| Previous October 2002 |
"Deep Down," "Lessons," and We Are Who We Are (BtVS7.1/ATS 4.1 spoilers) -- cjl, 07:32:19 10/07/02 Mon
Stop the presses! We have a BtVS/AtS "linking" theme!
It's fairly clear from ANGEL's opening salvo last night that we have a season-long theme linking BUFFY and ANGEL. Both series look like they'll be examining identity this season, how identities seem to shift under circumstances, but keep true to their underlying core. Giles says to Willow that we are who we are, while Angel seems to fear that, "deep down," he is a vampire and he'll eventually turn and feed on the family he created--just like he with his original family.
Of course, that leaves the question wide open in a number of cases: who are these people? Who is Willow now, the shy, unassuming nerdling, or badass Dark Willow? Do the two share any underlying, unchanging traits (and if so, does Willow want to keep them)? Who is Xander? Does that spiffy new exterior hide the same scared little boy? On the Angel side, Wes, Cordy, Fred, and even Lilah(!) all seem to be unsure about who they are. Angel himself seems to have his sense of purpose to hold him steady, but given the rumors about later in the season, who knows how long that's going to last?
So, coffee tawk listeners--how will the theme of "we are who we are" play out on both series, and how will Joss attempt to link the two?
Discuss.
[> Difficulty of Buffy/Angel linkage -- Tchaikovsky, 09:25:23 10/07/02 Mon
It's interesting to consider whether playing out themes which are similar in both series is really going to work dramatically in any sensible way. The story has to be distinct, and we can't see regular characters from either show on the other. So I might argue, (if I were feeling controversial) that this link, true or not, is a waste of time anyway. It's like (pretend with me here) Shakespeare writing Macbeth and Much Ado about Nothing at the same time, and then deciding that both plays would have a theme of abuse of power. We can notice that Don John and Leonato exploit power in MAAN, and obviously Macbeth is power-hungry throughout the play, but what does the linking do to help our understanding of the individual plays themselves? Not very much, in my opinion, because we're playing with different characters, styles and settings.
PS Possibly a facetious analogy; but fun.
[> [> Can't say I agree with you here, Tchaikovsky... -- cjl, 09:36:44 10/07/02 Mon
I think Buffy/Angel comparisons are always relevant and interesting because we're dealing with the same fictional universe, and the characters from the second series directly sprang from the first. The settings and style may be different, but there are more commonalities than divergences. I see Buffy and Angel as separate novels in the same general setting: Faulkner's Mississippi, for example.
[> [> [> OK; fill me in. -- Tchaikovsky, 09:55:26 10/07/02 Mon
I take your point here. But I have a difficulty with understanding just how, with the restriction of the characters' movements, it can be of any particular use to the series to link in any way.
What are the possibilities?
1) You could have the same plot happening to two different people: wow, Buffy's pregnant and Cordelia's pregnant. Compare and contrast their two reactions. Much too dissertation-ish for the interesting plot lines of the programmes.
2) A linkage of real or metaphorical characterisation: we see for example two polarised journeys in the two characters. Spike with his soul back struggles slowly towards appearing human. Angel, overcome with the difficulty of the feat, goes the other way, eventually losing his soul altogether. Again, it would be an interesting esoteric point for future generations to analyse, but wouldit really help the two shows if the two characters could never meet.
3) An over-riding theme permeates the programmes. This I believe is more likely to be damaging than enhancing to the story arc. Joss has made clear his 'mission statements' for the two shows this year. To superimpose a pretty little sub-theme is only going to distract from the programmes. Ultimately, they're separate shows, running in different directions, and being tied to each other isn't going to help either of them explore.
Maybe I miss something obvious here; plot, characterisation and themes tend to be the things I'm looking for in the series. It is, as with all opinions, subjective and individual, but I personally would like to see Angel (the baby series) and Buffy (the mother series) have their umbilical cord cut, and stop having frankly bizarre twists like when Buffy met Angel half way between the two sets after 'Flooded'.
[> [> [> [> Re: OK; fill me in. -- shadowkat, 12:38:38 10/07/02 Mon
Well I think they have to be linked somewhat because they subsist in the same universe. At least three characters on Angel got their origins on Buffy. If you watch Angel without having ever watched Buffy - you're bound to be confused about some things.
I think a better comparison is between Shakespear's plays
on the kings: Hamlet and Macbeth or better yet Henry IV
and Henry V.
Angel is separate from Buffy, but the links enrich not weaken it. Just as comparing characters from each show to each other enrich the themes.
For instance both shows examined vengeance and it's repercussions last year through the characters of Angel, Anya, Justine, Willow, Holtz, Warren, and Wesely.
We often see Angel taking a theme introduced on Buffy to a darker place. The Watcher/Slayer relationship on Buffy is taken to a very dark place with Justine/Holtz. Or the origin of Dawn compared to the orgin of Connor and how one teenager is light and one is very dark.
And most recently Angel's line to Connor et al: "My girlfriend sent me to hell for 100 years, in comparison? This just gave me time to think..." or something like that.
There are numerous shows on television that echo each other.
Television lends itself to that - since it often is serialized and stories can go on for years. Comparing TV to books or plays is tricky b/c TV is so visual and TV series unlike a play or book tend to be stretched over long periodes of time and don't always have a definitive ending.
You know you are at the end of a book when you reach the last page. In television - it's whenever the series stops running which could be this May or next May or the year after that. We don't know for certain. The only time that happens with books or plays is in the case Harry Potter where the author is clearly writing a series. But I'm wandering off topic and you're wondering what my point is:
well it's two things really-
1. It you do a TV series, then decide to do an offshoot of that series and place it and characters from the original in the same universe - you have to make sure that everything these characters do fits. For instance if Angel destroys the world - Buffy is obviously dead. Or if Willow destroyed the World - Angel and everyone there would be dead. So they echo each other. Unless of course one of the series exists in an AU then you can do whatever you want. Example - when Angel was in Pylea - he would have no idea of knowing about the breaks in reality caused by Glory unless one of those breaks affected Pylea. In fact one could argue the breaks caused the portals to Pylea (though I doubt it).
2. TV is not like the first draft of a book. You're stuck with what came before. Whedon is stuck with what he wrote in Season 1 and 2 Btvs. That prehistory is both Angel and Cordy's. He is also stuck with the prehistory on Buffy and Angel's relationship and the deep caring that once existed there. And he's stuck with the fact that Faith is incarcerated in LA not Sunnydale - ie. in Angel's town.
Now if these were episodic series or anthologies which did not rely on past history of their characters and weren't in a serialized format? Past history might not matter too much. But in a serial that has an ongoing story that builds on itself as chapters of a novel do - then past history is crucial. It matters. Your audience will remember even if you don't. That's why Angel has David Fury or Marti Noxon acting as a consulting producer and Btvs has someone from Angel acting as consulting producer - to make sure that both shows line up and don't contradict each other.
The shows also trade writers to ensure this does not happen.
If you don't see inter-connecting themes? You're not watching close enough. There are tons. 1. Vengeance.
2. Watch what you wish for. 3. Growing up. 4. Dealing with Guilt and the soul metaphors (see my essay on this if you want a full examination of the theme- www.geocities.com/shadowkatbtvs)
5. Who we are at heart or deep down. We have an episode titled Deep Down and one entitled Beneath You and two characters - one on Angel = says deep down in a line and one on Buffy says = deep inside.
I believe if you miss one show, you're missing half the tapestry. Just my ten cents.
[> A Further Elaboration on Common Themes (Spoilers BtVS/AtS) -- cjl (stealing a BC&S post from scc), 10:34:43 10/07/02 Mon
If "scc" is lurking, forgive me for snatching your post from the BC&S board. But I needed it to make a point:
________________________________________________
Hey all, It's me again. Back to the whole ìConnectionsî theme
I have seen a lot of talk on the board about the possibility that though there may not be direct crossovers with Angel, there may be thematic crossovers. After watching last night's episode of Angel, I am more than ever convinced that we will see some of that.
First, I must allow my shallow side out for a moment to comment. Whoa Wes, I mean, really, Whoa. First of all, sexy Wes, very low riding jeans and no shirt Wes. Where did he come from, and , can we see him again, Please. And scary... boy did he get scary. I now really want a Buffy crossover just so we can see the Scooby gangs reaction to the new Wes.
Now, back to the point. There were way to many connections between last nights Angel season premiere and the first two episodes of Buffy for me to write them off as coincidence, or my imagination. The kicker for me was Angel's reference to M.C. Escher. Escher was an artist most famously known for his work looking at the concepts of perspectives. The picture most people probably know of his is called ìrelativityî and shows a series of staircases and scenes all of which seem to be going in different directions, yet, all are connected. He basically shows us the same scene from different perspectives, at the same time. I get the sense that that is what Joss is trying to do to us this year with BTVS and ATS, show us the same basic theme from very different perspectives, sort of a ìmirrorî image.
First, where did the season's end. Each show has a central group of characters with the core of each group being a set of three.
The Scoobies: Buffy, Xander, Willow
The Fang Gang: Angel, Cordy, Wes
At the end of last season, each group had been fractured. On Btvs, Willow goes evil, hurts her friends, and is separated from the rest of the group. On Ats, Wes betrays the group, hurts them, and is isolated. The difference comes in when we look at what happened with the other two core members. On Buffy, she and Xander appear to have reconnected over the summer, where on Angel, He and Cordy were completely separated.
Also, look at the interactions of Willow/Giles and Wes/Justine. Both Wes and Willow appear to be trying to redefine themselves, but where we have Giles encouraging willow, we have Justine telling Wes ìhe hates you, they all do, and they're never going to take you backî Wesley's lines about ìeverything changesî and we all get what we deserveî appeared to me to be a strange distorted echo of Giles ìWe are who we are, no matter how we seem to change.î
Next, we come to Angel and Spike, neither of whom are starting off the year in what I would call perfect mental health. Now, at first I was just looking at Angel's
hallucinations as simply induced by his little underwater adventures. Then, my husband said (yes, I am about to admit here that my husband made a good observation, but it's ok, he doesn't read the board, so he will never know) ìthey are doing the same thing to Angel that they did to Spikeî so I took a closer look at those visions he was having. Could it be that whatever our big bads and/or big goods are this year, they are making a play for both of our souled vampires. One thing really struck me. Both dreamed of killing those they love the most. Spike tells Buffy he dreamed of killing her. Angel then dreams of killing both Cordelia and Connor. Is something trying to influence them to kill the ones they love, or, is it something trying to warn them that this is a possibility if they make the wrong choices? It always struck me as a little funky that Cordy gets removed right before Angel is sunk. Something wanted him in a vulnerable place. The question is Who is sending these images and are which side of the battle are they on.
And, about those Big Bads, hmmmm, we have Halfrek talking about something rising ìolder than the old onesî and we have Lilah talking about ìthis little project that the senior partners have been working on, oh, since the beginning of timeî
Then we have Angel's final speech to Connor which was full of connections. First, he talks to Connor about the difference between wishing vengeance on someone and taking it, an issue that both Willow and Anya will need to deal with. We dealt with this a little in beneath you where Nancy wishes vengeance on her boyfriend, but it is Anya who takes it. Then, of course, Angel makes a direct reference to BTVS, talking about his Buffy induced trip to hell, implying that his summer spent in the ocean was nothing in comparison. This is where he states that it gave him a new perspective ìan M.C. Escher Perspectiveî finishing the statement ìnew perspective about us, about the world, nothing is the way it ought to be. It's harsh and cruelî This echoes both Buffy in Afterlife ìthe world is harsh, brightî and Willow in Lessons, ìIt's all connected, it is, but it's not all good, and pure, and rooty. There's deep, deep black.î I think that they are all feeling the imbalance in the world. The not quite rightness about it. And finally, ìand that's why there's us, the champions, doesn't matter where we come from, what we've done, or suffered, or even if we make a differenceî. I saw this as a nod not only to Spike, ìWhen did you become a champion of the people?î but also to willow and anya, and on Ats, Wes and Connor. It doesn't matter what they have done in the past. What matters is what they choose to do in the future.
Basically, what I think that we are going to see this year is Btvs and Ats sort of mirroring each other. Showing us the same themes, the same lessons, with a different twist. It wouldn't surprise me at all if we see a much closer connection between the big bads this year. And I can still dream about a real crossover, right, hey, my dreams are my business, trust me, you do not want to go there!
Thanks for tuning in to my monday morning ramble, you may now return to your regularly scheduled programming. ;)
[> Re: Buffy & Angel Connections (spoilers) -- Purple Tulip, 10:57:32 10/07/02 Mon
I'm not a regular watcher of Angel- in fact, I rather dislike the show because of the Angel/Cordelia pairing, but that's a whole other subject. Anyway, last night I flipped back and forth between Angel and Alias because I was curious if I might actually like the show enough to watch it weekely. Nope, nothing much has changed for me. BUT, while I was watching, I noticed an interesting parallel between Dawn and Connor and where each premier episode started with them. What I mean is, in "Lessons", Buffy was training Dawn in the ways of a slayer and trying to teach her the ways to be a good and efficient fighter. In "Deep Down", Fred and Gunn were teaching Connor how to fight vamps without losing his cool. And we already know that Dawn is the Key and has some mystical powers that I'm hoping will be readdressed this season- and Fred and Gunn said last night that Connor was a strong fighter in his dimension, and that he must be something other than human to be able to fight the way he does, and jump off of rooftops and not get hurt. It seems that the respective powers both of the young characters will be a main focus this season. And aren't they both supposed the same age?
And I really like Connor---he's cute and he's a really great actor. Anyone remember him from "The Indian in the Cupboard"?
And just how do two vampires have a baby?
[> [> Re: Buffy & Angel Connections (spoilers) -- Robert, 11:19:08 10/07/02 Mon
>>> "... I rather dislike the show because of the Angel/Cordelia pairing ..."
I'm sorry to hear it. I think the Angel/Cordelia pairing so far has been very minimal, and I'm not even sure it is going to happen, when or if Cordelia returns. However, I fully understand your point of view. AtS is a very different show from BtVS. I fell away from watching it during season 2, because I didn't like the direction it was taking with Angel and Darla.
