11/28/03 Fri
Remember back to the early season with Holland Manners speaking
about the employee's of Wolfram and Hart but first some Angel
and Lindsey....
from season one Angel...Five by Five
Angel: "He just needed a little guidance - a push in
the right direction."
Wesley: "I wonder how Wolfram & Hart are going to push
back."
Lindsey and Angel in Five By Five....
Lindsey: "It's a big firm. Tell you what I can
do. I can give you the number for Personnel, though. I'm
sure they'd be glad to handle your problem."
Angel: "You'd remember this one. Pretty, dark hair, kills
things?"
Lindsey: "I assure you that we have strict hiring practices."
Angel: "So how does it work for a guy like you? -
Successful lawyer in a big law firm, - company car, - nice
office, bonus: - can hire a killing when ever you want. Kind of
got it made, right?"
Lindsey: "Well, we'll just add slander to breaking and entering.
While we're on the subject, I remember you throwing one of my
clients through a window. Killed him if I'm not mistaken."
Angel: "Yes. I seem to remember. (Turns to point at the window)
The window was just about that size. Hmm. Too bad the body burned
up before it hit the ground. I might have needed a good lawyer."
Lindsey: "I'm sorry, we only handle a certain class of clientele."
Funny how it appears that Angel and Lindsey's positions seem to
have switched with Angel now the guy with the office and the cars.
Blind Date
Holland: "It's your age. You're a young man. You've hitched
your wagon to our star. Oh, and it's a bright star. - But now
you're starting to feel a little 'Is that all there is?"
Lindsey: "Sometimes you question things, but I mean it's
no big..."
Holland: "Yeah, I did a lot of crazy things when I was your
age - searching and all. - Took me a while to realize how the
world was put together and where I belonged in it. - And actually
the world isn't that complicated. - It's designed for those who
know how to use it."
Lindsey: "Yes, sir."
Holland: "Don't give me that 'yes, sir' crap. I want you
to think about these things. - You're not going to be happy
until you find your place in the scheme of things.
Hmmmm where ever did Lindsey find himself while he was out of
sight out of mind? A tatoo parlor?
Lindsey: "I-I didn't want to lie to you. I didn't - want
to betray you. I just wanted out."
Holland: "Hm. Well, then you're in a crisis, son - crisis
of faith. - Do you believe in love? - I'm not speaking romantically.
- I'm talking about that sharp, clear sense of self a man gains
- once he's truly found his place in the world. - It's no mean
feat, since most men are cowards and just move with the crowd.
Very few make their own destinies. They have the courage
of their convictions, and they know how to behave in a
crisis."
Lindsey: "Like now?"
Holland: "Like now. You have everything it takes to go all
the way here - drive, ambition, - excellence - but you don't
know where you belong. And until you do - I guess we both
have some important questions to answer. - Now, my first one is
- do I nod - to my friend behind me? - No, - I don't. Because
I know you, and I know a little something about character. - I
think what you actually need is a few days off to think about
it. And I'm sure once you have - you're gonna do the right thing."
Lindsey: "I can - I can go."
Holland: "You can go. (Lindsey slowly gets up) Lindsey -
I believe in you. - Look deep enough inside yourself -
you'll find that love."
All that talk about "destiny" and "conviction"
and what do we have two episodes this year with those titles....hmmmmmm
seems some things never really change, they just move around like
that game of Go.
Holland: "I handpicked you when you were a sophomore at
Hastings - not because you were smart - not because you were a
poor kid who had to do better than anyone else - but because you
had potential - potential for seeing things as they are. It's
not about good or evil - it's about who wields the most power.
And we wield a lot of it here, and you know what? I think
the world is better for it."
This season Angel and Wesley have spoken of wielding the power
of Wolfram and Hart like a weapon, but can that really happen
or is the storyline this year just another variation of Wolfram
and Hart "pushing back" to make sure the power remains
with them?
Remember this Wolfram and Hart only gave Angel control of the
LA branch of their Multi-dimensional corporation.....this is where
Lindsey just may come in. Think of him as being out either for
revenge on Angel for many reasons revolving around Darla or that
maybe with what happened with Jasmine, there has been an upper-management
shuffle that has helped Lindsey find his place in the new scheme
of things.
[> [> I like the way you think, Rufus -- MaeveRigan,
08:21:17 12/03/03 Wed
[> Re: 'Big bad, little bad'?: seasonal patterns on AtS
and BtVS (spoilers, AtS s. 1-5) -- Claudia, 10:30:24 11/26/03
Wed
"There were always variations on this theme, but the theme
was pretty clear: on BtVS, the Big Bads were usually unambiguously
Bad, and not only needed to be defeated, but outright killed to
achieve that end."
Wouldn't Season 7 be the exception, since the First Evil could
not be destroyed, but it's plans, defeated?
[> [> Totally agree... -- DorianQ, 17:31:17 11/27/03
Thu
That's one of the things I thought was wierd last year. The First
Evil seemed so much more like an 'Angel' villian and was too ambiguous
for 'Buffy', because, she didn't kill it; she couldn't even kill
it. This would have fit in perfectly on Angel where things aren't
wrapped up neatly and the veiwer can see that death isn't the
end (Holtz's death, Darla's death (pick one), and Connor's 'death').
Whereas the Beast would have been a perfect Buffy villian. Unambiguously
evil, almost impossible to kill, set on mindless destuction without
caring of the consequences, arrogant, one track mind... the list
goes on and on.
