October 2003 posts
Is
there a 'War Zone' and 'Hellbound' connection? (Spoilers 5.4)
-- Finn Mac Cool, 15:54:03 10/24/03 Fri
In that Season 1 episode of "Angel", Gunn asks Angel
why he bothers doing what he does. Angel's response: "What
else am I gonna do?" This is almost word for word what he
says in "Hellbound" when Spike asks why he bothers fighting
if he thinks he's going to hell. The two do have some traits in
common. "War Zone" was all about the inevability of
death and violence, whereas "Hellbound" is about the
inevability of eternal damnation. Yet our hero struggles on despite
that because, as futile as what he does might seem, it's really
all he's got. God bless syndicated reruns.
Replies:
[> Good catch -- Nino,
16:07:31 10/24/03 Fri
Hell, just form following function -- Lunasea,
17:22:51 10/25/03 Sat
I find all the talk about hell to be interesting, not just what
was said, but that it captures everyone's imagination like this.
To me, that was a very minor part of the show. So was Buffy's
heaven. I don't think either was making some grand statement about
good and evil or redemption or much of anything. They were plot
devices. One of my favorite quotes about Spike comes from Marti.
She said, "So a lot of times people who see this as a grand
design, an opera about good and evil. It's just really a slowly
evolving thing, and sometimes form follows function." I don't
want to reopen the debate about Spike's arc. I want to put it
in a metal box, weld it shut, put that box in another box, put
chains and triple padlocks around it and sink it into the Marianas
Trench. Instead I bring up the statement to describe how I view
both the Hell Spike is being sucked into and Buffy's heaven. We
can discuss merit and demon dimensions and such, but when it comes
down to it they were plot devices. Buffy didn't go to heaven because
she "earned" it. She went to send her through her dark
night when she was ripped from it. Spike's hell may or may not
be based on his big bad vampire days. It was a bad place he didn't
want to go to and got him off his "I earned a reward"
kick. I don't see it as part of an opera about good and evil.
It is just form following function. That is just my opinion of
them.
On the other hand, a good friend recently remarked that I have
this drive to find transcendence in pretty much everything and
he is right. What is it about hell that captures us so much? It
goes beyond something to fear. It is fear itself. In many ways,
wisdom congeals to form God. Desire congeals to form Heaven. Fear
congeals to form Hell. Examine a society's depiction of Hell and
you can see what it fears. ME's Hell are the same thing.
The first Hell we hear about is the Demon Dimension that Acathla
was going to suck this world into. Any non-demon life will suffer
an eternity of brutal torment there. This Hell is built on the
general fears of Buffy failing at her Calling and the specific
fear of what Angel is becoming. This dimension is a big gigantic
Angelus.
The first Hell we actually see is the one Lily and Buffy were
in in "Anne." What is Hell but the total absence of
hope? The substance, the tactile proof of despair. The defining
feature of that particular hell was the complete loss of identity
and no one even knowing where you went. This may seem like what
a runaway would want, but what Buffy wanted was shown with her
dream about Angel. She wants him to "stay with me."
She doesn't want to be alone and she doesn't want to be nothing.
She just doesn't want to be slayer. She doesn't want to be Buffy.
She wants to be Anne. Slayer Buffy is killing who she is (this
fear won't be resolved until "The Gift") and forced
her to kill the man she loved.
We revisit the Demon Dimension when Angel comes back from it badly
abused and not retaining his identity. In "Angel," he
feared only being the monster. Buffy showed him there was more
to him than that. Season 3 of BtVS, Angel fears not being able
to control that monster. The Demon Dimension makes this fear a
reality as he loses his identity. This fear isn't just Angel's
fear. BtVS is still about Buffy and it is Buffy's fear. Buffy
is worried about Angel losing his humanity/identity. It shows
rather beautifully in "Beauty and the Beasts."
Pylea is the next sort of Hell dimension we see. The characters
all have to face their greatest fears. Lorne has to go back home
again. Wesley has to lead. Angel has to become the pure demon.
Cordelia almost loses her visions. This dimension was constructed
to do this. It does it in a grander arc than "Fear Itself."
Next up is Quor-toth. The worst hell imaginable. In it Connor
becomes what Angel fears most for his son. What does Angel want
for his son? Hockey games. What does Quor-toth give him? Demons
so that he becomes The Destroyer. Angel tries to work with this,
but the complete absence of love during his formative years makes
Connor into not The Destroyer, but the Destroyed.