>>> "And just how do two vampires have a baby?"
That, of course, is the big question.
[> [> [> Re: Buffy & Angel Connections (spoilers) -- Purple Tulip, 12:17:06 10/07/02 Mon
Actually, that brings up another question that I have always been wondering- if the curse is still on Angel, then could he ever really even have a real relationship with Cordelia? Or could he only reach that one moment of true happiness with Buffy? But if that's true, then the whole Angel and Cordy thing would be a waste of time because she's not his one true love anyway, and he couldn't reach that one moment of perfect happiness with her. I'm really confused on this one, and it's probably something that's been explained on the show, but since I don't watch.... Anyway, can anyone enlighten me?
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy & Angel Connections (spoilers) -- JM, 12:39:51 10/07/02 Mon
We don't know whether he would or not. So far all we know is that he's attracted to her and doesn't really want to share her with anyone. Once he had a kid, I think he started thinking that he might be able to have happy and domestic without having perfect happiness. I think that he was trying to express this to Wes in "Loyalty" (who was ironically worrying about just that topic re the joys of parenthood).
In season one "Eternity" Wes opined that it was not sex, but the perfect contentment of having sex with the woman he loved for the first time that broke the curse. The events of "Epiphany" seem to bear this out. Sex with Darla in a moment of perfect despair prompted a moment of clarity but no soullessness.
The truth is we don't know what would happen, if, if, if Cordy and Angel ever consummated their possible relationship. I'm sure the interested parties are wondering if Angel being aware of the possibility of perfect happiness might keep bliss at bay.
Wesley = Spike -- yabyumpan, 07:46:45 10/07/02 Mon
The message title is not meant as a compliment!
I'm actually in a state of shock right now. I come this board, inpart, to get a moral perspective of Whendonverse but it seems to have been blinded by the 'coolness' that is Wesley. I will say first off that I'm in the UK and so didn't see AtS last night, but I have read all the wildfeed, reviews and forum feedback that I can find so I've a pretty good idea of the plot etc.
Does Wesley locking a young woman in a cage in a closet for three months, only letting her out on what seems to be a leash of intimidation, doesn't that just seem wrong to anyone?
If, say, it was Angel that had kept a young woman under the same conditions, wouldn't I be hearing more of an outcry, ot any outcry. What if it had been a dog in the closet!
I know that it was Justine(a baddie), I know that she slit Wesley's throat, killed Holtz, conspired with Connor to send Angel under the ocean. She is a 'bad person', I get that. Does that make it ok, even funny (from the responses I've read) to keep her caged? She's a very damaged individual, she was even before Hotlz found her. Does that make it ok for Wesley to take advantage of that damage, to use and manipulate her for his own ends? I realise the end result was rescuing Angel and I'm all for Angel being rescued, I even quite like that it was Wesley that did it.
Is this really a case of the end justifying the means.
Going back to the message subject: Wesley=Spike. Can Wesley now get away with questionable actions because he's 'cool', in the same way that Spike seems to be able to, with some people. It seems that what looks and is morally wrong in black and white can just be brushed over/ignored once it's on screen because it's Wesley, because it's darkWesley, who's wearing jeans and stubble and is having dirtysex and is 'cool'.
I will admit to bias, I don't like darkWesley. I haven't like Wesley's character since 'Couplet', I fast forward when ever he's on screen. It looks like i'm going to be having my finger on the FF button again in S4.
But is there no one else who was disturbed by Justine in the closet? or am I letting my sensabilities about the continuing abuse of women get in the way of a good plot and distracting me from the pleasures of 'coolWesley'.
[> Re: Wesley = Spike (Spoiler for Deep Down) -- Cactus Watcher, 08:26:53 10/07/02 Mon
I think the key point is that Wesley's imprisonment of Justine wasn't 'just' bad. It was not only bad, it was necessary. The only way to get Angel back was simply to give Justine no choice. She's proved herself on many occasions capable of the most atrocious lies (leading to Connor's kidnapping, Wesley's throat being cut, etc.). She is often a wild animal consumed by her desire for revenge, and she's certainly beginning to forget 'revenge for what.' I didn't think so much of the word 'slave' until it was said on screen. I was thinking more of a caged animal. Wesley says much when he tells Justine at last, it's her choice whether she's a slave or not. I take it as meaning a slave to her blind anger.
[> Re: Wesley = Spike -- Tillow, 08:48:43 10/07/02 Mon
If I may say in the gentlest way I can think of... I think you may be getting a little distracted. Let me explain my thoughts.
I think you may be getting hung up on the word *abuse* and letting it get in your way. Abuse of women is an issue for me. It's absolutely one of my buttons and I often freak out in movies, television, advertising, etc. But there is a reason I don't freak out in the Whedonverse when situations that might otherwise set me off occur. There's an assumption that men and women are inherently equal on these shows and you don't find that everywhere else. The women don't need to be coddled, protected, set on a pedestal because they are the moral compasses set on earth to keep the dirty men in line. Men and women are held to the same moral, intellectual, and PHYSICAL standards. And that's pretty cool. Imagine if Justine had been a man. Everything her character had done. To Angel, Wesley, Connor. Would you have been AS upset to see her chained up in the bathroom.
Point number 2. They have made the continued insinuation that Justine has serious issues with violence. In her whole memory montage with Holtz, she actually remembers him sticking the knife in her hand. Ick. Angel also says to her "I'm not your boyfriend, go find someone else to beat you up." So CLEARY she has issues there that stem from some childhood trauma as Cordelia would say.
Point number 3. Wesley has issues with women. In Billy, he becomes a completely violent and calculating misogynist. Hopefully we will get to see him work through these issues. So it seems logical given Justine and Wesley's issues to see them in the dominant/submissive little act together. It didn't come out of nowhere.
Point number 4. The show would be completely boring if all we ever saw was a band of good guys taking out evil after evil who had temporary contracts and died at the end of the season. So once in awhile, they throw us a character we love to hate. And we love them because they are complex and we "remember when" and we can't wait to see if they will come back to the fold and because their acting is so damn good! And BTW, lots of people really like Angel when he is treading the dark side, too. Gets him out of brood mode for a while.
So that's my case. Abuse of women is wrong. But the show is a metaphor that can delve into and explore some of the issues we face as people. Like how a man can come to hate himself so completely. Why a woman finds herself in repeating patters of abuse. Put them together and what you get may disturb you.
Tillow
[> [> Re: Wesley = Spike -- MaeveRigan, 10:25:13 10/07/02 Mon
Point number 3. Wesley has issues with women. In "Billy," he becomes a completely violent and calculating misogynist.
In "Billy," every man Billy touches becomes a completely violent misogynist; the level of calculation depends only on the individual's mental capacity, IMO. (Angel seems to have been the only exception, and I suppose that had something to do with his undead status.) So I don't attach too much significance to that ep. as evidence of Wesley's issues with women.
I'm not saying Wes has no issues with women, just that violent misogyny hasn't really been shown to be one of them, because, as I said, I don't think "Billy" proves much about any male character's real feelings about women.
[> [> [> However... -- Tillow, 12:20:50 10/07/02 Mon
Gunn had the forsight to want to be knocked out. And Wesley began to withdraw from the group after that episode. Perhaps he feared what he was capable of.
[> [> [> Re: Wesley = Spike -- Miss Edith, 16:52:50 10/07/02 Mon
I didn't feel Wesley had issues with women, wasn't the episode more about him channeling his father? I got the strong impression that he was regressing to mental abuse from his childhood so as all men became abuseive to women it was natural Wesley would behave in the way his father had acted. It was the best examle Wesley had of how to hurt others. Wes was crying at the end and deeply shamed so I would say that the episode Billy showed his humanity more than anything else. He had a tortured childhood, and he feels very guilty for hurting the woman he loved. It didn't say anything particularly bad about Westly to me. JMHO.
[> [> Re: Wesley = Spike -- yabyumpan, 15:49:28 10/07/02 Mon
"If I may say in the gentlest way I can think of..."
Thank you for your gentleness, being as how I'm so fragile an' all ;-)
"Imagine if Justine had been a man. Everything her character had done. To Angel, Wesley, Connor. Would you have been AS upset to see her chained up in the bathroom"
Ok, different senario: Angel in 'Forgiving' doesn't just threaten to torture Linwood, he keeps him locked up in a cupboard for 3 months, uses psychological torture to get his co-operation and takes him out at nighttime to look for Connor. In the end this turns out to be fruitful and he releases him.
Would this situation have merited a discussion? Would people have just ignored it because it worked and Linwood was a scumbag who deserved to be treated like that and anyway, Angel looked 'hot'?
To answer your question re: the bathtub. Yes I would, I happen to believe that imprisioning someone against their will is wrong unles you happen to work in the penal system.
"Point number 2. They have made the continued insinuation that Justine has serious issues with violence. In her whole memory montage with Holtz, she actually remembers him sticking the knife in her hand. Ick. Angel also says to her "I'm not your boyfriend, go find someone else to beat you up." So CLEARY she has issues there that stem from some childhood trauma as Cordelia would say."
She certainly does have issues with violence and probably childhood trauma. Which in my mind makes even more wrong that Wesley used that to get what he wanted. He 'abused' and I do not use that word lightly, I consider holding someone captive (male or female), keeping them caged, using psychological torture (I'll take away your bucket) as abuse; Wesley abused an already very damaged individual.
My point in actually starting the thread wasn't so much about what Wesley actually did but the lack of condemnation that it got from posters. That disturbed as much as Wesley's actions. It's not just from this board but it is at this board that I expected at least some discussion as to the morality of what Wesley did. We've now got some, which is good.
"So once in awhile, they throw us a character we love to hate."
Except all I saw was the unquestioning Wesley love.
That's why I compared Wesley to Spike, not because of the characters but because of fans reactions. Wesley is a very popular character, people think he's cool/hot/interesting etc. It seems that more questionable his actions the more people love him. That's fine, I personally got over my fasination with 'bad men' when I married a Hells Angel at 18. The thrill of the bad guy wears off pretty quick. I'm personally much more interested in the struggle to be good, now that takes courage and a stronge will.
As someone pointed out on another board, as in society so it is in fandom, if you're male, white and good looking, you can pretty much get away with anything.
Anyway, thanks to everyone who's responded. As I said, it was the lack discussion that shook me.
[> Re: Wesley = Spike -- verdantheart, 09:06:46 10/07/02 Mon
I don't think so. They come from different places.
However, Wesley's state is disturbing, and is meant to disturb us. Tillow's points about misogyny are well taken. And remember, Justine took advantage of the other side of Wesley's attitudes toward women to manipulate him. Is it any surprise that he's taken a turn for the worse?
Is it heartening? No. Not at all. It's a hopeful sign that he rescued Angel, but his motivations are murky. Are his relations with Lilah aimed at undermining the enemy? Or is he in just as much danger of being seduced? In any case, he has become a much harder-edged character. Some will not like this change, while others may find him more interesting for it.
[> Re: Wesley = Spike -- ponygirl, 09:20:17 10/07/02 Mon
Oh yes, it was very disturbing to see Justine in the closet, for all of the reasons you mention, for what it implies about Wesley's descent into darkness. We were supposed to be disturbed and shaken. And if I shout Wesley's coolness from the rooftops it is because I am so shaken by what I saw. Here is a character on a journey, who has the power to jar the viewer's perspective on what is right and wrong, justifiable or indefensible. To make us think about the very questions you raise. It's a way of allowing the audience to explore the dark without having to truly go there. And that is very cool.
[> Re: Wesley = Spike -- Arethusa, 09:38:57 10/07/02 Mon
I got the impression that Justine's been caged up "just" while she and Wesley search the ocean floor for Angel. If he wants to keep Justine from running away and at the same time hide any evidence of what he's doing from Lilah, the closet is pretty much his only option. Of course, it is extremely disturbing, as it's meant to be, especially as we see him get out of the bed he just shared with Lilah to let her out. But look at Justine's reaction-not cowering fear from physical and psychological torture-she feels free to insult and attempt murder. Abuse of women is terrible, no question, but look at it in context; the scene isn't there to titilate the audience. It's to show how far Wesley will go. He seems to be trying to redeem himself through saving Angel, in his eyes if nobody else's. It's not that Wesley is "cool" becuse he's bad-it's that the exploration of the dark and hidden depths of his character are fascinating, and I, for one, have been waiting for these developments since he first mentioned his father.
[> Re: Wesley = Spike -- luvthistle1, 09:43:41 10/07/02 Mon
Can Wesley now get away with questionable actions because he's 'cool', in the same way that Spike seems to be able to, with some people?
NO! there is a different between Wesley and Spike! Spike is a demon,he suppose to be "EVIL"! Show no remorse! He didn't have a soul, and is not "Human"! So, just Spike can get away with some things because we shouldn't expect "Good behavior" from a soulless vamp. (now he has a soul, but we should expect a struggle), But Wesley is a not!
Wesley is a watcher, he's human. I expect him to be angry, I expect him to go to the cops and turn Justine in for slashing his throat. I did not expect him to turn so evil, and hard so fast. But I did not expect his friends to abandon him so easily,nither. especialy Cordy "the higher being" who knew him since he first came, or "let's stake Angel" Gunn, who he hire. So, I guess almost dying and having no one there for you would make you a little hard,considering he get slap in the face for trying to do what he thought was right. Connar, might have been Angel son, but Angel is a demon and at that time he couldn't really be trusted. Wes, could have told someone, But "Who"??
Cordy was gone, Gunn and Fred were not really there,every time he would try to tell them something, Gunn thought it had something to do with him and Fred relationship. He told Gunn how he felt about Fred, but it didn't stop his so call friend Gunn from going after her anyway.
I was more disturbed by the fact that he threatens to take away her "bucketî, than her being lock in the closet. (WERE IS THE HUMANITY?! ), and that no one was bother by the fact that Angel tried to kill Wes, when he was in the hospital.
Which is an indication that Angelus can resurface anytime.