That's just my opinion. And both were offset later on by villians
who were much more in tune with the show (Crazy Cordy and Jasmine
on 'Angel', and Caleb, the misoginistic fallen priest)
[> but things have changed.... -- Seven, 10:39:26
11/26/03 Wed
The speculation has been that Joss has compromised in a way this
season. More stand-alones and such. But of course, Joss is smarter
than that and it won't be "Charmed 2." We will get plenty
of philosophicy goodness throughout which I believe we have gotten
already. What has changed though may be the appearence. Remember
Eve's expositiony line from "Destiny?"
Lots of crazy things go on here don't they? Ghost fights, big
monsters, cyborgs. It's amazing that you get any work done.
(I write this from memory so forgive the misquote)
For newbies and and for the WB, we get a clear idea of what this
show is about: good guys working for the bad guys and trying to
change it but they work in a madhouse that attacks them all the
time. It is essentially "The Adventures of Wolfram and Hart."
They live in a madhouse and therefore go from one zany caper to
another as a result of it. This is different from past seasons
in its unmetaphorical sensibilities.
on the surface.
For us long-timers, we see the metaphor of W&H as the AI gang
literaly and figuratively battles themselves, just as they did
in past seasons. (Noir/baige Angel, Pylea, Dark!Wesley, Angelus)
Who is being set up as the villian? Well Eve at least. But she
is part of thier team, at least on paper. So the gang is battling
itself. Gunn is also being set up as a potential villian. Again,
the battle comes from inside. Even Tatooed! Lindsay is a former
employee but he may work better as the -past -coming -back -to
-haunt- you character.
Essentially, we are getting literal manifestestions of the metaphor
for inner-struggle, or the struggle to find oneself, which has
been what Angel has been all about from the begining. What
we have here and what is different is that it is disguised as
the "mad-funhouse" plot.
So will Angel be different? I think it will only be different
from last season, when the formula followed ,more or less, the
BTVS way. That is not saying I didn't like season four or felt
betrayed by it. In fact it may be my favorite season, but not
because it felf like Buffy.
Ahem, I digress.
I feel that season five will follow similar patterns to past Angel
seasons except there will be the disguise to appease WB, which
i feel makes it even better because it works on more levels.
I think we have seen this to be true in bringing back situations
that originally arose in seasons 1 and 2, namely W&H but that
too works on different levels.
The mindwipe brings forth the idea that the characters only remember
seasons 1 and 2 so why not return to what was concerning them
at the time.....
Hell, i could go on forever but I am unfocused. I hope some of
this made sense.
7
[> [> Re: but things have changed.... -- Claudia,
11:00:01 11/26/03 Wed
"Gunn is also being set up as a potential villian."
Or it could be both Gunn and Angel, as this season's Big Bads.
Now that would be interesting.
[> [> [> Re: but things have changed.... -- Matlack73,
17:31:30 11/26/03 Wed
Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but Gunn "marking
his territory" on Angel's chair points that way.
[> [> [> [> Re: but things have changed....
-- Claudia, 11:38:16 12/01/03 Mon
"Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but Gunn "marking
his territory" on Angel's chair points that way."
True, but Angel could still be a potential Big Bad . . . especially
if the others ever find out about the mind-wipe. Or Gunn could
be the LB, with Angel as the BB. Or vice versa.
Numfar, do the dance of joy!!! -- Rob (doing
the Snoopy dance), 18:22:25 11/26/03 Wed
I FINISHED MY "BUFFY" PAPER!!!!!
WOOOO HOOO!!!!!!!
Less than an hour ago, I typed the last sentence of my FORTY-EIGHT
paged "Buffy", postmodernism, and the middle class extravaganza,
and I feel like such a load has been lifted!!! Here's to a pressure-free
Thanksgiving!!!
...um, except for that awkward family meal around the bird nobody
really likes eating and is too dry anyway, realizing none of us
has anything to say to each other. Ah, the holidays! ;o)
The reasons I'm not having an official chat party tonight is (a)
I'm travelling tonight for the holiday and (b) I still have to
prepare a presentation for Monday night. But I am thisclose
to having a life again. Once I finish my film class paper on The
Wizard of Oz. So, in two weeks or less, I shall be human again....oh,
and The
Annotated Buffy will finally be back, baby! Mwahahahahahahaha!!!
Rob, who proudly contributed to Michael Jackson's legal defense
fund today by purchasing three copies of his new greatest hits
CD and is unashamedly blasting "Billie Jean" (who he
used to think was "Billy Dean" when he was four) as
we speak, who recommends flossing daily, who promises will post
the paper at the board once he hands it in on Monday, and who,
no, he swears, is not drunk...
...yet. ;o)
Replies:
[> Re: Numfar, do the dance of joy!!! -- Rob, 18:25:59
11/26/03 Wed
Leave it to me to put a website plug in my message and screw up
the link. Here
it is.
[> And here I thought this was because Buffy s6 is up for
pre-order! -- LittleBit [doing the Dance of Joy], 20:09:43
11/26/03 Wed
Available July 6, 2004!
[> [> Awesome! But too bad it's a day after the Gathering
ends, so we can't screen OMWF in its DVD glory! -- Rob, 23:22:17
11/26/03 Wed
[> [> [> But we did screen OMWF in its DVD glory at
the last meet -- Masq, 08:46:30 11/27/03 Thu
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Buffyboy is a techno-god.
Nothing he can't do with a computer, a television, and some area
2 DVDs!
[> Post, please?? -- Masq, 21:20:58 11/26/03 Wed
Although maybe post it elsewhere and link to it here so we can
read, admire, and discuss!