New season, new Hell. This one is for Spike. Is it some grand
opera about good versus evil? Does Spike merit this hell? I really
don't care. Good versus evil? This isn't the black and white world
of Pylea. Often the battle is beige versus egg shell or shades
of gray where it is hard to tell which is darker. Was it wrong/evil
of Angel to lock the lawyers in with Darla and Drusilla? Don't
really care. What matters to me is what led up to that action
and what that action lead to. It is a story and that story to
me is the process, the play between cause and effect, the path
to and from hell, not the points along the way.
The Hell that Spike is facing has two defining characteristics.
It isn't the place heroes go and Spike fades away. I don't want
to reopen the Spike Wars, so all I am going to say is that these
two things constitute Spike's greatest fears. It fits the pattern
of all the Hells ME has previously created. It fits the pattern
of the show. It is still a horror show. The demons are just the
metaphors for various fears and issues. Why would hell their hell
be constructed any differently? Form following function.
To be continued: The Fall
Replies:
[> The Fall and The Rise (spoiler 5.04) -- Lunasea,
18:56:51 10/25/03 Sat
The journey of a thousand miles starts with one step and the path
to hell is such a journey. That first step is mythologized as
The Fall in Judeo-Christianity. ME put their own spin on this
last season, which seems to change the story. No longer does the
knowledge between good and evil cause the fall of Man, but free
will. It is a fall that Angel says is worth it. A lot of the audience
agrees with him, but I don't get the impression that either really
examines what was lost. Paradise. It is such an imaginary place
that people dismiss it as a fiction. That fiction is closely related
to Hell. Paradise is heaven. Heaven is the realization of our
desires. The audience desires free will, so the paradise that
was shown wasn't a real paradise, so nothing was really lost,
other than the emotional punch the story could have had.
Heaven and Hell are based on desire. In Heaven, desire is met.
In Hell, what you fear is realized. What we fear is based on our
desires. In Hell, what we desire most is used to torment us. If
you want love, you will find that in love. In Hell, you will be
alone. If you want recognition, you'll find it in heaven. In Hell,
you will disappear. Season 4, the Paradise that ME created really
was Hell. It mocked the Paradise of Genesis, a Paradise that many
interpret to be dependent on obedience to God. This is abhorrent
to the angry atheist existentialists.
But that isn't what the Fall is about at all. To start with, The
Fall isn't an historical event. There was no Adam or Eve. It is
mythology. There was no command of God not to eat of the tree.
This is all a metaphor for something. If you don't believe it
is history, why treat the story that way? It is just like BtVS
or AtS, so why not approach it that way?
(no offense intended if you do believe it is a real event. I find
nothing demeaning in calling something mythology. It doesn't mean
it is "false" so much as it means it touches a higher
truth. Something doesn't have to be true to be True. Something
doesn't have to be false either. Whether something happened or
not has no bearing on whether something is mythological)
Heaven and Paradise represent the fulfillment of desire. God is
the one that creates, lives in and maintains them. God is the
one that speaks through the Prophets and gives Moses the 10 Commandments.
God is omni lots of things, but above all, He is omniscient. He
sees all. He knows all. God is wisdom personified. By eating the
Fruit Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, God said that Man has
become like him. It is only the Fruit of the Tree of Life that
differentiates us from God.
Wisdom keeps us from our desires because it doesn't want us to
become immortal/more powerful. To the modern man this makes no
sense and seems oppressive. Thing is, it wasn't written by modern
men. It was written by nomads traveling in the desert a couple
of millennia ago. They looked at the world and tried to make sense
of it, just like we are trying to do. They looked at the world
and saw it wasn't paradise and tried to explain why. The reason
they came up with was this knowledge of good and evil. Sometimes
I agree with them.
Let's take a look at what this knowledge has caused. Pretty much
all strife is caused by someone/group thinking they are right
and someone else/another group is wrong. Good/evil, right/wrong.
It is the same thing. Some group thinks they have the moral high
ground (even in the Angel/Spike battles) and the right to push
their beliefs on others. A group of people that would rather wander
the desert than settle down in the rich cities of Ur have a reason
for doing that. The story of The Fall gives their reason.
ME takes a look around the world and retells the story to say
why they think there is suffering in the world. It isn't knowledge,
a belief, a mental state. It is free will, acting on that knowledge,
belief, mental state. Angel gives Man back free will and frees
us from Jasmine's Hell (I will refer to this as The Rise). Spike
takes back his free will in "Hell Bound" and is no longer
being pulled into Hell.