[> [> Re: Wesley = Spike -- yabyumpan, 15:02:15 10/07/02 Mon
"He told Gunn how he felt about Fred, but it didn't stop his so call friend Gunn from going after her anyway."
when did he tell Gunn how he felt about Fred? My impression was that Gunn first found out about it in 'Couplet', after him and Fred had got together.
[> [> [> Re: Wesley = Spike -- JM, 15:48:03 10/07/02 Mon
They both caught on to each other's interest around "Provider." Neither showed any signs of stepping aside though. And there was no way for Gunn to know that what Wes felt much more than a nascent attraction. From a really good interview w/ AD about his characters motivations, it seems that Wes was thinking in terms of soul mates. Gunn seemed to just awakening to his own attraction to Fred and probably assumed that Wes was in the same place.
[> Justine and Willow (spoilers for Buffy 7.1,7.2, and Angel 4.1) -- Cactus Watcher, 10:32:53 10/07/02 Mon
Reading everyone's replies here makes me think of the parallels between Willow and Justine.
At the end of last season Willow has all the power. Nothing can stop her from committing the great evil except the thing that touched off her desire for revenge in the first place: the love of a decent human being.
Several times during last season Justine held all the key cards. Without her, Wesley could not be fooled into giving up Connor. Without her, Holtz cannot blame Angel for his suicide. Without her, Connor can't take the full measure of his revenge on Angel. It was all done for revenge and for the love of Holtz, once a decent man, but no more. And what was in that love besides a shared common blind anger?
This season Willow admits to having been resigned to being punished, even executed, for what she did. Giles admits they still fear her.
In Deep Down, it's clear Justine is being punished, but her execution was never an option. Wesley could never hope to get the truth out of her by threatening to kill her. By reducing her life to a choice between having the luxury of a bucket in her cell or not, Wesley got what he needed. Wesley doesn't fear Justine, but probably he should.
In the end both Willow and Justine are turned loose. Willow is both fearful of her own power and her friend's reaction to her return. She is reluctant to leave. Justine is anxious to be free, but even in her fear of what Angel might do to her, she has enough sense of what is going on around her to warn Wesley that Angel might well turn on him.
We don't know what Willow or Justine will do from here on. Surely, Willow will play a central role this season. I suspect Justine will also return at a critical moment to once again stir the mix on Angel.
[> Re: Justine as POW -- valkyrie, 11:41:59 10/07/02 Mon
While I understand that abuse is a hot-button topic, I really thought this scene was about something else entirely. Justine has waged a war against Angel and crew, employing kidnapping, attempted murder, and trickery. She's a brutal hard woman. I saw her as a prisoner of war with crucial information. She wasn't tortured, raped or starved. She was imprisoned and made to defecate in a bucket, until she provided the information about Angel's location. Sorry, I just don't see her as the victim of abuse in the usual sense...at least not by Wesley.
[> [> Re: Justine as POW -- Shiraz, 14:19:17 10/07/02 Mon
Sorry, I can't accept that.
Justine is a criminal, pure and simple, and, just like Buffy said in Villians, society has its own methods of dealing with people like her. And I do beleive that what Wesley did to her was torture.
Think about how we first saw her: bound hand and foot, gagged (presumably to keept the neighbors from hearing her), wearing a steel collar (which would have been attached via a chain to her hand and foot restraints in order to keep her from standing upright), and kept in a brightly lit, four by six closet (too small to lay down in).
No hot pokers or bamboo skewers, perhaps, but I think most international organizations would consider that torture. Add to that Justines reaction to the "I'll take your bucket away" remark and its fairly certain that Wesley had managed to break her will, which is the true point of torture anyway.
Very scary, and very definately not the actions of a champion.
[> [> [> Oops!, spoilers for Angel 4.1 on above post! -- Shiraz, 14:27:39 10/07/02 Mon
Sorry.
[> [> imprisonment IS a form of abuse. -NT -- ZachsMind, 14:26:25 10/07/02 Mon
[> Locked away (Spoilers, Angel S4 Ep1) -- Rahael, 15:28:55 10/07/02 Mon
Well, I haven't seen the ep, of course.
But some off the cuff thoughts.
Justine is very damaged, with a lot of father-figure issues (i.e Holtz). I still haven't seen a lot of last Season's eps yet, and I think I've only seen one ep with Justine in it.
Wesley, who so obviously has his own father issues (not only in his remarks about his father, but also his tensions with Angel with regard to power dynamics within AI)
What does it mean, that Wesley keeps her locked away in the closet, mute, tied up, while he is having sex with Lilah?
Hidden, repressed.
Wasn't he deceived by her? Isn't Justine a continuous reminder of why he lost everything?
There also seems to be a symbolic connection to Angel, also locked up in a little box, bound up.
I don't think it's indicative of abuse of women. I think it's a big indicator of how much pain Wesley is under, and *what* that pain is.
It's also interesting that justine, who deceieved him last season is kept locked up, while Lilah, who he must know is also tempting him away from the gang is allowed the freedom of his bed.
Also interesting - Wesley's neck. Justine slit it. Angel seizes it.
As for the evil being cool debate. Well, I'm no admirer or ignorer of Spike's crimes. But it is quite clear that BtVS allows evil actions to have its glamour, it's power. If it didn't, if it wasn't potent and dramatic, the effort to turn away from them or combat them wouldn't work so well.
The shows are all about ambiguity, of allowing us to see from many perspectives. Of making us see from the perspective of those who abuse and murder and torture. Of making us feel their pain, and arrogance, and then making us recoil away. Willow did whatever she wanted to Warren, because she thought she had a right to inflict pain on someone she looked down on and thought was lesser than her. Wesley appears to be doing the same to Justine. Both are big honking signposts to us to show *how far* these characters have lost their way. How very lost they are, how lonely for home. (The same goes for DT and SR, B & S respectively).
Finally, I think there's another parallel between Willow and Wesley. When Willow tortured Warren, essentially, she saw her own face staring back at her. When Wesley tortures Justine, because that is what he is doing, he sees his own face.
Which means that deep inside, there's a part of him he has choked, silenced. Part of him immobile and tortured. It's powerful (I assume). And those things which pack a dramatic punch are cool. Not because what he's doing is 'cool' but because the narrative structure is affecting us.
[> [> Re: Locked away (Spoilers, Angel S4 Ep1) -- JM, 16:02:31 10/07/02 Mon
It is a very visceral image. Unspoiled, I'd been speculating that Wesley would probably torture Justine, perhaps even kill her to get Angel's whereabouts. But even with that mindset I was completely unprepared. When I saw Justine squatting bound in that cage my stomach actually lurched. We knew that he was capable of ruthlessness, I had no idea that he was capable of such sustained, measured cruelty.
That said, I do think that he identified with her. "We all get what we deserve." However he may resent Gunn and Fred's behavior especially, he believes he deserved getting his throat cut, attempted smothering, being cast out. His interactions with Angel are stunningly tender and gentle. He believably conveys sympathy for Justine. When he throws her the keys he truly does seem to wish her release from her own mental prison. Just as Angel later sympathizes with, but still censures, Connor. But as always with Wes, what he wishes doesn't seem to interfere with what he believes the world makes him do.
[> [> Another parallel - Angel and Wesley (Spoilers, Angel S4 Ep1) -- lulabel, 21:46:00 10/07/02 Mon
I saw another parallel between Angel and Wesley which was symbolized by the dinner scene at the beginning. Wesley was at the opposite end of the table emerging from the dark. In this he represents the mirror self of Angel, his equal, his partner.
Angel has already taken his journey through ultimate darkness - I think we will see the same for Wesley this season. Angel in season 2 was also capable of acts of cruelty and seriously questionable morality.
Yes, I found the imprisonment of Justine to be very disturbing - she wasn't just in a cell, she was on her knees with a gag - a "slave" as she put it so aptly.
[> Re: Wesley = Spike -- Miss Edith, 17:10:58 10/07/02 Mon
Well when people are saying a scene was cool to watch I don't think they are necessarily condoning the behaviour. People are just talking of what makes good entertainment sometimes. On this board I'm sure there will be a lot of discussion in coming weeks about Wesley's behaviour and what it means etc. I can understand people being intrigued about the idea of Wesley becoming a truly ruthless character capable of torture to achieve his ends. It does sound like we are in for some interesting character twists.
And if there had been an innocent animal in the closet then yes there would have been an outcry. But Wesley was not torturing Justine for his amusement. He needed help finding a man that Justine had condemned to spending eternity in a metal cage underwater. Wes has always taken the attitude that the end justifies the means. It was either be ruthless with Justine or leave Angel to his fate. It was not a case of Wesley inflicting torture for pleasure as Willow did for instance. It was a case of needing to be a badass to save his former friend. Plus Justine had slit Wesley's throat and caused him quite a bit of discomfort for a number of weeks. She was hardly an innocent victim so I don't really see the analogy with Wesley torturing an innocent animal.
I am not arguing that the end justifies the means necesserily, but that is certainly a policy Wesley follows and yes I am excited and pleased by that. I was also disturbed with Justine's torture. I think it is possible to feel pity for her, at the same time as being interested in where Wesley's character is going.
As for Wesley getting away with it in fans eyes because he is a cool character I am just not seeing that. People are discussing the possibilities of where Wesley's character is going. Maybe some people are talking of how well it came across on screen and what great viewing we are in for but I don't remember many people saying they fully supported Wesley's actions.
Noir Angel Pt. 1 -- Arethusa, 11:01:25 10/07/02 Mon
Okay, this is a bit of an experiment, to see if I could do it. No philosophy-just the facts, ma'm. Part 2 will be sometime before I hit 50-otherwise, no guarentee.
Part I Journey Into Fear:Characteristics of Noir in Angel
ìIt was a world where women with a past and men with no future spent eternal nights in the city streets.î(1)
Descended from the crime and gangster books and magazines of the 20s and 30s, and expanding to the movies of the 40s and early 50s, noir (French for ìblackî) was not a separate genre-it was ìa matter of ëmood, style and tone.íî(2) Writers heavily influenced by Hemmingway's sparse, naturalistic prose and disillusioned by WW I wrote stories of hard-boiled detectives, alienated by society and controlled only by their own shaky moral code. These books and cheap pulp magazines were dubbed ìroman noirî by French writers. Twenty years later French critics named the wave of low budget crime movies with stark lighting and starker themes ìfilm noir.î(4)
After WW II, many soldiers returned home restless after years of dangerous activity, lonely for the camaraderie of military life, and unable to slip back into the mainstream of American society, where soldiers were returning to the dull responsibilities of school, work, and family. Marriage was out of the question, the wholesome American girl unattainable. These lives, often mired in ìcrime, corruption and cruelty,î(5) were echoed in film noir.
Film noir is set in the big city streets at night. The protagonist is alienated from society, and vulnerable to betrayal, especially by a woman. He is lonely, filled with fears and nightmares. The lines between good and evil blur as the antihero tries to fight his inevitable descent into degredation and death. Betrayal is inevitable. Plot twists, reversals of expectations, and flashbacks build suspense and a feeling of dread.(6)
In ìAngel,î noir elements have been fused into a fantasy/horror television show as easily as they have melded with western, gangster and crime movies. ìAngelî is fundamentally noir, with a vampire protagonist who is alienated from society by his very nature, eternally seeking redemption and fighting evil, but never winning. The streets, sewers and office buildings of Los Angeles are ìAngelî's setting, and it is nearly always night, a vampire's natural habitat. ìStephen Holden describes the standard ingredients of film noir in a nutshell: ìA world-weary private eye finds himself trapped in a decadent, crime-ridden society. Even when he solves a case,î good doesn't necessarily triumph over evil. ìThe evil is simply mopped up.î The milieu of film noir is a stark night world of dark angles and elongated shadows, where rain glistens on windows and windshields and faces are barred with shadows that suggest some imprisonment of body or soul. This dark, brooding atmosphere, coupled with an equally somber view of life, mark a movie as film noir.î(7) I just know what ìit feels like to be trapped. Insulated from the outside world. Existing, without living,î Angel says to explain why he wants to help others. (Corrupt, not filmed) He is derided by Holland Manners, a corrupt lawyer at Wolfram and Hart. ìSee, for us, there is no fight. Which is why winning doesn't enter into it. We - go on - no matter what. Our firm has always been here. In one form or another. The Inquisition. The Khmer Rouge. We were there when the very first cave man clubbed his neighbor. See, we're in the hearts and minds of every single living being. And *that* - friend - is what's making things so difficult for you. - See, the world doesn't work in spite of evil, Angel. - It works with us. - It works because of us." (Reprise)
The crimes that terrorize every noir city often have a demon's face on ìAngel.î Demons are the physical manifestations of fears and nightmares in ìAngel,î and the demon world, flourishing under the nose of the city but invisible to most, is like the world of criminals and misfits that floats under the surface of every big city. Part demon himself, Angel , a 247-year-old vampire cursed by Gypsies with the restoration of his soul and conscience, consumed by remorse for his past bloodletting and doomed to wander the earth in an agonizing in-between state, neither human nor monster (Paley)(8)î hunts those that the police cannot or will not. ì(People who live by day) have help. The whole world is designed for them, so much that they have no idea what goes on around them after dark. They don't see the weak ones lost in the night-or the things that prey on them,î Angel said.î (Into the Dark) (9).
(1) Does Film Noir Mirror the Culture of Contemporary America?
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/E/noir/noirxx.htm
(2) Writing the New Noir Film
http://www.hollywoodnet.com/pov/pov9.html
(3) Narrative Innovations in Film Noir by Michael Mills
http://www.moderntimes.com/palace/inv_noir.htm
(4) Night of the Soul: American Film Noir
http://library.calumet.purdue.edu/nitesoul.htm
(5) No Place for a Woman: The Family in Film Noir by John Blaser
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/noir/
(6) Film Noir's Progressive Portrayal of Women
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/noir/pp-all.html
(7)The Outer Limits of Film Noir
ibid
(8) Shadows of Film Noir by Brian Fairbanks
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/writer/Shadows1.html
(9)Film Noir Films by Tim Birks
http://www.filmsite.org/filmnoir.html
(10) English 101: Introduction to Film by Matthew Hurt
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/hurt/104/class%20Materials/lecture%20Notes/noir_notes.htm
All BtVS and Angel quotes by psyche
Gee, it seemed a lot longer when I was writing it!