[> [> Definitely! -- Rob, 22:55:06 11/26/03 Wed
I just don't want my professor to accuse me of pirating my own
paper, so I'm going to wait till I hand it in Monday. But then
I'll definitely post! :o)
Rob
[> [> [> but maybe not right away... -- anom,
23:51:46 11/26/03 Wed
...much as I don't want to wait to see it. Your prof may not get
to your paper immediately, & if it's on the web by the time s/he
gets around to checking, s/he could still get the wrong impression.
On the other hand, if it's clearly identified as yours online,
say if your email address (or lj if you have one) is given for
feedback, maybe you wouldn't be in trouble after all.
In any case, mazel tov on getting it finished! Something to be
thankful for--happy Thanksgiving!
[> Congratulations!!!! -- phoenix, 05:39:21 11/27/03
Thu
[> Wow (gulp) Can you post in 24 bimonthly instalments
-- MsGiles, 06:30:01 11/27/03 Thu
[> [> LOL! -- Rob, 07:58:05 11/27/03 Thu
Oh, and MsGiles, I want to thank you again for you DMP notes a
few weeks back...I actually quoted from them in the final portion
of the paper!
Rob
[> Yay, Rob! Congrats on your paper! -- Scroll, 09:25:03
11/27/03 Thu
[> Good for Rob! Enjoy that great feeling of thankfulness!
-- mamcu, 16:09:35 11/27/03 Thu
[> Congrats! Aw crap, now I have to write my school paper...
grumble, grumble... -- DorianQ, 17:12:54 11/27/03 Thu
[> Re: Numfar, do the dance of joy!!! -- MaeveRigan,
08:09:17 11/28/03 Fri
Congratulations, Rob. Hope your Thanksgiving was thankful-making
in spite of the awkward meal & dry turkey. :-)
Looking forward to reading your paper, 'cos I've really missed
annotating BtVS!
BUFFY: Wasn't exactly a perfect Thanksgiving.
WILLOW: I don't know. Seemed kinda right to me. A bunch of anticipation,
a big fight, and now we're all sleepy. And we did all survive.
(B4.8 "Pangs")
[> technically, it's tuesday...how'd it go? -- anom,
22:25:17 12/01/03 Mon
"The reasons I'm not having an official chat party tonight
is (a) I'm travelling tonight for the holiday and (b) I still
have to prepare a presentation for Monday night."
And how about that chat party now? @>)
[> [> There was no presentation, and I'm not happy!
-- Rob, 11:34:16 12/03/03 Wed
My brilliant professor chose this one night to forget to reserve
the A/V equipment, and for a class that was meant to be doing
media presentations that night, this was not the brightest move.
So I get there all ready to present and...no way to show the clips
that my presentation was meant to discuss! And so as not to interrupt
the schedule, I won't be able to go next Monday either, because
there are other people slated for that day. No, I get to go the
Monday after next when the paper writing will only be a dim memory!
Last night I started on my film class paper. So, no celebration...Just
general phooiness. My fingers are crossed now that a blizzard
hits New York the night of the presentation, because that's the
last day of class, so if we have a snow day, there won't be any
presentation. Which would be nice since I hate public speaking...and
especially when it's two full weeks after I was prepared to go!
Rob
[> [> [> phooey indeed!! -- anom, 22:03:57
12/03/03 Wed
Really sorry to hear that, Rob! Crummy week, huh? No meet, no
presentation...yuck. I hope the rest of it is better.
Hey, come on into chat, we'll give you the full-on "there,
there," "stupid prof" treatment & cheer you up!
Mandy is No.1!! -- carniriel, 04:41:27 11/27/03 Thu
Lurker alert, plus I can't read the board for spoiler risk, but
I thought I should post that 'Mandy' has been rerecorded by Westlife
(Irish boy band, don't know how they rate in the States) and is
currently the UK No.1 single. I can't hear it without cracking
up laughing. It's probably headed your way.
Joss you have completely ruined my enjoyment of a Manilow classic!!
I can't believe it's no 1....
Beware!!!!
Replies:
[> Aha! I thought I caught the tail end of it... --
Marie, 08:43:02 11/27/03 Thu
...whilst flicking through the channels last night! They were
on the Royal Variety Performance, and I thought "Was that
Mandy they were singing???Nah, can't've been!"
Hah!
M
[> [> Um, I've been thinking of retiring to the UK...
-- dub, 21:18:36 11/27/03 Thu
...but it might be way too scarey!
;o)
OT: UK Grape Ritual? -- cougar, 16:33:34 11/29/03 Sat
Does anyone know the origin and significance (or symbolism?) of
the British tradition of bringing grapes to someone in Hospital?
Replies:
[> What's to know? -- Celebaelin, 17:29:25 11/29/03
Sat
Eat them one at a time, they last longer. Visiting time is limited,
see you tomorrow.
Personally I asked for a quarter pounder with cheese, no onions,
large fries and a large Diet Pepsi. And milk shakes (actual milk
ones). And sandwiches. And chocolate. And pork pies. And crisps.
And lemon squash. And more cheese. And, well, you get the idea.
And I still lost 4 to 5 stones whilst I was in hospital. Though
you wouldn't know it now. Mmmmm, healing.
[> [> So, it's not a Scurvey thing? -- cougar, 17:56:15
11/29/03 Sat
[> [> [> Re: Grapes do you good -- Brian, 16:58:17
11/30/03 Sun
My understanding is that grapes are very healthy and can cure
lots of medical problems, so perhaps that is why they are brought
to people in hospitals.