The Fall and The Rise need to collide. Angel gave Man back free
will, but that isn't the whole story. It isn't the existence of
free will that causes suffering, but what Man does with it. What
Man does with it is dependent on Man not being angels. We are
both good and evil, demon and angel. The story of The Fall is
a metaphor not for an event, but a condition, a condition that
exists because of our human nature. That nature is symbolized
by the fruit that forever changes us. But there was no change.
That is just a dramatic way to illustrate how we are.
Season 4, the story of original sin was recast to mean action.
This has been dealt with before with Angel's guilt about his dreams
and desires. Angel is not a monster for having those dreams and
desires. He only becomes a monster when he acts on them. That
has gotten Angel to this point, but action comes from desire.
You have to desire something to do it. Even when you don't want
to do something, you want to do something to make that action
worth it, whether it is saving the world or your son. Some type
of desire has to be there. Some belief. Some feeling. Life may
not be worth it without free will, but without desire, you don't
have anything to motivate you to us it. Free will allows us to
choose between desires.
To be continued: Abraham, the Father of Faith
[> [> Abraham's role in the narrative flow -- Lunasea,
19:25:07 10/25/03 Sat
Man is no longer in the Garden of Eden. Next come the stories
of Cain & Abel, Noah and his arc, and the Tower of Babel. Sin,
sin and more sin. Trying to explain why the world is the way it
is and illustrating how bad it is after The Fall. It is so bad
that God almost wipes the earth clean of the pestilence that Man
has become, only saving a good man named Noah, his families and
lots of animals at the last minute. All of this sets up what comes
next. There is a narrative flow to the Bible that often gets lost.
Abraham, The Father of Faith. Judaism doesn't start with Adam
or Noah. Even in Roman Catholicism today, Abraham is constantly
invoked. No discussion of faith is complete without discussion
Abraham and his willingness to sacrifice his son, who will be
the second Patriarch. We've discussed this a lot on the board
and his comparison to Angel, so I'm not going to revisit that.
Instead I want to talk about Abraham's role in the narrative flow.
Paradise-The Fall-Lots of Sin-Faith. Paradise shows man's desires.
The Fall explains why those desires aren't met. All those examples
of sin illustrate how bad the world really is and shows us why
we should long to get back to that paradise. Then God makes a
promise. Man isn't going to be allowed back into the Garden, but
Abraham's deepest desire is going to be met. Man gets a reprieve,
just like in the story of Noah. God didn't wipe the earth clean
of everything. He saved some and then promised Noah he wouldn't
do it again. Man found mortality by eating the Fruit and gave
life back to Abraham in limited form, through his descendants.
It is hope for the future. On Abraham's faith rests the hope of
Israel.
Sounds a lot like ME's pattern. Give Angel what he wants to show
us what he want and how happy it makes him. Then take it away
for some reason. Lots of darkness follows and then there is some
reprieve because of Angel's faith. It's a common pattern. Angelus,
Buffy, Darla, Cordelia, Connor. How many times does the guy have
to be kicked out of the Garden of Eden? Time for a new story.
To be continued: Job
[> [> [> Angel as Job -- Lunasea, 20:54:41
10/25/03 Sat
Lots more stories (mainly history), including the story of Moses
and all those rules. I can't really see ME revisiting that. There
world isn't too big on fixed rules, though they did revisit the
scapegoat and DL has written about how Angel does fit the Jewish
concept of atonement.
The next big story that gets a lot of attention is The Book of
Job. We even read J.B. by Archibald MacLeish (which could
be an interesting play for the Melee). I couldn't call myself
a Heinlein fan if I hadn't read Job: A Comedy of Justice
(any Heinlein book is perfect for the melee, especially this one).
Abraham's faith is tested by God demanding the sacrifice of his
son, the means to the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham.
God hasn't promised Job anything, but he takes everything, not
just his family.
Genesis illustrated a faith that would give God anything he asked.
It gave Israel hope. In Job faith is really explored. How does
Job maintain that faith in the midst of all those tragedies? "The
Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of
the Lord" of (1:21) evolves to a real crisis of faith, a
crisis that Abraham never had.
Throughout the cycle of speeches, Job maintains his righteousness.