[> Re: Noir Angel Pt. 1 -- JM, 15:30:12 10/07/02 Mon
Sorry you got no responses. Hopefully this will help you stay on the board. It's a great start and I can't wait to see what comes next. Especially since Wes and Lilah seem to be filling some very noir archetypes.
If you any of your research comments on this I would be interested on more about the urbanness of noir. These films were coming out at the time when there was the beginning of a huge migration (especially of whites of immigrant extract) from the urban cores to the new burbs. I was wondering if the noir films also acted as commentary on American conflictedness about our cities. We definitely need them, even now, but they are very at odds with our pastoral nation-myth. Even now, with such a small number of farming families, farms have an emotional hold on the national consciousness. I am even more interested because of the contrast with Buffy's suburban/Main Street setting.
[> [> Re: Noir Angel Pt. 1 -- Arethusa, 15:53:52 10/07/02 Mon
Buffy's setting is the opposite of noir. Virtually all noir takes place in cities because it breeds a sense of fear, isolation and danger. People are strangers in a city, and crime is higher than in the suburbs. There was a big influx of city immigration after the war, and some roman noir reflected this (Cornell Woolrich, for example), but film noir took place in the cities because that was where the gangsters, loose women, and crime were. Also, film noir was very heavily influenced by German expressionism, which I believe (don't know for absolute sure) was mainly set in cities. Can't have buildings towering over petty crooks, or rain-swept streets lit by streetlights, in the small towns and country.
(In the 20s was the first big transfer of country people to the cities-for the first time, there were more people in cities than in farms. )
[> [> [> Pastoral vs Noir and Riley -- Rahael, 16:30:34 10/07/02 Mon
This is a very interesting thread! I too am waiting for part two.
But while I do, just a few comments.
JM's post reminded me of Riley, from Iowa. His description of his life at home, which he himself referred to as pictaresque and pastoral. This is contrasted to Sunnydale, even if it isn't as noir as AtS. Sunnydale has plenty of dark places.
But I was remembering what a contrast Riley was to Angel at first - he was the cowboy (referred to as John Wayne) and Angel goes on to become the brooding PI (another iconic film archetype). But he turned from cowboy to secret agent, and stepped into the shadows a little more. this is foreshadowed in Hush, where we see the protagonists are only comfortable getting intimate (kissing, finally, in the street) in silence and darkness. And, even before that, in Buffy's dream in that ep - when he kisses her, the sun goes down. And the darkness falls.
[> [> [> [> Re: Pastoral vs Noir and Riley -- Arethusa, 16:51:27 10/07/02 Mon
I was just going to do AtS, but Riley follows a clear noir path-dragged down into degredation by his love of a woman, losing his sense of connection to the rest of the world, his job, his sense of self. Black and white are no longer clear-cut, and he has to deal with life in the shadows. Funny-to corn-fed Iowa boy Riley, Sunnydale is the Big, Bad City, and Buffy is the femme fatale, in the noir tradition.
[> [> [> [> [> Femme Fatale -- Rahael, 17:19:51 10/07/02 Mon
Isn't she just! She literally kills things. But there's another femme fatale in Riley's life - Professor Walsh.
Walsh is the real reason that Riley descends into the dark. She's the one who makes him all chipped and secret agenty. She's spying on him having sex.
Sorry for diverting this onto a Riley tangent (now that doesn't get said very often!!). Let's return to AtS!
[> [> [> [> [> [> or possibly Claude Rains' mother in Notorious!! -- Rahael (nicking dH's comment), 17:26:20 10/07/02 Mon
Professor Walsh, I mean.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Femme Fatale -- Arethusa, 17:47:00 10/07/02 Mon
The femme fatale is supposed to seduce the protagonist into crime-a large part of her persona is a rejection of the Madonna role, refusing to be monogamous or a mother, since it would confine her into a societal straight-jacket. (Getting into Part 3, here.) The Initiative was a family to Walsh; she referred to herself in her notes that Adam read as his and Riley's mother. In her view it was Buffy who was the seductress, and who alienated him from his proper society.
Unless she had even more twisted plans for Riley than we knew....
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You are very right -- Rahael, 17:51:53 10/07/02 Mon
The Walsh suggestion was just a literal word play on my part, the fatal female who dragged Riley down.
However, the mother in Notorious - hates her son's wife, tries to poison her,and everyone's involved in shadowy organisations. Of course that would make Riley Claude Rains. And would that make Cary Grant Angel? Giles?
I haven't watched enough noir films to know, but is this triangle a common trope? The 'wicked woman' who is really the hero a la Buffy and Ingrid Bergman?
Or maybe I should be patient and wait for Part three!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You are very right -- Arethusa, 18:11:24 10/07/02 Mon
Some films, especially at noir's end in the early 50s, did have a bad girl who helped the hero, becoming a kind-of-good girl, and giving the film a happy ending. I don't think a Hollywood studio would let Bergman drag Grant to his untimely and messy demise! But usually, the girl lead him into a miserable death. (In the book that inspired Hitchcock's Suspicion, Grant really did kill pregnant Joan Fontaine-she let him because she couldn't bear the thought of having a killer's child. But that doesn't bring in the movie customers.)
The nick of time, or "how to gage cages" (spoilers from various buffy and angel seasons be warned) -- funny_syphilis_guy, 12:52:58 10/07/02 Mon
**Warning**
I have not yet seen last night's Angel, but I have skimmed the skinny.
re: Justine's Ensnarement.
Thesis:
Cages in the Buffyverse are often externalized representations of character's inner struggle to work through deep personal/psychological issues.
Instances:
Oz was caged just about every episode of Buffy Season Three (and some of Four I think). While he learned how to deal, or not deal, with the Wolf.
Spike in Buffy Season 5 spent a considerable amount of time "caged" or at least bound in several locales, including Initiative HQ, his crypt, Xander's basement and Giles shagpad.
In The Wishverse many human "pets" were caged in the Bronze, to be slowly devoured by the Masters minions, in the hopes of becoming immortal.
In "There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb" Fred, Cordy, Gunn, Wes and Angel are all caged in a sense. Fred and Cordy with neck explosives, Gunn and Wes in Medieval style wrist and neck restraints, Fred and Angel in Fred's cave, where Angel has to deal with his Demon.
I could keep going. just stuff to think on.
[> Re: "how to gage cages" (spoilers from current US) -- JM, 15:42:00 10/07/02 Mon
I was thinking some about Justine's cage. I thought it was a interesting parallel to the cage that she put Angel in. Very fitting punishment. Seems like she spent about the same amount of time.
I thought it was also interesting that it is Wes that keeps her in the cage/closet. The very first hint we have about Wes's bad childhood involves being locked under the stairs. Whatever other emotional and verbal abuse, at the least, that he experienced it's this memory that lies the closest to the surface and easiest for the demon in IGYUMS to pick up. For all the practical reasons to keep her there it may also have been the most effective method Wes knew of breaking the spirit.
And for all three characters confinement is a metaphor for their existence. Angel's soul is a prison for his demon, his curse a prison for the opportunies his unlife might present. Justine's rage, grief, and psychological issues trap her in a prison of destructive choices and behavior. Wes's upbringing seems to trap him inside his own reserve, making human connection somewhat difficult. His self- and AI-imposed isolation seems to be acting as another confinement of sorts, limiting his scope of action and the moral alternatives he has to choose from.
[> [> Re: "how to gage cages" (spoilers from current US) -- Rahael, 15:57:44 10/07/02 Mon
Couldn't agree more - but you say it more elegantly than I just did in Yaby's thread.
[> [> [> Re: "how to gage cages" (spoilers from current US) -- JM, 19:58:45 10/07/02 Mon
I don't think so. I thought what you posted below was very eloquent and insightful. The identification angle was a slightly different view than I had grasped, but it jived with what I sensed when he said "We all get what we deserve." Thank you for the compliment though.
OT Thanks to David Frisby -- Rahael, 13:50:47 10/07/02 Mon
Just a quick note to say that prompted by your recent posts, I've started doing quite a bit of reading into Nietzsche over the last two days.
Thank you! It's really interesting, and I must say I'm really startled at the way it matches up to what we've seen (not that I've gotten to actually see any of it) of Season 7. In fact, I don't think my mind has felt so engaged for a long long time. I've been reading on the way to work, in my lunchbreak, on the way home, etc.
It gives me a real perspective on Spike's storyline, and a completely different context to the events of Grave, including the ending with Xander and Willow. Also Buffy in Season 5, 'burning with love'.
And now I'm thinking that Cordelia, in her early cruelty was exhibiting her need to gain more power - and that as she become stronger, starting to truly 'love herself', she grew as a person. I had never realised before that Nietzsche differentiated between Macht and Kraft. Though there are parts that I still find troubling about what he says, I've just found it very provocative and thoughtful.
It has been very nice, while I've been twiddling my thumbs, feeling jealous of all those who get to see the new eps.
[> Re: OT Thanks to David Frisby (You're Welcome!) -- Frisby, 15:57:17 10/07/02 Mon
You are very welcome and thank you for the kind words. On Macht (usually translated power) and Kraft (usually translated force), you might check out _Z_ 3.10.1 (On the Three Evils) where Zarathustra's day wisdom proclaims the numerical mastery of force (wherever force is, there number becomes its mistress), or in a nutshell, the modern scientific philosophy of mathematical physics (founded fundamentally by Descartes, whom Nietzsche quotes for a motto to _Human All Too Human_ -- perhaps Descartes's most important line from his _Discourse_).
Of course, his day wisdom can not even begin to comprehend his night wisdom (see _Z_ 3.15.3) -- its domain stretches to all surfaces but leaves the 'depths' untouched and unknown -- the eternal mystery.
Force is power made visible, and to his day wisdom, is beautiful (or sublime). For the night wisdom, day must learn to love its own, and wrap it in a noble shell (3.11.2). And there we touch on the deepest in all of philosophy: one's own. And we touch on perhaps the highest in Nietzsche's thought: nobility (see chapter nine of _Beyond Good and Evil_).
By the way, I take it you live in Britain? My wife's parents are from England and she still has relatives living in Somerset (about 100 miles west of London) -- I loved it there when we visited (including Bath, near where Tony Head is now, I think, and of course Stonehenge). There's also a little town near Sherwood Forest called Frisby (on the Wreck) which I plan to visit some day (many Frisbys came to England from the Freisland Islands and then to America in 1600s).
I read Nietzsche very often of course, and for what its' worth, the 2nd untimely meditation is one of my personal favorites -- but TSZ & BGE & GM are surely his most important (not counting the final work that never got written). I want to work on one called _Zarathustra at the Great Noon_ one day, and have plenty written already, but but but
It's hard for me to hear that you won't see Buffy 7.3 tomorrow. That would be terrible! Of course, we over here in America can't even buy season three on DVD yet while you already can buy season five!!!
And I'd love to hear about those "troubling things" (including the citations if possible please). Context and utility are a great deal if not everything in Nietzsche's writings. He's sometimes as hard to read as Plato (as contrasted to Aristotle or Kant, for example, who next to them are easy).
There's an interesting article somewhere about Cordelia and Plato's cave (especially given the context of her development in the Angel series). Seen it?
As to jealousy and/or envy, well, need I say both Plato and Nietzsche have plenty to say? Positive jealousy includes admiration of another mixed with the emulation to achieve it for oneself. Envy can be the basest passion, but like anger and hate, can also be sublimated to good use (see _Z_ 1.10 and compare 1.8).
Last, on the main point of Buffy and Nietzsche, see the character of "Life" in 2.10 and 3.15 (she whispers her secret in Z's ear in the former and in the latter he whispers in her ear the deeper secret). And then there's Frau Lou Andreas Salome in N's life (see the great novel _When Nietzsche Wept_) and Ariadne on the highest theological level.
Questons? Objections? Comments? Additions?
Only 26 hours until Buffy 7.3!
David
[> [> Re: OT Thanks to David Frisby (You're Welcome!) -- Rahael, 16:23:22 10/07/02 Mon
I read novels very fast, and philosophy very slowly! (one paragraph, and then a lot of thinking). At the moment, I'm interspersing a book of essays with a reader, containing extracts. I move between the two.
Thanks for the guide, and the suggestions, which I will be following up.
I think what I find troubling is the elitism, where the few are better than the mass. But as you say, context is everything. And I have in no way read enough to be able to talk about why it bothers me - it may simply just be part of my reading process. I sometimes get scared that when I read anything, I'm falling into the narrative too uncritically (I have the same problem with Buffy, but I don't bother resisting!), so I always try to question.
Since I have a very Foucauldian view of power, I'm finding Nietzsche's discussion of power very interesting. His description of achieving spiritual wholeness is inspiring. And as the person who keeps on insisting here that forgiveness is not essential to spiritual health, the idea that these emotions can be sublimated and used positively is congenial.
I live in London, which means that yes, I will be able to buy DVDs for Season 5 very soon. But, no eps! Grr argh.
I don't think I've read the Cordy essay (but I want to! she's my favourite character!). Do you have a link?
But I shall keep reading, and no doubt it'll turn up in a post somewhere. 6 months or so later when I finally see the first eps of Season 7!
[> [> [> Re: OT Thanks to David Frisby (Requested URL) -- Frisby, 16:59:04 10/07/02 Mon
That article on Cordelia and Plato's cave is at
http://www.atpobtvs.com/philos2.html#cp
which, wouldn't you belive it, is from "this" site.
More later.
Oh, given that your favorite philosopher is Wittgenstein, I thought I'd note that I recently read ("Introducing Logic" published in England) that Wittgenstein was to be credited with the invention of the internet because the first time any "truth tables" appeared anywhere in print was his _Tractatus_ and it was those tables that for the most part enabled logic to become mechanized, so to speak. Interesting claim?