[> [> [> [> very little info about this --
Ann, 17:56:13 11/30/03 Sun
I googled this morning and other than a reference to George V
bringing grapes to a hospital there wasn't much. Mostly just small
references to the tradition. Grapes and wine production took a
while to be established in England and then the French took over
European wine production in the 19th century. Not a smooth history
for the Brits. No wonder they drink beer.
Maybe grapes are the closest thing to wine that you can get into
a hospital!
[> [> [> [> [> grape answer -- cougar, 20:01:41
11/30/03 Sun
I wondered about a French connection, but was curious if it had
some sort of Roman (or Greek ) significance, or maybe a more a
recent literary connection. In fact a monarch could start a trend,
just look at the Christmas tree (popularized by Victoria and Albert).
I'll keep looking for the specific history. Thanks
[> [> [> [> [> [> Jung's Healing Juices
-- Celebaelin, 05:50:56 12/01/03 Mon
By co-incidence (if you believe in such things) I dipped into
my copy of the amateur guide to Jung last night and came across
the story of Jung's dreams proceeding the First World War. The
dreams occurred between the autumn of 1913 and June 1914 and the
specific relevance to your question comes in the last of them.
In case this is not a significant set of dates to some readers
WWI started in August 1914, America's declaration of war against
Germany came in March 1917, as a response to attacks on US merchantmen
I believe. After dreams of a sea of blood covering the lands between
the Alps and the North Sea (Jung himself was Swiss) in the final
dream he came across a tree in a frozen landscape, and this is
the pertinent bit, "The tree was covered with sweet grapes
filled with healing juices that I picked and gave to a large audience."
This doesn't tell us a great deal about the symbolism of grapes
with any certainty but there are perhaps Freudian as well as Jungian
elements at work here. For a start grapes don't grow on trees,
they grow on vines. They contain seeds, perhaps the seeds of knowledge
that Jung was to disseminate in the years ahead. Particularly
in the light of the fact that as a response to the outbreak of
war Jung went on an introspective journey during which he first
encounters Philemon, his 'spirit guide', a meeting which later
contributes to his concept of archetypes.
The detached nature of being bedridden in hospital, particularly
in WWI when medical attention would perforce have been scant,
has been known to send (or allow) patients to escape the physical
world into a sort of semi-sleeping reverie, presumably whilst
the subconscious attempts to deal with their predicament and Jung's
imitation of this state perhaps expresses his grief and guilt
at the onset of war and his nations' (and perhaps his personal,
neutrality - initially in the flood dreams the tide was yellow
but then turns to blood). As regards the reverie of wounded soldiers
morphine, where available, would doubtless contribute to some
extent.
So, grapes. Well, possibly symbolic of the seed (in both the metaphorical
and the literal reproductive sense) of the contribution that the
individual has yet to make, a spur to recovery. Maybe an archetypal
image, maybe sexual symbolism, or maybe, and this is along shot,
just grapes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, and... --
Celebaelin, 06:00:22 12/01/03 Mon
In From Hell Jack the Ripper tempts the streetwalkers into
his carriage with grapes because they were, and relatively speaking
possibly still are, rare and expensive in the UK. So it might
be that as well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Another thing sort
of culturally, but not viniculturally, relevant -- Celebaelin,
07:23:49 12/01/03 Mon
Jung's fifth and youngest child, Helene, was born on the 18th
March 1914.
[> Quite useless, but here is my favourite hospital poem
anyway -- MsGiles, 07:00:26 12/01/03 Mon
Ten Types of Hospital Visitor
Charles Causley
1
The first enters wearing the neon armour
Of virtue.
Ceaselessly firing all-purpose smiles
At everyone present
She destroys hope
In the breasts of the sick,
Who realize instantly
That they are incapable of surmounting
Her ferocious goodwill.
Such courage she displays
In the face of human disaster!
Fortunately, she does not stay long.
After a speedy trip round the ward
In the manner of a nineteen-thirties destroyer
Showing the flag in the Mediterranean,
She returns home for a week
- With luck, longer -
Scorched by the heat of her own worthiness.
2
The second appears, a melancholy splurge
Of theological colours;
Taps heavily about like a healthy vulture
Distributing deep-frozen hope.
The patients gaze at him cautiously.
Most of them, as yet uncertain of the realities
Of heaven, hell-fire, or eternal emptiness,
Play for safety
By accepting his attentions
With just-concealed apathy,
Except one old man, who cries
With newly sharpened hatred,
`Shove off! Shove off!
`Shove ... shove ... shove ... shove
Off!
Just you
Shove!'
3
The third skilfully deflates his weakly smiling victim
By telling him
How the lobelias are doing,
How many kittens the cat had,
How the slate came off the scullery roof,
And how no one has visited the patient for a fortnight
Because everybody
Had colds and feared to bring the jumpy germ
Into hospital.
The patient's eyes
Ice over. He is uninterested
In lobelias, the cat, the slate, the germ.
Flat on his back, drip-fed, his face
The shade of a newly dug-up Pharaoh,
Wearing his skeleton outside his skin,
Yet his wits as bright as a lighted candle,
He is concerned only with the here, the now,
And requires to speak
Of nothing but his present predicament.
It is not permitted.
4
The fourth attempts to cheer
His aged mother with light jokes
Menacing as shell-splinters.
`They'll soon have you jumping round
Like a gazelle,' he says.
`Playing in the football team.'
Quite undeterred by the sight of kilos
Of plaster, chains, lifting-gear,
A pair of lethally designed crutches,
`You'll be leap-frogging soon,' he says.
`Swimming ten lengths of the baths.'
At these unlikely prophecies
The old lady stares fearfully
At her sick, sick offspring
Thinking he has lost his reason -
Which, alas, seems to be the case.