His final declaration of "This is my final plea; let the
Almighty answer me! (31:37) was built on him thinking that bad
things happen because it is punishment for wrong doings and he
has done nothing wrong. God's rather lengthy response can be summed
up by "God works in mysterious ways." He doesn't justify
Himself to Job. He doesn't have to. He's God. From this Job learns
something important, namely that his friends were all wrong. He
wasn't being punished. "I had heard of you by word of mouth,
but now my eye has seen you. Therefore I disown what I have said,
and repent in dust and ashes." (42:5-6)
This can be flipped and applied to what is happening to Angel.
Everything was taken from Job and the Senior Partners have given
Angel everything. Both have the same burning question "Why?"
Job and his friends believed it to be a punishment, but Job believed
he did nothing to merit it. Angel, his friends and everyone else
believe it to be a way to corrupt Angel, but Angel believes he
doesn't merit this. When Angel lost his faith in prophecy, he
lost his faith that he will be a player in the apocalypse. If
he isn't to be a player in the apocalypse, he doesn't merit the
attention the Senior Partners have been giving him.
The Senior Partners gave Angel everything, but he feels like he
has lost everything. Having all the material comforts just makes
this worse. He's lost what is important to him. The only thing
going for him are his friends. The mindwipe has the potential
of making him lose his friends, at least temporarily. What will
happen to Angel's faith when this happens?
Or will it? Will Wesley, Fred and Gunn play Eliphaz, Bildad and
Zophar. Fred is the one that is concerned about them ending world
peace. She is the only one who questions this. Perhaps she will
see Angel being rewarded by the Senior Partners for what he did
in "Peace Out." Gunn has been enhanced by the Senior
Partners and trusts them the most. He may try to convince Angel
to take what Eve says at face value. Wesley does believe the corruption
Angel, outright blatant corruption as in power corrupts.
All will be wrong. Angel will have his crisis of faith, get no
answers and find himself, just like Job did.
[> [> [> [> Clarification -- Kizzmet, 07:29:09
10/26/03 Sun
Job's "The Lord givith and the Lord taketh away" is
one of the most quoted ideas in the Bible. But what is missed
comes before that. Satan accuses Job of only being faithful to
God because of the blessings the Lord has given to Job. Like a
dog loves its master for taking care of it. Satan puts out the
argument that Job would turn his back on God if everything was
taken away. So God accepts the bet and tells Satan, "So be
it. All that he has is in your hands; only Job himself you must
not touch." God won't prevent Satan from harming Job.
Satan is the cause of Job's misery. That said, this is
a great comparison between Job and Angel!
[> [> [> [> Moses ( vague Spoilers Angel S5)
-- sdev, 15:13:52 10/26/03 Sun
I can't ignore Moses here as he is very apropos to Angel.
Moses was the tragically flawed hero of the OT. Moses after all
he had done, freeing the Jews from Egypt, leading them for 40
years through the desert, bringing the ten Commandments down from
the heavens (2 times), pleading with God to overlook the transgression
of the golden calf, was denied what he wanted and longed for most
of all, entrance into the promised land of Israel, his version
of Heaven. What was his sin or tragic flaw?
Traditional interpretation centers on a small seemingly minor
episode, but one highly relevant to Angel. When in the desert
the people cried out for water in their great thirst and questioned
why Moses had brought them into the desert to perish. Moses was
commanded by God to "talk" to the rock and it would
give forth water. Instead he spoke peevishly to the people and
declared that "we" will get water out of the rock. Instead
of talking he "struck" the rock twice and it gave forth
water (Numbers 20, 1-13). This is seen as an act of temper and
defiance, and an absence of faith, and a public one from a leader
who was supposed to be setting an example of faith to his people
by this very miracle. Moses publicly displayed and acted on his
lack of faith and anger. This is a very difficult lesson and a
harsh, one of the cruelest of the OT. The standards for leaders,
for Champions (apologies for use of the "c" word but
Fred used it first) are very high. They are responsible not just
for themselves but for others.
Angel is in trouble here. Yes, he is keeping up the battle for
good, but he keeps piling up the seemingly minor transgressions--
lying to others, lack of compassion, and killing of humans (as
kds, Masq and Manwitch state below)-- committed because of his
anger and crisis of faith. Angel is the leader. They are all in
W&H, the desert where good is as absent as water and evil
is like sand, because of him. He must set the example instead
he is being shown the way by others and allowing himself small
acts of disbelief that undermine the morale of all.
[> [> Knowledge is the antithesis of free-will --
dmw, 16:46:07 10/26/03 Sun
The interesting aspect of your comparison of the two types of
fall (free will and knowledge like that of a deity) is that they
are the antithesis of each other. Complete knowledge (omniscience)
allows for no free will, even if it is only complete knowledge
of the present.