David
[> [> [> [> Re: OT Thanks to David Frisby (Requested URL) -- Rahael, 17:11:04 10/07/02 Mon
Thank you!
I did read it but, a very long time ago.
I am embarrassed to admit that Tractatus is just far too hard for me! I find the maths frightening. I'm more a Philosophical Investigations kind of gal.
Though I think Wittgenstein would be happy with being credited with something so practical and useful!
[> [> [> Re: OT Thanks to David Frisby (Elitism) -- Frisby, 03:30:21 10/08/02 Tue
Ouch! I wake up and find some "troubles" before me. I don't know if I'll have time this morning to do justice to them but I'll take a stab.
On elitism, that is perhaps the most natural response with regard to Nietzsche today. He was born in 1844 and while quite young lived during the time of 1848 -- the great revolutions around the world and all that -- and was shaped to some extent by those times. More generally, drawing upon the thought of Leo Strauss to help me out here, we live in the time of the modernity's second wave, initiated by Rousseau. The Glorious Revolution of 16xx, the American Treachery of 1776 (tongue in cheek here of course), the French Terror of 1789, 1848, and Russia 1917: all these have brought about what George Grant (borrowing from someone else) calls the mass age. We live in a mass age whose main postulate is that democracy is the good (and science the true, but that's another story). To not be for democracy is tantamount to being for tyranny. But that's just not true. That's politics. We live in a time of elitism as much if not more than ever. Not everyone who wants to makes it to the NBA. Not everyone gets to live in America (to simply be lucky enough to live in America is to be of the elite). There's no escaping the "few" whether we're talking about sports, wealth, or god forbid, intelligence. The hard truth is that reading may perhaps be the most important thing and few can really participate.
Anyway, our age has the motto "liberty equality fraternity" enshrined before its gate, all in all a system of justice of sorts. But that replaced an older understanding: "virtue nobility friendship." Civic existence was based on virtue, not liberty, and so forth. As Nietzsche says (Beyond 258) nobility if healthy refuses to be simply a function of either the monarchy (whether royalty or tyranny) or the commonwealth (whether democracy or the mob), and instead understands itself as their justification. Should the "some" be reduced to the "one" or the "all"? Is the "few" not distinct from the singular or the many?
Ideally, I should compose these thoughts more carefully and then refine them before posting them, but but but
Why do we find "the chosen few" such a repugnant term (Nietzsche uses "chosen people" near the end of Z.1). And "the chosen one"!!! Should not that offend us most all? But it doesn't -- does it! And why not? Fate? The powers that be? Is Buffy's "chosen one" status simply categorically different than Niezsche's ubermensch?
Oedipus was chosen, but his chosen-ness was a matter of destiny, not an adventure he chose, like Oedipus. And yet both are in a sense of the elite.
I've got to close this rambling (I did ask for the troubles, did I not?) so I can address Wisewoman's passage on man and woman. And of course there's work today.
In the Preface to his _Beyond_ Nietzsche likens himself to Pascal in his taking on "those who would abolish any notion of elitism" just as Pascal himself took on the Jesuits. The "times" is the crucial factor here.
Is there really anything more that smells of elitism than philosophy? We live under the spell of Hegel (the whole 2nd wave of modernity actually), where everyone in theory is about to become free and wise at the end of history, when in fact, we're ignorant puppets (but perhaps this is "not" the place for the cruel truth?). Then again, is this anything new? Didn't Plato already teach this thousands of years ago? Yes. But doesn't the slavery of their society rule out anything worthwhile we might learn? (No.)
To close, at least for the time being, I refer to Nietzsche's Beyond 260, where we learn that mastery and slavery exist within the same soul.
David
[> [> [> [> Re: OT Thanks to David Frisby (Elitism) -- Ete who doesn't know much about Nietzsche, 03:59:44 10/08/02 Tue
"Anyway, our age has the motto "liberty equality fraternity" enshrined before its gate"
Actually, that's what's written on my country's gates. You, you've got "In God we Trust". (Hey, one of the very few thing I'm really proud about my country is that it has one of the very few really laÔc constitution :)
Not that there's no Elitism in France. There's a whole culture of elitism and snobism. *sight*
By the way, Rahael is right, you bring a lot to this board. Thanks for all your posts.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: OT Thanks to David Frisby (liberty equality fraternity) -- Frisby, 16:12:30 10/08/02 Tue
According to Alan Bloom's _Closing of the American Mind_ we here in America are stuck in a tension between what Leo Strauss calls the first and second waves of modernity. The first is initiated by Machiavelli and carried out by Bacon and Descartes and Spinoza and Locke and others (although Locke of course is essential to the founding fathers of the states -- his life liberty and the pursuit of property, for example). The second wave was initiated by Rousseau and carried out by Kant and Hegel and Marx and Schopenhauer and others (although Hegel of course is essential to the modern nation-state, the universal and homogenous state at the end of history where all are free and wise -- what Nietzsche refers to as a herd without a sheperd, the opposite of what his ubermensch represents). Very loosely, the first wave emphasizes capitalism more and (dare I say it) emphasizes our 'republic' while the second emphasizes our democratic tendencies. In our history we americans tend to move towards one and then back to the other. According to Strauss the third wave of modernity was initiated by Nietzsche. Is this not imperialism all over again? the americanization of the globe in the name of creating capital and wealth (itself justified eventual through philanthropy, wherein the foundations will rule the corporations)? What would a Nietzschean America be?
As to France's "liberty equality fraternity" -- according to Nietzsche (I get as tired saying that as I'm sure some of you do hearing it) the entire modern world has been indelibly colored by Napoleon (Gay Science 5), whether we're speaking of France, the United States, or most any other nation-state. The 100 or so nation-states, in conjunction with the 1000 or so corporations, over the past five centuries or so, have brought an end to the sovereignty of the 6000 or so indigenous peoples of the planet, and now the key question is whether the corporations can divorce themselves from their need for the militaries of the nation-states, and rely upon their own technologies. But everything that stems from the revolutions of 1848 advocates liberty equality & fraternity (and NOT virtue nobility or friendship)!
But still, on a lighter note, thank god for France! (Nietzsche sees the new Europe as born of the marriage of father germany and mother france -- Beyond 8). But I have to close and move on.
df
[> [> [> [> Re: OT Thanks to David Frisby (Elitism) -- Rahael, 07:18:52 10/08/02 Tue
Thank you for this very thoughtful response.
First off, you are right. Democracy and equality is a 'good' in our society but it also has its tensions, as you and Ete point out.
For example, many people would agree to 'equality' but they usually mean 'equality of opportunity'. I know few who advocate 'equality' in outcome.
You are right, Buffy is the chosen one. Actually, this is something that troubled me at first. But then, as I watched more, it became clear that I think slightly differently to a lot of other people as to who Buffy is. It's not Xander who is the everyman, it's Buffy. Xander is the 'chosen' one in his life, as Buffy is in her tv series. We, all of us, regard ourselves as the 'chosen one' in our lives. To not think of ourselves in this positively egotistical way, would be 'weak', wouldn't you say, speaking in Nietzschean terms?
Isn't Buffy's preminent status in the show a problem for Willow? She says something along these lines to Buffy in Wrecked, expressing her doubts that Tara could ever love anyone who was 'just' Willow. She'd rather be 'superWillow'.
Which is how I choose to regard Giles' words to Willow, with regard to 'accepting ourselves'. Loving who we are, we become 'powerful'.
Before I respond to your comments about democracy, I'd have to say that I grew up in an explicitly elitist society. The people who struggled, who were poor - well, that was bound up in part with their caste, who they were, their station in life. There was no pretence at meritocracy. There was an acceptance that the rich and educated would do well, and the poor and uneducated? - they were the servants and the labourers. The only way that the lower caste could break free, would be to get an education, and break through the ranks. That also has an elitism too, quite obviously.
I must have found it repugnant at an early age, because my aunt told me a couple of years ago that when she met an old primary school teacher of mine, the teacher had remarked that often, when the middle class girls refused to stand next to a lower caste one, I would deliberately go and stand with her.
My society reasoned that those who had been born in an unfortunate position had somehow done something to deserve it. It was the fortunate who were able to attain nobility and wisedom, and therefore also aquired the rights to leadership. However, it is very easy to puncture through the flimsiness of this rhetoric because you'd see the rich behaving in a vulgar, tasteless, ignoble way, while those who were less fortunate having a certain integrity and courage that commanded admiration. But I must admit that my family still inculcated the values of 'taste' 'nobility' and 'honour' within me - which goes back to your point about civic virtue. Obviously, I was looking down on certain people who I thought were being cruel, or hypocritical. So I have to admit it - I too am an elitist, but with a determinedly different set of values than structures of inequality in my society provided for. Perhaps my fear is that I don't want this vice of mine encouraged.
Now, I just want to make some comments about democracy and voting. Democracy isn't inherently democratic. It can be 'democratic' and highly elitist at once. Britain has a very young democray, probably only from around 1945 or so. Before that, if you had a degree, you were entitled to an extra vote. If you owned a business, you were entitled to a vote in every district your business was based/had an interest in. Therefore, you might have a situation where one person could have 7 votes, and his neighbour only one. If that isn't rewarding education and wealth, I don't know what is!!
This points us to certain elitist values bound up with the growth of democracy in Britain. In the 18C, we had a Parliamentary system, but universal suffrage was a dirty word. Why give the mob the vote? According to 18th C values, it made sense that only the educated and lesiured had time to vote. If you had a job which took up most of your time, you clearly couldnt' devote the requisite amount of time necessary to reading newspapers, educating yourself about issues, making the right choice. Only those who had property (as opposed simply to businesses and money) had a 'stake' in England, a stake in 'property law' and would therefore be able to vote in a wise, and just way. The 'have nots' would have nothing to lose in voting in a destructive way.
Having conceded all this, I have to then go on to say:
What I do fear is a certain world vision which sees the mass of humanity as somehow below them. Because it's an easy vision to fall into (it keeps cropping up within groups in English history!), and it seems to feed into a certain contempt for your fellow man. I find people who have this contempt a little scary. It's one thing to be critical about certain people's way of behaving, or their views which strike you personally as a little bizarre. You can still see them as worthy of respect and worthy of decent and honourable treatment.
Not that I'm saying that Nietzsche advocates it. As far as I understand, Nietzsche seems to be saying that the powerful, fully developed human being wishes to treat other human beings in a positive way. That those who find their fullest potential have so much strength, they can give some of it away, and wish to help others.
As a matter of fact, the other place I have found this contempt is not only within the caste system I have already mentioned, but in certain visions of Christianity, the religion which I count myself as being a rather eccentric member. Luther may have believed in the priesthood of all believers. But he, and many of his fellow protestants were obsessed with the idea of hell, and hell fire and punishment and sin. The idea of mankind steeped in sin, helpless to save themselves, a select few chosen by God to be saved even before their very birth; I can't wonder if this isn't even more elitist, and feeds even more certain contemptous ideas for the rest of your fellow men and women than even Nietzsche - who after all endows human beings with the agency to fully realise themselves.
So, at the end of it all, I am still troubled by ideas of the select, because I've seen the terrible consequences of those who think that they, the self-selected, have a right to treat others with incredible cruelty. But, I am refreshed by Nietzsche's discussion of power, a discussion, which accords human beings with an agency, a creativity and a complexity which seems to argue against us being able to 'dehumanize' others with ease.
And it's clear that the need to despise others needs no one ideoglogy to encourage or support it. Religion provides it. Secular ideologies provide it. I guess I'd want to argue that giving into this need shows you are 'weak' in Nietzschean terms.
[> [> [> [> [> Merit and elite -- Sophist, 10:00:09 10/08/02 Tue
I'm having trouble with Voy today, so I hope this posts.
Very nice points. I'd add a couple of comments that apply generally to the posts in this sub-thread.
First, I think it's important to discriminate between elitism and meritocracy. The former suggests an essentially undeserved prominence. The latter suggests the prominence was earned.
Second, democracy is not inconsistent with all "aristocratic" virtues, though it certainly is inconsistent with some of them. Strictly speaking, democracy only requires egalitarianism in 2 ways: the right to vote, and the right to equal protection of the laws (the latter being quite tricky to interpret).
Third, there can be real tension between democracy and liberty. I would argue that this is the most important issue facing Western democracies today. Obviously, other countries face much different (and maybe more important) issues.
A final, historical, point in response to Rah:
According to 18th C values, it made sense that only the educated and lesiured had time to vote. If you had a job which took up most of your time, you clearly couldnt' devote the requisite amount of time necessary to reading newspapers, educating yourself about issues, making the right choice. Only those who had property (as opposed simply to businesses and money) had a 'stake' in England, a stake in 'property law' and would therefore be able to vote in a wise, and just way. The 'have nots' would have nothing to lose in voting in a destructive way.
This omits the most frequently cited reason for limiting the franchise. The argument was made that voting required "independence". Generally speaking, this meant financial independence (hence the property requirements for voting). The reason given was that those who were not independent would be unduly influenced by others in their vote. This was seen as undesirable because the 18C was very concerned about "factions" -- a voter was supposed to be influenced only by the interests of the entire society. If a vote was "influenced" (by an employer, etc.), the result would be the subversion of society's "real" interests by a "faction".
The 18C republican theorists strongly believed that there was one true interest for a society. Any deviation from that true interest (which they, of course, were privy to) must result from faction/corruption. Charges of belonging to a "party" (and disavowals of such horror) and corruption were therefore a stock in trade of politics in those days.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Good points -- Rahael, 10:36:43 10/08/02 Tue
You are right - missed the obvious reason!
"This omits the most frequently cited reason for limiting the franchise. The argument was made that voting required "independence". Generally speaking, this meant financial independence (hence the property requirements for voting). The reason given was that those who were not independent would be unduly influenced by others in their vote. This was seen as undesirable because the 18C was very concerned about "factions" -- a voter was supposed to be influenced only by the interests of the entire society. If a vote was "influenced" (by an employer, etc.), the result would be the subversion of society's "real" interests by a "faction"."