5
The fifth, a giant from the fields
With suit smelling of milk and hay,
Shifts uneasily from one bullock foot
To the other, as though to avoid
Settling permanently in the antiseptic landscape.
Occasionally he looses a scared glance
Sideways, as though fearful of what intimacy
He may blunder on, or that the walls
Might suddenly close in on him.
He carries flowers, held lightly in fingers
The size and shape of plantains,
Tenderly kisses his wife's cheek
- The brush of a child's lips -
Then balances, motionless, for thirty minutes
On the thin chair.
At the end of visiting time
He emerges breathless,
Blinking with relief, into the safe light.
He does not appear to notice
The dusk.
6
The sixth visitor says little,
Breathes reassurance,
Smiles securely.
Carries no black passport of grapes
And visa of chocolate. Has a clutch
Of clean washing.
Unobtrusively stows it
In the locker; searches out more.
Talks quietly to the Sister
Out of sight, out of earshot, of the patient.
Arrives punctually as a tide.
Does not stay the whole hour.
Even when she has gone
The patient seems to sense her there:
An upholding
Presence.
7
The seventh visitor
Smells of bar-room after-shave.
Often finds his friend
Sound asleep: whether real or feigned
Is never determined.
He does not mind; prowls the ward
In search of second-class, lost-face patients
With no visitors
And who are pretending to doze
Or read paperbacks.
He probes relentlessly the nature
Of each complaint, and is swift with such
Dilutions of confidence as,
`Ah! You'll be worse
Before you're better.'
Five minutes before the bell punctuates
Visiting time, his friend opens an alarm-clock eye.
The visitor checks his watch.
Market day. The Duck and Pheasant will be still open.
Courage must be refuelled.
8
The eight visitor looks infinitely
More decayed, ill and infirm than any patient.
His face is an expensive grey.
He peers about with antediluvian eyes
As though from the other end
Of time.
He appears to have risen from the grave
To make this appearance.
There is a whiff of white flowers about him;
The crumpled look of a slightly used shroud.
Slowly he passes the patient
A bag of bullet-proof
Home-made biscuits,
A strong, death-dealing cake -
`To have with your tea,'
Or a bowl of fruit so weighty
It threatens to break
His glass fingers.
The patient, encouraged beyond measure,
Thanks him with enthusiasm, not for
The oranges, the biscuits, the cake,
But for the healing sight
Of someone patently worse
Than himself. He rounds the crisis-corner;
Begins a recovery.
9
The ninth visitor is life.
10
The tenth visitor
Is not usually named.
[> Lost in the Voy'd -- cougar, 19:06:11 12/01/03
Mon
Impossible to get on the board today! Celebaelin, thanks for that
amplification. The reason I was looking for the grape custom was
a from a dream I had. A Jungian friend had just mentioned Jungs
dream so I was very interested that you "happened to pick
up on it" too.
And MsGiles, another Jungian friend who is also a poet is dealing
with Hospitals at the moment, so I'd like to passs the poem on
to her. Black passport of grapes and a strong, death dealing cake...
oddly reminds me of how I feel about forced Christmas activities!
[> [> Pleasure. Kept getting 504ed myself (green grapes
are probably easier on the digestive system) -- Celebaelin,
21:17:52 12/01/03 Mon
[> [> 'in the voy'd'...i like that! -- anom (master
of pun fu), 23:13:24 12/03/03 Wed
But I don't like it when it happens! Which it has too often lately.
I think Voynak knew Masq's attention was elsewhere--with any luck,
now that she's settled in her new condo, the board's nemesis will
be less in evidence.
[> Hmmm... -- Marie, 05:12:09 12/02/03 Tue
Traditionally (and pre-NHS), villagers who were unwell could expect
to be visited by the lady of the manor (i.e. the largest house
in the district, usually), who would show how beneficent she was
by the bearing of offerings from her own greenhouses. (The lowlier
villagers generally receiving a visit from a servant, instead
of the lady herself!).
Over the years, as diet improved and more people ate more fruit,
most things could be had at reasonable prices, except exotic stuff
like grapes, so to take someone grapes, as opposed to apples or
oranges, for instance, showed you cared enough to spend more!
Marie (on maternity leave, but calling in to 'check her post'!!)
[> [> & how's the nhs treating *you*, marie? @>)
-- anom, 11:43:50 12/02/03 Tue
That's National Health Service, right (for us non-U.K. folk)?
How are you doing as you enter the home stretch (& I do mean stretch)?
Hope everything goes great from here on in!
[> [> [> Well, I'm feeling fat and frumpy and I have
piles... -- Marie, 05:58:41 12/04/03 Thu
...but apart from that (and thank you for asking), I'm glowing!
At least that's what people say I should be doing!!
As for the poor old NHS, it's limping along well enough for me
at the moment, and long may it survive. Though I'm hoping to have
this one at home, barring complications. It'll be nice to see
my feet again!
Marie
[> [> [> [> Marie: Think of it as resplendent,
exploring your moods and blooming! -- Ann, 14:05:25 12/04/03
Thu
Thats what I did when I was pregnant with twins and enormous.
Good luck!
O/T: Little Shop and the Four
Bonus Tracks -- Rochefort, 22:25:45
11/29/03 Sat
O.k., Rob (or others following the Little Shop Debate), what about
the four bonus tracks?
Obviously they reveal the early vision for the play, right?
Well Audrey's song goes far beyond "Help, I'm in a bad relationship
I can't get out of, but I WANT to." Audrey's song is all
about how she experiences love ONLY through abuse. She WANTS this
relationship BECAUSE of its nature, not despite it. So this lends
evidence to the "Audrey doesn't escape from her cycle of
self amelioration with Seymour, but goes out the way she came
in" theory.