Given complete knowledge of the present, you could use your complete
knowledge of physics to calculate everything a person would do
from the current moment to the end of their life. Even if you
assume quantum effects can percolate up from the microcosm to
the level of the human brain as Penrose does (without any real
semblence of proof), that still won't give you free will--it gives
you randomness, the flip of a subatomic coin determining your
choices, which is hardly free will.
The only thing that preserves our free will is our inability to
attain such knowledge. However, bit by bit we have chipped away
at the veneer of illusion as we discovered how deeply our genetic
heritage determines our personalities and habits, though it's
never a question of nurture vs. nature, for how could you have
one without the other? You couldn't have language and all the
possibilities that allows for learning without our genes giving
us the language-specialized areas of the brain such as Broca's
area and much more (c.f., Stephen Pinker's The Language Instinct).
Is it wisdom to pursue such knowledge (though it may be something
that could never be attained in completeness) or is it wisdom
to turn away from it and maintain our fragile illusion of free
will?
[> [> [> Re: Knowledge is the antithesis of free-will
-- Lunasea, 18:07:19 10/26/03 Sun
The illusion of free will is knowledge of a sorts and as such
should not be abandoned lightly. Total knowledge of our abilities
is out of our reach at this point, so free will is a very powerful
illusion that allows us to do things that we think me might not
be able to do otherwise.
Knowledge should be pursued, but this doesn't mean that we should
give up free will. Knowledge not only shows it to be a falacy,
but a truth.
[> You forgot to mention the dimension the demons came from
in 'She' -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:04:05 10/25/03 Sat
Of course, what that Hell represented was incredibly clear: a
patriarchal society turning women into mindless slaves. Granted,
it doesn't fit the typical Hell imagery, but neither did Pylea.
[> [> She is one episode that shouldn't have been written
-- Lunasea, 07:05:02 10/26/03 Sun
The problem is the Patriarchy wasn't the only bad of the episode,
but just as Oz's wolf represented male sexuality, Jhiera's girls
represented female sexuality and they were not portrayed as "good."
They couldn't control their power and they hurt others. Jhiera's
attitude and mission put her into conflict with Angel. The message
was "If you vowed to protect the innocent it shouldn't matter
which dimension they're from." The feminism of Buffy is becoming
the humanism of Angel. It is a good thing to explore and could
have been a great episode.
Small problem, I don't think anyone at ME bought it. Even up to
the finale, Joss didn't talk about humanism. He talked about feminism.
His feminism can be used as a vehicle to humanism, but he wrote
a feminist show and if we use it to bridge to humanism, we are
doing that. I think the writers felt uncomfortable demonizing
female sexuality. It showed in how forced everything was. Some
of Marti's best scripts involve the Oz wolf. Too bad she couldn't
do the same for Jhiera.
Witches are all wicca good and love the earth and I'll be over
here.
[> [> [> I was checking the archives, and I found
a list I made... -- Rob, 09:52:54 10/26/03 Sun
of "She"s only good points:
1) The teaser scene--party at Cordy's house--along with Wes' pitiful
flirting skills, the Angel dance, and him sitting in the kitchen
afterwards and having a beer with Dennis
2) Wes finally being made a full-time worker at AI. And him tearing
up.
3) I thought the creepiness factor was very good when the girl
was begging not to be unmade, and the big, evil guy said, "Why
does it speak when nobody listens?"
4) Angel's attempt to crush the coffee beans.
And that's it.
Rob
[> [> [> [> You left off one thing -- Lunasea,
05:28:13 10/27/03 Mon
When Angel is in the art gallery. It combined some of my favorite
things about Angel: Angel pretending to be something while on
a case, Angel sharing his knowledge about something, a bit of
his backstory without the wig or accent being required (always
a plus), Angel's unique sense of humor, Angel's love of art. It
was a nice scene.
There were various nuggets of goodness in that episode. It was
the overall episode that reeked. The moral of the story: If you
are used to writing about things you believe in, if you don't
believe in the theme of the episode, don't write it. It will show.
I've seen 5:1-3! (no later spoilers) -- KdS,
10:57:34 10/26/03 Sun
I just saw Angel 5:1-3 this afternoon. Thanks very much to Rahael
for letting me see it with her on her NTSC-compatible TV, Aliera
for making the tapes, and TCH for passing them on (Did you get
the last Firefly tape, TCH? I posted it on Tuesday). Unfortunately,
I don't have enough time right now to credit ideas I picked up
from elsewhere to individuals, but I'll try not to claim credit
for anything not from my own head.