Of course, that didn't eliminate the all too real influence of patronage, which is a pretty important part of 18th C high politics. I'd say there's a tension involved between rhetoric and reality on the point about 'influence' since influence pretty much made 18thC society turn. Faction, while a dirty word, was pretty much an integral part of how Parliament functioned. After all, 'Prime Minister' was as much of an insult as 'party'.
A final point before I go home:
"First, I think it's important to discriminate between elitism and meritocracy. The former suggests an essentially undeserved prominence. The latter suggests the prominence was earned."
The problem with this is, that there instantly is a correlation between success and merit. Those who fail, didn't have it, so in a sense they deserved to. While those who end up at the top of the heap could claim that they had merit. I don't think that the 'Upper ten thousand' in 18th Century England thought they were without merit. They thought they were eminently meritorious. That's why they were the nobility. After all, weren't they more educated, more cultured, more refined than the mob?
I'm not claiming that meritocracy is a sham, just playing devil's advocate. The elite always see themselves as superior, as having more merit.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Good points -- Sophist, 13:01:01 10/08/02 Tue
I'd say there's a tension involved between rhetoric and reality on the point about 'influence' since influence pretty much made 18thC society turn. Faction, while a dirty word, was pretty much an integral part of how Parliament functioned.
Absolutely. In fact, Hume and others argued that corruption was integral to the functioning of Parliament, and they defended the practice. I should have made clear that the accusations of "faction" and "corruption" came mostly from the Country ideologues, whether Tory (Bolingbroke) or True Whig (Cato's Letters).
The problem with this is, that there instantly is a correlation between success and merit. Those who fail, didn't have it, so in a sense they deserved to. While those who end up at the top of the heap could claim that they had merit.
All too true. My point was that we need to make that evaluation on our own and not let the actual elite serve as judges in their own case.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Good points (Calvinism and Jonathan Edwards) -- Frisby, 16:36:36 10/08/02 Tue
Protestant Christianity in the form of Calvinism takes the sign of success to indicate salvation, and assumes that salvation will bring success. In America, Jonathan Edwards reads this in terms of moral determinism (it is morally impossible for the saint to sin). It develops into Hegel's justification via success -- the winners of the war which is history write the accounts of the past, secular theodicy!
For Nietzsche (as for the American Charles Sanders Peirce), chance is real! In the Copenhagen Controversy (20th century physics) he takes the side that the indeterminancy is ontological and not merely epistemological. Or as he himself puts it, no hand and not even a finger of god is guiding our destiny. And now that we know that, it's up to us, but are we fit for such a grand task? Will our progress in genetic engineering change the very knowledge domain of evolutionary biology? Do we "want" to evolve beyond ourselves as we did before with our primate genealogy? Is Heidegger right that we are puppets of our own technology? or is Nietzsche right that our technology is but an aspect of our own evolution? Should we become gods and goddesses? Or should we aim even higher? to philosophy? (both Plato and Nietzsche agree that even the gods philosophize, although Plato hides this great secret and Nietzsche proclaims it -- end of Beyond).
Is Nietzsche's amor fati (a new form of submission to god) comparable to Calvin's predestination? Or does it signify an acceptance of our own part in the natural history of life on earth?
David (Cheers for physics!)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Merit and elite -- Frisby, 16:17:46 10/08/02 Tue
My only comments are to note that according to Plato democracy aims for liberty and equality but therefore decays into tyranny (by way first of theatocracy or the rule of the actors), and tyranny cares not for liberty or equality but only for order and security or safety. Also, the humanity's true highest interest is philosophy or that which draws homo sapien (the wise being) further beyond itself. What "is" our destiny?
df
[> [> [> [> [> Re: OT Thanks to David Frisby (democracy) -- Frisby, 15:54:07 10/08/02 Tue
Interesting what you say about England pre-WW2 and voting. I never knew that. Democracy from one extreme (all the same even with results) to the other (equal opportunity for the rational and industrious) is still rule of the people, such that the city exists for its sake, and the university for the city's sake, and the professor or intellectual for the sake of the university, as contrasted with the people being fodder for the city, which exists to support the university, whose purpose is to provide all that the professor needs for his research (this latter arrangment being non-democratic and even elitist). Should the higher (the noble) stoop out of pity for the lower (the base) and offer a hand to bring them up, or even lower themselves so the lower don't feel indignant envy and perhaps even revenge? Or should the higher hold the lower in contempt, challenging them to emulate what they admire and long for? Can we even discuss such things without opening ourselves to charges of elitism? According to Leo Strauss the one most important thing about democratic rule (according to Plato's _Republic_) is that it even permits the philosophers to be (whereas in other regimes they are persecuted and abolished because their free minds threaten to break the shackles on the mind that society requires -- for example, how else get the young boys to fight and die for their nations). Our world is at war and aims to abolish all suffering and inequality (says Nietzsche), and therefore, as a corrective to this extreme position, he even advocates cruelty, ruthlessness, and an overall hardness of heart (Become hard! Z says in 3.12).
But what am I doing? Is not this teaching on the rigor of justice not actually a teaching of madness (cf. Z 2.20)? Was not Rousseau right in advocating pity and compassion and sympathy for our fellows as the highest virtue? Is it not "wrong" to inculcate the traditional evils into one's soul? Must our roots sink into the darkness of evil if our branches are to reach to the sun, to the good, and triumph in its own will to power versus the other trees which also strive upwards to gather all the sunlight for themselves? What could it mean to really be beyond good and evil?
Should I be saying these things? Should Nietzsche have? Did he? Is Nietzsche's "new nobility" just one more mad tyranny attempting again to bring the human world under a new rule? Are Nietzsche's "lords of the earth" just one more act of madness on the part of an impotent little scholar with mommy problems? Is Nietzsche's ubermensch (or superman, always in the singular, except in reference to its use by poets, where "nature" occurs its one and only time in TSZ) just another wish on the part of one who longs to be god?
My contention is that all of this depends fundamentally on how one understands philosophy and the philosopher, not just in Nietsche's thought, but in Plato's, and a "few" others. And even if one believes such things, would it not be unwise to the max to speak much less advocate such things? Would not persecution extend and apply even in our free society with regard to such hateful positions?
I'll close my rhetoric here and move on to other responses in the hope that my postings really do "add something to this forum" as a couple of other posters wrote. Nietzsche's thought does ususally raise controversy. Even though I still understand his main point to be the love of life (his cure for nihilism). The time for the appropriation of the planet is upon us -- or as Heidegger calls it, the fulfillment of the words of an old testament to establish dominion -- and Nietzsche's question for us is whether we are fit for that task: strong enough. It's not about whether its right or wrong, it's about power.
david (he writes sheepishly with a wry smile)
[> [> [> [> [> [> They really do!! -- Rahael, 16:11:25 10/08/02 Tue
Add something. I've enjoyed this discussion immensely!!
And you write very eloquently too.
Enjoy the ep!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: They really do!! (they = my posts?) -- Frisby, 16:51:39 10/08/02 Tue
My posts do? "Immensely?" That's a lot. Maybe a bit hyperbolic even? The universe is immense and vast. Steven Hawking's new cosmology, with the Planck time (Gh/ccccc all to the power of 1/2), seems to me to rule out any absolute beginning or ending. Otherwise we are left with a thermodynamic system of equilibrium energy entropy enthalpy and eventuality (known as nihilism in the world of concern to us).
Eloquence is a matter of rhetoric, contingent upon its persuasive value.
70 minutes until showtime (buffy 7.3)!
I'll push on through the thread.
df
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL. Yes. -- Rahael, 16:59:52 10/08/02 Tue
[> The "troubling parts..." -- Wisewoman, 19:06:10 10/07/02 Mon
Okay, I think I managed to mostly stay out of the Nietzsche discussion last time around, but I read a fair bit of it years ago and formed a definite opinion based, in part, on
Nietzsche on Woman
"To underestimate the real difficulties of the man and woman problem, to fail to admit the abysmal antagonism and the inevitable nature of the constant strain between the two, to dream of equal rights, education, responsibilities and duties, is the mark of the superficial observer, and any thinker who has been found shallow in these difficult places - shallow by nature - should be looked upon as untrustworthy, as a useless and treacherous guide; he will, no doubt, be one of those who 'briefly deal with' all the real problems of life, death and eternity - who never gets to the bottom of things. But the man who is not superficial, who has depth of thought as well as of purpose, the depth which not only makes him desire right but endows him with determination and strength to do right, must always look on woman from the oriental standpoint:- as a possession, as private property, as something born to serve and be dependent on him - he must see the marvellous reasonableness of the Asiatic instinct of superiority over women, as the Greeks of old saw it, those worthy successors and disciples of the Eastern school. It was an attitude towards woman which, as is well known, from Homer's time till that of Pericles, grew with the growth of culture, and increased in strength step by step, and gradually became quite oriental. What a necessary, logical, desirable growth for mankind! if we could only attain to it ourselves!"
(I'm sorry--I kept the passage above but not the reference. Perhaps David recognizes it?) Also:
From Beyond Good and Evil:
"When a woman turns to scholarship [or, learning] there is usually something wrong with her sexually."
"Did any woman ever acknowledge profundity in another woman's mind, or justice in another woman's heart?"
From The Dawn:
"Woman is unspeakably more wicked than man, also cleverer. Goodness in woman is really nothing but a form of degeneracy."
From Zarathustra:
"Far too long hath there been a slave and a tyrant concealed in woman. On that account woman is not yet capable of friendship: she knoweth only love."
"In woman's love there is injustice and blindness to all she doth not loveÖAs yet woman is not capable of friendship: women are still cats, and birds. Or at best, cows."
Yes, context is important, and maybe he wasn't really responsible for Fascism and Nazism, but he was clinically insane for ten years before he died.
;o) dub
[> [> hmmm... -- Victorinox, 19:51:25 10/07/02 Mon
*cough*mommy problems?*cough*
[> [> [> You said it...LOL! -- dub, 19:57:17 10/07/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> Re: You said it...LOL! -- Frisby, 17:06:00 10/08/02 Tue
Laugh? Yes, laugh! But beware of the laugh of Zarathustra (3.2) because once you hear that laugh you could die of envy -- the envy to laugh that laugh! Laughter in the form of mockery is a very dangerous weapon -- one kills gravity with levity (but the philosopher mixes levity with gravity in the perfect proportion). And humor or comedy is the answer -- is it not? Did not Kierkegaard assign humor the key role of making possible the move from the ethical life to the religious life (and irony from aesthetic to ethical)? And as Plato taught, is not comedy "higher" than tragedy?
Was Freud right that laughter is impossible without cruelty?
David
[> [> [> Re: hmmm... (mommy?) -- Frisby, 17:00:52 10/08/02 Tue
We all have "mommy" problems. As Nietzsche's Zarathustra says, the earth is our mother. Our relation as a species to the planet is the problem. The harmony of human nature to nature is in fact discordant (seen the trilogy Koyaanisqatsi, Powaqqatsi, Naqoyqatsi -- the 3rd of which is due out this fall???). Studied Orestes? According to someone or other that I read (was it Ouspensky?) the child is one with the mother in the womb and then during the first seven years (ideally) moves from the body of the mother to planet earth. Now that we know God is dead, this planet is our most important practical concern. But maybe we should now move on beyond mother earth to ----?
david
[> [> Re: The "troubling parts..." -- Rufus, 20:57:47 10/07/02 Mon
You have just pointed out the reason why I may look at the nice words that the big Philosophy names say, but realize that they are people subject to their own prejudices. I have read a bit on many of these people and note, most of them are just as or even more f*cked up than the most normal of us. They are just people who put pen to paper and inked out what things humanity has considered since the beginning of time. Like all of us some of them have flaws. What they say can't be taken as the word on how we should all act....even that Joseph Cambell guy...;) I take each Philosophers writings to be the seed for further thought and discussion. Oh yeah.....I agree on that N guy......mommy issues...women issues...and a general lack of trust for what he could never or chose not to understand...he did say some neat stuff though.
[> [> [> Re: The "troubling parts..." -- shadowkat, 07:09:53 10/08/02 Tue
Agree with you and you just put into words why I take a lot of the stuff Philosophers say with a grain of salt.
I do pretty much the same thing with philosophy that I do with posting board views - take pieces of everyone's views and put them together in a jigsaw puzzel in my head.
Some of the things people say is right on, but being human it gets lost or colored by our own views and experience.
Example: Nietzche's views appear to be filtered through a veil of his distaste for women.
Or XYZ poster's views (XYZ doesn't exist, I'm doing a hypothetical) are filtered through a viel of his/her obvious distast for Spike or Buffy. Because this poster identifies the fictional character too closely with an ex-boyfriend or girlfriend or some other personal experience.
Knowing this - makes it easier for me to refilter what they say and exclude any or all comments that may come from a blindspot. If a poster is obsessed with a certain myth or historical period - this will color every post they make on the show. So you filter a little of that out and you find great points.
Same with Nietzche or Kant or Descartes - you filter out the emotional/non-relevant data. It's hard to do without knowing more about the personal history and motives of the person, but with Nietzche a lot can be figured out just by reading between the lines, (just as a lot can be discovered about board posters by reading behind the lines. We reveal a lot about ourselves through our likes and dislikes and tone of words. Far more than we may want to.)
It does make it tough to read Nietzche though, just as I find it tough to read posters messages when I know these messages will be colored by their distaste for my favorite character (I can't read AntiSpike, AntiWillow or AntiBuffy posts without wanting to throw things at the computer screen or attacking the posters- so I just don't read certain threads), I have to get past my own emotional reaction in order to appreciate anything they are saying.
I wonder if most of the miscommunication and heated arguements that arise in our world come about due to an inability to filter or get rid of the personal biases and
prejudices that color our opinions and arguments? How much stronger would Nietzche's arguments and opinions have been if he were able to get past his own prejudices and biases?
Or do the biases give him an air of humanity and fallibity, making some of his arguments more interesting or just more dangerous?
Hmmm, not sure that made any sense. Just my ten cents.
SK
[> [> [> [> Re: The "troubling parts..." -- Rahael, 08:30:56 10/08/02 Tue
Makes total sense SK, but I'm going to have to have a different take on this one.