Also, one of your big arguments last time was that the characters
in the script are called "sweet". Sweet sweet sweet,
please make them sweet, say the writers. Well they'd BETTER be
sweet or how could we EVER like them. The sweetness isn't evidence
for a non misanthropic vision... it's a counterweight to it so
we don't all puke and cry through the whole play. Still, don't
misunderstand me, I have never been saying this makes this a bad
play. Part of me sort of likes the misanthropicness of it. Also,
don't forget one of Seymour's last comments "You're a monster,
and I'm a monster, too!" He HAS become a monster by the end.
You can't possibly deny that. He's a murderer! And he gave up
his soul for success.
Rochefort
Replies:
[> Re: O/T: Little Shop and the Four Bonus Tracks --
Rob, 13:39:39 11/30/03 Sun
Out of the four bonus tracks, the first three were taken out of
the play because they didn't suit the new tone of the show.
Here's how the writing worked...When it first started, Ashman
and Menken had a different, darker goal in mind, but as it evolved,
they changed the tone to one that was a bit more optimistic, and
in the process scrapped almost 3/4 of the original score and completely
rewrote it. Those first 3 songs are from the original. "The
More He Loves Me" was scrapped for the very reasons you mentioned--it
made it seem like Audrey liked Orin's treatment of her, and they
didn't want that implication. "I Found a Hobby" was
scrapped because the dentist joke doesn't happen until the last
line, and they wanted a stronger hook and the joke to be more
over-the-top. "We'll Have Tomorrow" was considered too
slow, although it is perserved a bit in the finale, "Don't
Feed the Plants." The fifth track was an alternate song for
the movie that ended up being scrapped for "Mean Green Mother
from Outer Space," because that one was a better song.
Also, don't forget one of Seymour's last comments "You're
a monster, and I'm a monster, too!" He HAS become a monster
by the end. You can't possibly deny that. He's a murderer! And
he gave up his soul for success.
Seymour believes he's a monster, and that's what makes him so
sympathetic at the end. Those of us in the audience, though, know
that he is not. He is a poor shlub who let things get out of hand.
He didn't kill Audrey. If anything, Audrey's curiosity killed
her. Seymour gave up his soul for success, but then decided to
reclaim it. However, it was too late. And technically, Seymour's
not a murderer. He just didn't help Orin take the mask off. If
he wasn't ever there, Orin would have died that way regardless.
The sweetness isn't evidence for a non misanthropic vision...
it's a counterweight to it so we don't all puke and cry through
the whole play.
How about the fact that it's a play about a PLANT who TALKS and
EATS PEOPLE!! No matter what kind of characters they had, people
wouldn't puke or cry, because the concept itself is inherently
funny. What is funnier it was based on a film that was meant to
be scary. Above all other things, as I've said before, this musical
is a PARODY of musicals and B sci-fi. B scifi movies are dark
and paranoid. What the original doesn't have is (a) sympathetic
characters and (b) an optimistic ending. This one does. The very
fact that the final song asks people to not feed the plants implies
that the world can be saved. And that is the message of
the play.
Again, I will tell you I have never laughed harder at any other
play, and never have I left a theatre that enthusiastic about
a play. I went with a group of 10 people, and we all had a blast.
It's very hard to not enjoy a play about a MUPPET eating people.
The cool thing though is that it does have depth, and some of
the most beautiful songs ever composed for the musical theatre.
I was the only one out of the whole group who knew that the play
ended differently than the movie, and I was wondering how they
would react. Every single person in my group not only did not
react badly, they said they liked it better. In fact, the audience
laughed during the death scene itself, as did I, because it is
a black comedy and is not depressing on stage. The best black
comedies can find humor even in the darkest situations, and this
scene is no exception. The story itself is cartoonish and over-the-top,
and the audience members never lose sight of that fact. Little
Shop is a musical COMEDY, not a tragedy. And there's not much
more I can say on the matter. It's very hard to express how something
plays on stage to someone who hasn't seen it. There's a big difference
between describing events of a "Buffy" or "Angel"
episode, for example, versus seeing them play out on screen. What
is troubling to me about the way you're reading the play though
is that you're taking what is meant to be a light, fun (albeit
slightly grisly) confection and analyzing it as if it were "Macbeth."
Rob
[> [> Don't be troubled, Rob. :) -- Rochefort, 16:01:59
11/30/03 Sun
Super-Evil Reviews: 'Conviction'
and 'Just Rewards' -- Honorificus (The
Sublimely Supreme One), 17:35:00 11/30/03 Sun
Yes, indeed, I have triumphed over the thrice-accursed WB and
gotten the first six "Angel" episodes. I shall now bless
you all with my thoughts. Try not to hurt your knees when you
kowtow.
Conviction
Fashion Statements
The Good
Ahh, how sweet. Gunn got fashion sense as well as lawyerly knowledge!
That suit was positively tasty.
Also, the shirtless look. Yes, we need to keep Gunn in suits or
in boxers.
Wesley. The neutral palette works beautifully on his coloring,
and the cut suits his build. If they keep this up, he may rival
his "gritty, scruffy, I'm-not-a-good-guy-anymore" look
of yesteryear.
Lorne truly is the only being in this or any other dimension who
could carry off his outfits.
The Bad
Would somebody please get Angel into some color? And re-spike
the hair, stat.
Speaking of hair, I don't think much of Gunn's.
Harmony's simpering peach suit. The color works, but overall,
the look was totally unsuitable for any respectable vampiress.