I think people's world views have a certain coherence. As 'Lessons' might tell us, everything is connected. Our virtues and our vices are not split apart. A virtuous action in one instance is a bad action in another. Buffy killing vampires - virtuous. Buffy killing Spike - not virtuous. And yet the reason for the contradiction is both rational (and emotional!), and connected.
I also am someone who values subjectivity. When I wrote history essays, I wrote with an unashamedly subjective viewpoint. If I wasn't aware of the subjectivity, I might make a less credible interpretation. Didn't Neitzsche say something about Objectivity not being an impersonal neutrality, but being able to encompass many different perspectives at once? I'm sure David will be able to correct me.
If we filter out the distasteful parts of those who wrote in different cultures and who hold different world views, we'll never understand exactly what they are trying to say. Because their wisdom and their error is connected. If I didn't take into consideration the misogyny or racism of a beloved author, I'll never fully appreciate the complexity of art, or my appreciation of the novel or work of art as a whole. How much of the Merchant of Venice be left once I took out all the parts that troubled me?
To filter out all that is troubling about Nietzsche would be to miss one of his central arguments, I feel. That error, and prejudice and 'negative' emotion must be acknowledged, used and sublimated in order to be 'powerful' and fully realised. The negative, the troubling, the dark - that shouldn't really be filtered out of our lives, or where would Season 6 be? lol
"I wonder if most of the miscommunication and heated arguements that arise in our world come about due to an inability to filter or get rid of the personal biases and
prejudices that color our opinions and arguments?"
I don't think it's the inability to get rid of our personal biases - I think problems arise when we cannot acknowledge and take into account our subjectivity.
"How much stronger would Nietzche's arguments and opinions have been if he were able to get past his own prejudices and biases? Or do the biases give him an air of humanity and fallibity, making some of his arguments more interesting or just more dangerous? "
I think Nietzsche has a different view of 'strength' , and that is the main thrust of his argument.
"Knowing this - makes it easier for me to refilter what they say and exclude any or all comments that may come from a blindspot. If a poster is obsessed with a certain myth or historical period - this will color every post they make on the show. So you filter a little of that out and you find great points."
LOL. That's a direct hit! But personally , I like the colour and the idiosyncracies.
Anyway, as for the thing about people's prejudices against characters being animated by totally subjective experiences and their own 'issues' well of course this is true, insomuch as any of our interpretations of anything, is coloured by our worldview.
But I would also argue that the narrative in BtVS is so complex and involving that that we are all able to take critical views of characters' actions, 'take sides', argue the point out, and this is all part of the process of watching and viewing.
[> [> [> [> [> Tiny spoiler for Buffy S7 ep1 above -- Rahael, 08:37:38 10/08/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The "troubling parts..." -- shadowkat, 09:30:31 10/08/02 Tue
Well once again you've managed to discombobulate me and make me question my own arguement, so I'm left well confused and second-quessing the validity of it. LOL!
You are right of course - there are such a thing as extremes. To filter out everything - leaves you with nothing. To filter out nothing - leaves you with everything.
It's a bit like purifying drinking water - which we do in NY because tap water is nasty. But certain filters take away the nutriants - so people get sick. While others don't take out the bacteria or lead and people still get sick.
I know less about Nietzche than you do and haven't read him since well 1986, although I do have Beyond Good and Evil waiting to be read on my bookshelf. Frisby does mention further down that the points about women are important in Nietzche's argument. And your point about knowing this background helping you to understand the writer - also is valid - reminds me of a friend of mine who is African American and loves Flannery O'Connor (O'Connor is very racist) but finds the fact O'Connor is racist informative because it helps her understand the racism.
I guess what I mean by the filter is taking the points that you want to live by, what you feel rings true without letting the points that make you want to throw things get in the way? While still taking those troubling pts into account enough so that you understand and not incorporate all of the points? And I think, whether or not you're consciously aware of this, you may already be doing it? You seem to dislike some of Nietzche's values but appear to like some of his messages? So you aren't throwing out the baby with the bathwater so to speak (American colloquialism - sorry couldn't help myself), unlike others who can't make it past the troubling points or Nietzche's insanity to find value in anything he says. Isn't that a type of filter??
Or in Buffy - when you read someone who say hates Cordelia with a passion, but does write a brillant essay on how they consider Cordy to be a tactless, yet insightful, glamour
queen obsessed with her own self-importance - do you filter out some of the harshness of the tone? Or simply not read?
(Actually you may read it and write a brillant essay proving the other essayist wrong...LOL! I see a trained debater here.)
None of my essays are objective. I'm not very good at being objective I'm afraid. (Although they may appear to be that way on the service. I tend to veer away from posting or analysing characters I despise because I hate confrontations and I also don't like it when people tear apart my favorite characters - for me, Buffy is a retreat from the conflict that I experience at work and in my life. An odd retreat...but hey it helps.) My brother once told me it's impossible to be objective, in art or writing, our own worldview will undoubtly come into play. Mine certainly is in this post, even though I keep trying to circle around it. (And at this point in time - I'm relatively uncertain what I believe or what I think is true, my agonstic, philospher stage so to speak? They say the first step is saying you haven't a clue. So that's basically where I am, hence the contradictions in my posts demonstrating my at times clumsy attempts to figure it all out.)
So perhaps you are right (not sure if I'm reading you correctly here - if not, please correct me), that by trying to be objective or pretending to be objective (since truthfully I'm not sure we can be) we do ourselves and others a greater disservice - than if we openly admitted our prejudices and biases to the world so that others could understand them and maybe work to change them??
Taking this back to bTVS: It's not until Riley admits that all demons are evil that Buffy is able to correct him and he discovers OZ and how his prejudice may not be true. It also explains Riley's actions more clearly. It's also not until Willow admits her own fears regarding her magic and her inability to control it that Giles' realizes she's ready to go home.
I'm not sure I'm making much sense...feel as if I've gone above my own head again and am confusing myself, so should stop now. At any rate I find myself agreeing in part with what you said.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Very reasonable! -- Rahael, 10:12:23 10/08/02 Tue
Yes I'd agree - perhaps I wouldn't use the word filter with regard to how I approach stuff - perhaps I'd use the word 'qualify'. Or maybe I just think too much all the time!!
"Or in Buffy - when you read someone who say hates Cordelia with a passion, but does write a brillant essay on how they consider Cordy to be a tactless, yet insightful, glamour
queen obsessed with her own self-importance - do you filter out some of the harshness of the tone? Or simply not read?"
Oh, I'd definitely read it! I might not even disagree!The thing is, all the negative stuff said about Cordelia is true. It's just that I find her appealing despite it all. She's funny, which helps, and she gets good lines, and she's also very dynamic.
"So perhaps you are right (not sure if I'm reading you correctly here - if not, please correct me), that by trying to be objective or pretending to be objective (since truthfully I'm not sure we can be) we do ourselves and others a greater disservice - than if we openly admitted our prejudices and biases to the world so that others could understand them and maybe work to change them?? "]
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Because then, we give up the claim that we have access to a Truth beyond those whom we look down on, or have conflict with. By understanding our own subjectivity, we might understand theirs more, and enable us to find new solutions.
"It's a bit like purifying drinking water - which we do in NY because tap water is nasty. But certain filters take away the nutriants - so people get sick. While others don't take out the bacteria or lead and people still get sick."
Well, like Buffy, I like the occasional roll in the dirt! LOL.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The "troubling parts..." (filters) -- Frisby, 17:27:00 10/08/02 Tue
Not much to add, tiring. filter -- select -- prefer -- value --
---- as Zarathustra says, before criticizing believers, be one who is capable "of" belief ---
Nietzsche (Beyond 24) points to simplification (for those who have ears to hear, religion) and falsification (for those who can see, art) as necessary filters or selection mechanisms humanity requires to preserve itself in the face of a tremendous nature ---- or can we become true scientists, facing the dangerous or even deadly truth, and not burn? Must not necessity itself be made beautiful before it can be loved (amor fati)? Can he teach us that art of transfiguration?
time is limited
df
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The "troubling parts..." (correct you?) -- Frisby, 17:19:15 10/08/02 Tue
Correct you? I'll add that for Nietzsche the man of objectivity (or the philosophical laborer, in the manner of Kant or Hegel) is an indispensible instrument in the hands of the true philosopher. He abbreviates and formulates. But of course (as Grant argues), objectivity at bottom is an attitude that one can take or not as one prefers, and all attitudes are at bottom modes of subjectivity, so objectivity is merely one mode of subjectivity, one of many. As Nietzsche says, for the philosopher, all things are personal.
Also, I'll point that for Nietzsche (and for Plato if one reads him right), all virtues (and vices for that matter) are sublimated passions, are rooted in the passions, and are not something over against which the passions can be opposed.
Moving on (40 minutes to go),
David
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The "troubling parts..." (correct you?) (also!) -- Frisby, 17:35:14 10/08/02 Tue
Forgot. N contrasts the objective man with the complementary man (Beyond 207), a man "for" woman!
Compare the Sovereign Individual in Genealogy 2.2
nuf
df
[> [> [> Re: The "troubling parts..." (philosophers) -- Frisby, 17:12:53 10/08/02 Tue
Plato taught that philosophers appear among us, we regular normal people, either as teachers (sophists), leaders (statesmen), gods (superhumans), or madmen. The truth is that philosophers are mortal human beings, subject to prejudices and biases, and even more, to passions and vices, and to weakness, ---
I'm reminded of Tolkein's world, the third age ends and the fourth age, the age of man (or better humanity) begins, as represented by Aragorn, the mortal man, not a god or a superman, but the rational animal, or the animal capable of laughter and shame, etc
This was Wagner's vision too (the end of the ring) -- the realization that we are human, and to become "more" human (so to speak) we study the humanities, the highest of which is not history or literature or religion but philosophy, the most human humans, those who don't deceive themselves but pursue truth with honesty.
Or do you prefer to believe in saints and geniuses?
df
[> [> [> [> Re: The "troubling parts..." (philosophers) -- Rufus, 22:43:17 10/08/02 Tue
Plato taught that philosophers appear among us, we regular normal people, either as teachers (sophists), leaders (statesmen), gods (superhumans), or madmen. The truth is that philosophers are mortal human beings, subject to prejudices and biases, and even more, to passions and vices, and to weakness,
Exactly, philosophers are regular folk, mortal, with their own set of opinions about everything. They are also products of their times, with the societal norms very different from our own. Nietzche made some comments about women..I'd like to know what the commonly held beliefs and attitudes towards women were at that time or was he a guy who had women issues that would have been the same no matter where or when he lived?
One thing I note about all philosophers of the past....some of their words don't stand the test of time due to our evolvoing knowledge, however, some of what everyone of them says is timeless...it's those words I listen to and remember the most.
[> [> Ooh you left out some of the best ones... -- alcibiades, 21:18:43 10/07/02 Mon
From Beyond Good and Evil:
Woman learns to hate to the extent to which her charms -- decrease.
Women themselves always still have in the background of all personal vanity an impersonal contempt -- for "woman." --
Where neither love nor hatred is in the game, a woman's game is mediocre.
Science offends the modesty of all real women. It makes feel as if one wanted to peep under their skin -- yet worse, under their dress and finery.
Even concubinage has been corrupted -- by marriage.
OTOH, no one is precisely is immune from his tongue:
It was subtle of God to learn Greek when he wished to become an author -- and not to learn it better.
Christinaity gave Eros poison to drink: he did not die of it but degerated -- into a vice.
The abdomen is the reason why man does not easily take himself for a god.
The way I dealt with his comments about women when I went through my Nietzsche phase was that I decided a lot of his comments were really funny. They still are really. They really, really make me laugh.
Of course, it is sad as well -- it is hard to believe that Nietzsche ever had much intimacy with any woman, if at all. He knows them so little....
In the end one loves one's desires and not what is desired.
[> [> [> Re: Ooh you left out some of the best ones... -- Frisby, 17:32:41 10/08/02 Tue
Read _When Nietzsche Wept_ and then read _Frau Lou_ and then just out of curiosity look over _My Sister and I_ and then let's discuss intimacy. Okay? (My rhetoric is offensive here -- sorry -- its just a means of expression.)
As for the best ones, what about the whip? As for the worst, what about merciless extinction?
The one on God learning greek is "so" funny. Get it? (that is common, not attic or homeric)
df
[> [> But, incredibly, still less annoying than Campbell! -- AzRahael, running away and hiding, 01:59:00 10/08/02 Tue
[> [> [> EEeek...how dare you.......smap!!!!...<g> -- Rufus, 02:59:39 10/08/02 Tue
[> [> [> Agreed! -- Caroline, 06:16:35 10/08/02 Tue
I'm reading Campbell right now, pushed into it by the adortion of some people on this board whose opinions I've come to value and I've got to admit that I'm not really learning anything new in terms of the subject matter and I'm just getting annoyed by his so superior 'tude and flouncy language. Arrrggghhh!
[> [> [> [> Yep...agree as well -- shadowkat, 07:50:57 10/08/02 Tue
I tried reading him this summer, even referenced him for
an essay I did on Atonement of the Father and found that
he has a tendency to make broad generalizations and also
that his use of language is very difficult to read.
Flouncy and superior is true.
Unfortunately - I have three books of his to make it through
so...we'll see. He does provide some decent information on myth - assuming you haven't read it elsewhere. (I picked up Hero with A Thousand Faces, Occidental Myth - Masks of the Gods, Primitive Myth - Masks of the Gods) But he's another example of someone you have to apply a filter to
in order to obtain information.
I remember way back in 1988 - when I was researching Welsh Mythology - being lectured by someone at the Welsh Folklore Center in Cardiff - that you must double check all scholarly works and see if they are cited by other scholars before using them yourself. Campbell - btw has been cited by other scholars or at least he was in the 1980s. But my Myth prof actually preferred Neumann and Jung and Graves
to Campbell. I found Neumann easier in some ways to Campbell - but it's been a while since I read him.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yep...agree as well -- leslie, 11:56:35 10/08/02 Tue
"Campbell - btw has been cited by other scholars or at least he was in the 1980s."
Yeah, but he isn't much cited by actual folklorists and mythologists--tends to be more cited by literary critics who have no background in folklore and mythology, as I recall. I haven't read Neumann, but I do feel that if you're going to get all archetypal, you might as well go straight to the Jungian horse's mouth.
Me, I like Levi-Strauss (for all his faults), the Jean-Pierre Vernant/Marcel Detienne/Pierre Vidal-Naquet bunch, Walter Burckert, and of course, Georges Dumezil.
[> [> [> [> [> [> And now we have a nice little support group! -- Caroline, 14:18:56 10/08/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yep...agree as well -- Frisby, 17:39:49 10/08/02 Tue
Graves is great, but I like Eliade too.
df
[> [> [> [> Phew! -- Rahael, 13:55:42 10/08/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> Re: Agreed! -- Frisby, 17:38:20 10/08/02 Tue
What about the ideal of romance (the medieval troubadoors) and all that?
That's genius.
df
[> [> [> **KEEE-rackkkkk**!! Blasphemy!! -- Whipwoman, 08:36:40 10/08/02 Tue
[> [> [> Re: But, incredibly, still less annoying than Campbell! -- Frisby, 17:36:48 10/08/02 Tue
Campbell (and Eliade too for that matter) is great but secondary to Jung who himself is secondary to Nietzsche, as they themselves each say.
Annoying? So was Socrates.
df
[> [> Re: The "troubling parts..." (1st response) -- Frisby, 04:40:26 10/08/02 Tue
Thanks for pointing out these troubling parts. I expected someone to immediately point to "You go to woman? Don't forget the whip!" -- which is probably the more famous citation.
Surely you aren't claiming that Nietzsche's decade of madness is evidence against his teachings? I won't assume it or address it.
Your passage is of course well known. It's very important. It's section #238 from chapter 7 of _Beyond Good and Evil_. That's part of the context. There are 9 chapters and they are structured with a purpose. The title of chapter 7 is "Our Virtues" and follows chapter 6 titled "We Scholars (or Intellectuals)." Sections 232-239 form a section, following 231 where Nietzsche introduces them as follows:
"After this abundant civility that I have just evidenced in relation to myself I shall perhaps be permitted more readily to state a few truths about 'woman as such' -- assuming that it is now known from the outset how very much these are after all only -- my truths."
His truths, given his prejudices (and is anyone ever totally free of them, really? see chapters 1-3), for example his own maleness? More to the point, the real issue here is what Plato speaks of as the war of the gods versus the giants, the gods taking the side of the universal forms, and the giants the side of particular singularities. All men are brutes. I am a man. Therefore I am a brute. Right? No, wrong. I'm not a man, not in the sense of the first proposition. Try as we might to keep our terms rigid they never really quite apply. Just as a soul contains within itself both mastery and slavery so also the two great principles of man and woman or male and female or masculinity and femininity (I know of course distinctions can be made there but they're not pertinent at this time). And that of course is not to link mastery to man, etc, it's the relation there that's the point. The giants insist on the unique singularity of all things, which of course makes language itself ultimately impossible ("sing, speak no more"). Do Nietzsche's personal thoughts on 'woman as such' refer necessarily to any particular female person? No. We're all both, some irreducible combination that makes us unique. And yet we're political, and are forced to speak of man as such (the stupid brute) and woman as such (the artistic fluff). Plato taught (in an esoteric manner) that the philosopher incorporates the female principle within himself -- it's crucial to wisdom. For a woman to be wise mustn't she also understand and even appropriate for herself the best of the masculine?
All of this comes down to reading, that highest art which tends to disappear in a mass society where the art of nuance is not approved. We're all under the spell of Aristotle thinking the assertion is the locus of truth (this comes from Heidegger) rather than the question or even the request. What I'm claiming (in this fast loose ramble -- hopefully to be completed later by a 2nd response) is that the art of reading, especially what Nietzsche calls "slow" reading, can change the meaning of a text drastically.
Look at how this series of aphorisms (232-39) ends: he alludes to how Zeus in the form of a bull carried off Europa, and how this fable could become history, how woman's power could be stolen and she made simply a "clerk" or a worker. And her "magic" gone? Her art? It really "is" about power, and human nature at bottom comes down to "man and woman" -- but that never removes the singular individual, the human being, from the problem, as if knowing someone is a man tells you everything about them. The giants are right, even if the gods usually win the arguments.
Addressing the passage you quote (#238) directly before getting the kids ready for school and myself for work, I'll emphasize Nietzsche's main point: to go wrong on the fundamental problem of man ans woman, to deny the fundamental antagonism between the sexes, is to be exposed to the charge of shallowness on all the fundmental problems. Philosophy is inquiry into nature and human nature in particular. To deny or refuse gender is as off the mark as to deny mortality: both set the stage for marriage and children, the cultural answers to our "natural" questions.
An old thought returns: Ares (male) and Aphrodite (female) differ; he claims at bottom that they are at war while she claims at bottom that they are in love.
Perhaps most important, I can refer to a text where your passage is addressed better than I can here (pp. 233-42 of _Nietzsche's Task_). And if one "really" sides against Nietzsche on these matters, I suggest with sincerity that study Rousseau (whose ideas in this regard remain most influential).
Another small point in this obviously inadequate response, it seems to me the writers of the tv show Andromeda got it right with regard to their Nietzscheans. They put marriage and children above all else. In Andromeda the Commonwealth was brought down by the Nietzscheans who in turn saved civilization from ruin at the hands of the Magog. In history, Rome was brought down by the Christians who in turn saved civilization from ruin at the hands of the barbarians. Nice parallel. Nietzsche holds, as does Campbell too I think, that the ideal of romance is perhaps the great myth (in a very positive sense) for human nature. Woman is a problem, and the only answer is man. Man is a problem, and the only answer is woman. But this applies on the psychological level too, for each of us as individual human beings comprising both masculine and feminine aspects, not just the social, political, or even theological.
As to property, well as I said in an earlier post, without being clear, philosophy comes down ultimately to "one's own" and property in its other senses takes its bearings from that. As Tara says, I am you know, yours! And if Buffy finds that spark of romance again her "fire" will return.
So, hoping I've not offended anyone, or at least noting here that I'm not intending such, and knowing my rapid response is not adequate, I can only say that I've grappled myself with the charges of nihilism, sexism, slavery, elitism, etc, with regard to Nietzsche's thought, but after years of study, I for one now think of his works as providing more answers to those problems than as their generation.
Oh, and the phrase about the whip? Remember that it is the old woman who teaches this to Zarathustra (1.18) as her little truth, and that he remembers it as the crucial moment (3.15.1) and uses it to provide a rhythm or a tempo, not to punish.
Okay. On with the kids and work. I'll look back to this thread tonight before Buffy 7.3 and maybe attempt another more thoughtful response.
David the Nietzschean
[> [> [> Don't mention whips around Wisewoman or Nietzche better get out of town! -- CW, 06:02:45 10/08/02 Tue
Ich lehre euch den Uebermenschen? Learn from this superman! Kee-rack!
Seriously, Nietzche's bombastic style is such that it invites misinterpretation. I'm not sure that in this age of information overload, that it's reasonable to expect many people to give anything a complete second read unless it seems awfully appealing the first time. Perhaps Niestzche needs a modern rewrite?
[> [> [> [> Now if I could just spell Nietzsche correctly once! ;o) -- CW, 06:18:54 10/08/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> ROFL! Oh, I can just see it!! -- dub ;o), 08:15:44 10/08/02 Tue
And, actually, a fine suggestion on the rewrite as well. I read the Unspellable One during the 70s, at the height of the women's movement, of which I was an active participant. (What? You're not surprised?)
He might bear re-reading now with the perspective of age, but as I've always said, there's not enough time in one life to read all the great books, never mind re-read the less-than-great. (That classification is strictly a personal one--many consider his works great.)
Thanks for maintaining the mood!
;o) dub
[> [> [> [> Re: Don't mention whips around Wisewoman or Nietzche better get out of town! -- Frisby, 17:42:32 10/08/02 Tue
Very good points. Nietzsche's rhetoric is a real question. I wonder sometimes whether Leo Strauss is not that American rewrite though, already. Whether to shout or whisper a secret depends on where one's at?
df
[> [> [> Why I'm troubled... -- Caroline, 06:45:00 10/08/02 Tue
The problem that I think many have with N is that he confused the principles of masculine and feminine with their biological correspodents. It's all well and good to talk about individuals possessing masculine and feminine principles and how they interact but he does his thought a great disservice in the application to actual men and women. It certainly compromises my enjoyment of his work. 'Beloved said something stupid' (The Women's Room).
I think your point about Ares and Aphrodite shows my point quite well. You say that Aphrodite says they are in love and Ares says they are at war. In any relationship with a slight bit of psychological complexity, love and war coexist. The feminine principle is for love and union, the masculine for conflict and separation. Both of these principles exist within each of us, so in each couple, there are 2 masculine and 2 feminine principles at war, internally and externally. Within each of us there are desires for union (the gods of love, desire, merging with the divine) and individuality (the gods of war, the solar principle to some extent). Aphrodite and Ares are principles, useful explanators for differing parts of human nature, not biological man and woman. To conflate principles and agents in this way leads to the errors in application N makes.
Myth, IMHO, is the original psychology - and in all my years of study of it, I have never been in any way offended by my reading of original works or many interpretations because there was a recognition that the world described in myth exists within each one of us. We are Zeus, Aphrodite, Ares, Ouranos, Hades etc. All these principles exist within each one of us. And the progression of our lives is the uncovering of these principles in their infinite depth and complexity. N obviously does not get this.
[> [> [> [> Re: Why I'm troubled... -- Frisby, 17:49:05 10/08/02 Tue
Very good points! I agree with all of them except maybe one. I think Nietzsche is not at odds with your points. He side with the giants and not the gods. We can not necessarily apply our thoughts about "woman as such" to any one particular woman. There are four seasons to the Tao and only in one are yin and yang complementarily balanced, and even then, any individual human being, whether male or female, can not be reduced to one or the other. Virtue, or living life well, demands singular applications to unique beings in contingent circumstances --
what a mouthful -- I'm tired -- 10 minutes till buffy 7.2
N restores psychology to its rightful place as queen of the sciences, and its study of both mythology and religion are essential to the study of the soul
maybe more later
df
[> [> Re: The "troubling parts..." (2nd response) -- Frisby, 17:54:49 10/08/02 Tue
Well, I got through the thread, making comments here and there, with the aim of addressing your response in a 2nd more thorough and well thought out manner, but, there's only a few minutes until buffy 7.2, and I'm quite tired, and need to pour a bourbon (my first today) before the show, and besides, this is very very hard to talk about -- man and woman that is -- especially today, and especially as a man to a woman (I assume) -- and especially in the overall context of Buffy (whom I've hardly mentioned in tonight's posts) --
so, in closing, I'll just say, for now, that I'll try to respond at a later time (assuming we don't get archived tomorrow), with regard to both Nietzsche on man and woman, and, with regard to Buffy
David (the very tired poster who is talked out with regard to Nietzsche for the time being, wants a bourbon, and is ready very ready for buffy 7.2)
[> [> [> "Making comments here and there...?" -- Wisewoman, 18:23:18 10/08/02 Tue
Good grief, man, it's no wonder you're exhausted--at one point you were even replying to yourself!
In an attempt to forestall the third installment I'll refrain from a lengthy rebuttal to comments that were not directed at me and just suggest that perhaps we could all lighten up? That was the original intent. I didn't realize the "Nietzsche Button" had a hair-trigger...
;o) dub
Just some rambling on Beneath You (most threads have gone to the Archives, so what if I'm slow ?) -- Etrangere, 15:53:39 10/07/02 Mon
From beneath you it devours. What ?
Unfinished buisness, what you burried and tried to forget, it, the It, the demon, the thing able of doing that evil. It isn't you is it ? Well yes, everything is connected, and in the end we are all who we are. You can try to climb up that stair like Nancy, in the end you've got to face it, face the consequences.
It devours, it eats at your flesh. Vampires and Ogres, that's all they're about : eating you. So there's nothing else, but an empty shell.
Guilt eats you alive. Desire eats you alive. It burns 'till there's nothing left.
What is it ?
In the dark, all artifices are shed and only naked truth is left. Truth can't be revealed, not with someone looking. It's always in the dark, in the blindness (does it show I just watched Minority Report ?:) that you can be seen.
"I can see you" says Anya, "Are you real" says Buffy. Aknowledgement.
What wouldn't you do to be aknowledge ? to be loved ? To fit ? How much would you be eaten by it. That is, to change. To be transformed. To be cooked, to be burnt, to be purified and to be made into something else... or nothing. The dog, the Big Bad Wolf, is dead.
"Giles : The audience wants to find you, (We see Harmony behind him, wearing vampire face, grabbing his shoulders and trying to bite him) strip you naked, and eat you alive, so hide." (Restless)
And suddenly you're not alone anymore, suddenly you are a crowd, You are connected, and it hurts. It hurts so much everything, everyone. It hurted so much Willow that she wanted to end it all, end the world last year.
All those voices, shouting, whispering, blaming, nagging, screaming, pleading, yearning, insumting, begging... (On dirait des mouches)
The Hellmouth speaks and cannot be shud up.
[> Re: Just some rambling on Beneath You -- aliera, 17:28:10 10/07/02 Mon
Nous ne partirons pas...nous sommes avec l'estranger.
Beautiful ramblings...Thank you.
[> Re: more ramblings -- ponygirl, 18:36:11 10/07/02 Mon
Lovely as always Ete! I was thinking myself of the Hellmouth. It's always been there, either threatening to be opened, or sealed comfortably, but never entirely disappearing. It's said to be the reason so many demon-y creatures come to Sunnydale drawing them like some hellish version of Lourdes. It is the source, one suspects, Sunnydale itself - it's a town built on lies, secrets and darkness. What would happen if it opened? Would it finally crack every foundation, rattle every windowpane, put it out all the lights? Would anything change at all?