She needs something far more fashion-edgy. Try a suede skirt,
honey.
Lab coats give me the heebies. So does Knox's hair. In fact, Knox
desperately needs an infusion of fashion sense.
The Iffy
Not sure of what to make of Eve or her outfits. Not impressed
so far by either.
Plot in a Nutshell
Angel's taken over the baddest law firm in the world, blah-de-blah-de-blah,
moral dilemmas, black-and-white turns gray, oh, the angst. Plus,
Spike returns.
Demonic Quibbles and Comments
Only a human would give the "I'm dedicated to Evil"
line. Most demons are far more practical. Yes, our bent is toward
evil, but ultimately, it's about what gets the job done. A body
count is just lagniappe.
Mixing otter blood with pig? Not that pig's blood isn't repugnant
enough on its own, but otter's blood tastes like iron shavings
in Coke syrup. Bleah!
Body Count
One vampire.
One commando-with-an-attitude.
Highlights
The bureaucratizing of helping the hopeless. What a splendid image
of ultimate evil!
Gunn shirtless. Must have more of that.
Seeing my darling Wesley again. And possibly evil.
Commando go splat. Not that that particular commando wasn't rather
lovely--endearingly ruthless and so charmingly naive in his evil
bent--but Angel doing in a human was just yummy.
Lowlights
No Lilah. Phooey.
Being forced to endure Harmony again.
Ditto for Fred. The screeching at minions was a step in the right
direction, but still, I find her painfully dull. Plus, her fashion
sense--eugh!
Ditto for Angel and his moralizing. Angel has the fact that he's
one very lovely being in his favor, but really, he is simply too
tiresome. Want Angelus back.
Burning Questions
Angel spanks men?!?
So what exactly did Gunn trade for his new knowledge? There's
always a price, you know.
Whence cometh the Spike?
The Immoral of the Story
Do-gooders and super-evil law firms don't mix well.
Overall Rating
Q over 20 on the Non Sequitur Scale. Not bad, but there's room
for improvement.
Just Rewards
Fashion Statements
The Good
Gunn's new wardrobe continues to impress.
As does Wesley.
Definitely approve of Angel's car choice.
Angel shirtless!
The Bad
--and looking squishy. Hm. Crunches are needed.
Harmony again. Where is she getting these dresses? Leftovers from
ME's Anya wardrobe?
Along the same lines, Fred. Surely they could find something for
her that doesn't look utterly wimpy.
Magnus Hainsley. One big fashion "don't."
And the corpse that the demon chose? Surely he could've found
something more suitable. Say, a rangy brunette with smoky eyes
and an outfit that doesn't look like Fred's leftovers.
Plot in a Nutshell
Spike returns, and he and Angel have a whining contest over their
pathetic unlives. Watch me not care.
Demonic Quibbles and Comments
So, a non-ectoplasmic lukewarm ghost attached to an amulet, and
a ghost that's getting sucked into hell to boot. I ran into something
like that back when I was just a wee demonette. However, it was
in a different dimension, so I'm not sure it really applies.
Body Count
Does this include all the ones at Hainsley's place? If not, one
ugly human.
Highlights
All the Spike/Angel sniping. Gotta love the UST, eh?
Spike turning up in Angel's bedroom.
"I'm his date."
Spike's triple-cross. That takes talent!
Lowlights
Did we have to see Buffy again? Just when I thought we'd gotten
rid of that goody-goody for good.
Spike moaning about needing to see her.
Spike and Angel's "the universe is so unfair!" contest.
Suck it up, you idiots. That's what you get for turning all good.
Spike's pathetic "Help me" to Fred.
Burning Questions
Is Spike now stuck in that outfit for eternity?
How does an incorporeal vampire vamp out?
Did Angel hear Harmony say "Blondie Bear"?
The Immoral of the Story
Turning all good never helps. If you're evil, stay evil.
Overall Rating
I'll give this one a peaches 'n' cream O-factor on the Non Sequitur
Scale. Good message, lots of UST--I liked.
Replies:
[> Re: Super-Evil Reviews: 'Conviction' and 'Just Rewards'
-- jane, 17:45:38 11/30/03 Sun
Welcome back, Honorificus! I've really missed your fashion guidance.
Now, if we could just get those folks in ME wardrobe dept. to
pay closer attention to your keen sense of style..
[> yay! they're back! -- anom, 19:26:30 11/30/03
Sun
That's as close as I get to kowtowing. You can read "they"
as HonorH & Honorificus or as the Super-Evil Reviews--whichever
you prefer. I'm glad you're finally getting to see the new season!
Only 1 comment:
"The bureaucratizing of helping the hopeless. What a splendid
image of ultimate evil!"
Hmm...public assistance offices, the ultimate evil? I think you
could make a case for that....
(No, I don't really mean to equate people on public assistance
w/"the hopeless." But the overall idea was too good
to pass up.)
[> [> Thank Goddess! I thought the SE reviews were gone
for ever -- zan, 23:15:49 11/30/03 Sun
[> Behold the Return of the Spendiferous One! -- smarmy
minion,banging whole body on pavement, 20:16:29 11/30/03 Sun
[> There were rumors -- cougar, 01:02:57 12/01/03
Mon
Some of us were beginning to doubt you were even real. We thought
you might be some sort of figment of someones imagination. Really
sweet of you to restore our faith!
[> [> Now, while I *am* everyone's fantasy-- -- Honorificus
(The Real, The One, The Only), 09:18:02 12/01/03 Mon
I also happen to be quite real, as my minions will assure you.
Want to come over and play?
[> [> [> gee, you're all good-moody... -- when
the cat's away, 19:11:01 12/01/03 Mon
[> With a mighty grumble the demons awaken from their hibernation!!
-- Ponygoyle, 10:43:08 12/01/03 Mon
Who DARES awaken me--
*yawn*
Oh Honorificus, you're back. Guess I'll have to wipe the entrails
from my eyes and start watching the show. What's it called again?
[> Re: Super-Evil Reviews: 'Conviction' and 'Just Rewards'
-- skeeve, 12:43:08 12/01/03 Mon
Honorificus:
"Mixing otter blood with pig? Not that pig's blood isn't
repugnant enough on its own, but otter's blood tastes
like iron shavings in Coke syrup. Bleah!"
YOU know this how?
[> [> this *is* honorificus we're talking about--oh,
are you new here? -- anom, 01:41:53 12/02/03 Tue
At least new enough that you haven't seen the demon alter egos
before? It has been awhile since they've shown their evil
faces, but they're coming out of the wormwood now!
A basic field guide can be found in
the Meet the Posters section, but this
thread may give you a better idea of their pers--um, demonalities.
I couldn't find the thread where they 1st appeared (maybe someone
else can tell us--LittleBite?), but it originated from a discussion
in chat during season 6 about what a demon version of ATPo would
be like.
[> Conviction -- Vyrus, 14:55:30 12/03/03 Wed
Excellent observations on "Conviction", my dear.
I shall now bless you all with my thoughts. Try not to hurt
your knees when you kowtow.
Though it's perfectly all right to hurt your heads, don't
you know.
Ahh, how sweet. Gunn got fashion sense as well as lawyerly
knowledge! That suit was positively tasty.
Hmm, must disagree. Mankind has no greater foe than the pinstripe.
After you, that is.
Lorne truly is the only being in this or any other dimension
who could carry off his outfits.
Could, or should.
Not sure of what to make of Eve or her outfits. Not impressed
so far by either.
She is a feeble little creature -- perhaps a good match for Fred
in a fight. Perhaps a close-quarters battle in the elevator, wrestling
about, clothes being torn, a good time had by all.
Only a human would give the "I'm dedicated to Evil"
line.
Humans are insecure about their evil the way miniature daschshunds
are insecure about their size. Both feel the need to yap constantly
in order to compensate for their obvious inadequacies.
>Mixing otter blood with pig? Not that pig's blood isn't >repugnant
enough on its own, but otter's blood tastes like >iron shavings
in Coke syrup. Bleah!
It's so hard to hire a good bartender nowadays.
Angel spanks men?!?
Better men than monkeys, one supposes.
So what exactly did Gunn trade for his new knowledge? There's
always a price, you know.
The Gilbert & Sullivan isn't price enough?
Dreamwatch interview snippets
Drew Goddard..spoilery about the mindwipe and a comment about
ep 11 -- Rufus, 18:59:38 11/30/03
Sun
I'll only paste in the one comment Drew Goddard made about the
"mindwipe" and at the end something about ep 11 by Deborah's
reading of the article....
Trollop
Board
Thanks to deborahthejudge from Tabula Rasa and Tara di for asking
the right question....
The Drew Goddard interview is also well worth reading. He has
this to say about the AtS season 5 arc......
DW: Has the purpose and focus of the season been decided yet or
is that still evolving?
Drew Goddard: There is definitely a season arc in
place. If I had to equate it to something, I would probably equate it to season
two of Buffy, in terms of structure. If you look at Buffy season
two, it had all these great stand-alones but there was this building
arc with Angel/Angelus and that is the model we are using. Joss
came to us and he has a clear idea of where he wants the season
to end up and what he wants these characters to be dealing with
and you build that in. When the fans see episode eight, they'll
see that the arc is really kicking in - full speed ahead! The Shanshu prophecy is a key element. There is nothing
we could come up with that is better than to have Angel's world
thrown out of whack by Spike showing up and being in a similar
position. It's a no brainer.
DW: What's been most interesting for you to write this season?
Drew Goddard: I'm like a kid in the candy store writing
Angel. There is no one more hard-boiled and tough than Angel and
that's a character we didn't have on Buffy. I have also been the biggest Wesley
fan since the beginning. He went from the mini-Giles to the toughest
guy in the Mutant Enemy universe. They
asked me what I was interested in writing and I said I wanted
to do a story with Wesley because I love that character so much.
And of course, having Spike is a comfort level. Spike's voice
is the most fun, and I relate to Spike in that he says the thing
that is the most uncouth and I have that smart-ass in me as well.
Usually, when I'm writing a scene and I can't bear how important
I'm making myself sound, I have Spike come in and make fun of
it.
DW: At the end of season four, everyone but Angel had their memories
of Connor erased. How is the staff approaching writing the characters
when there are some key parts of their histories missing?
Drew Goddard: We approach it like they have holes in their
memories and things aren't clear. It's almost like thinking back
to your college years, or my college years, where you can sort
of remember but the specifics get hazy. They can't remember anything
specifically about Connor. You'll see as the season progresses,
it starts
to become problematic because when they start to talk about events,
they start to realise something is wrong, and we are going to
play off that, starting in episode seven.
(I think he means six).
Finally, he confirms that the events
of ep11, which he co-wrote with Steve DeKnight, are part of the
ramifications of Chosen.
Replies:
[> *Squeal!* (non-spoilery) -- HonorH, 23:19:34 11/30/03
Sun
Such good news! I love what he had to say here, especially as
I'm just starting on S5 myself. Looking forward to getting the
rest of the season now. Woohoo!
Current board
| December 2003