All in all, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the
episodes. Despite my continuing issues about the S4 retcon, the
writing is still well up to standard. Firstly, let's touch on
the cross-season issues.
The very direct references to Connor and Cordelia in Conviction
seem tailor-made to reassure the worried that the events of S4
isn't just going to be forgotten. The questions that come up,
however, are exactly what the others remember and how it has affected
them. Fred and Gunn especially seem to be in much the same emotional
place as they were at the end of S4, even if they don't remember
how they got there. Wesley is more difficult, as in many ways
he and the Wes-Gunn relationship seem to have been directly returned
to their early-S3 status. The Wes question is especially significant
because of the strong implication in Home that his main
or sole reason for joining W&H was to save, or at least get more
time with, Lilah. It has been suggested that his "pen with
my name on it" line in Unleashed was an early sign
that he is puzzled and that he may be the person to first have
serious doubts and suspicion of what may have happened. Certainly,
I hope that the others do find out about the mindwipe at some
point, and that it isn't brushed under the carpet.
The sources I have seen have been very hostile to Eve, but that
may be because many of them have happened to be very committed
Lilah fans and L/W shippers. I must admit, I'm willing to give
her a chance. She has an oddly innocent quality about her that
is intriguing, and I think the very visible lack of sexual tension
between her and Angel is a deliberate and interesting decision.
Certainly, making the temptation of W&H specifically not sexual
prevents metaphorical confusion.
The treatment of Spike made me breath a huge sigh of relief. Like
many Spike-sceptics on the board, my main concern was that Spike
would be crudely portrayed as the conscience of the corrupted
Angel and allowed to seize the moral high ground at every opportunity.
That hasn't happened, and I actually felt genuine sympathy for
him at times in Just Rewards. The "moaning in a basement"
argument seemed to very directly acknowledge, and indeed quote,
the fan debates. In many ways, I think I find Spike sympathetic
as an underdog, but not when he is placed in any kind of position
of power, when his inability to refrain from insulting everyone
in sight comes across as an abusive power dynamic. The decision
to make him non-corporeal is an excellent one as it may help to
break him of his particularly offensive habit of pounding on anyone
who irritates him. The portrayal of his relationships with Harmony
and Fred also helps a great deal, as both are clearly under no
illusions as to his down sides. I don't have so much to say about
Harmony, but although she works as comic relief I have some concern
that she's a duplicate of early Cordelia. (I was most upset by
the cutting of her "Blondie-bear?" from the reprise
of Spike's appearance in Just Rewards). My other big problem
with Spike continuing to appear long-term in AtS is technical
and has nothing to do with my difficulties with Spike himself.
As Spike doesn't have a happiness clause, the advantages of being
a "good" vampire - superstrength, virtual immortality
and near-invulnerability - seem to outweigh the disadvantages
of sunlight allergy and controllable bloodlust. This has the potential
to destroy ME's central concept of vampirism as a curse, and any
"good" vamp has the potential for Sue/Stu-ness and needs
very careful handling.
The other most significant issue cutting across all three eps
is the question of Angel and violence, and more directly the question
of the morality of the deal with W&H. Certainly, his killing
of Hauser is disturbing, although Hauser had no redeeming features
whatsoever. Hainsley is a more obvious case of self-defence. Angel's
apparent abandonment of Royce to be eaten alive in Unleashed
is reduced later in the episode by the announcement that the restaurant
has been shut down, although the lines were easy to miss. Certainly,
there have been occasions in the past where Angel has allowed
evil humans to believe that they were in more danger than they
were, feeling that the experience has been salutary. As far as
the wider W&H issue goes, we see the two poles in the first two
episodes. On the one hand, it may involve helping the evil. On
the other hand, why kill the odd baby-eating demon when you come
across them when you can find something that the baby-eating demons
might give up eating babies in exchange for? The episodes were
far more open about the question than I might have expected.
I was surprised by the hostile reaction that Unleashed
attracted among fans. The two biggest criticisms seem to have
been the MotW nature of the ep, and the allegedly unsympathetic
and derogatory portrayal of Spike. I have no problem with the
second, obviously :-), but the first raises interesting questions.
Rahael suggested this afternoon that the three episodes all portray
aspects of Angel's current state of mind - Convictions,
with its father heartlessly sacrificing his son, the Connor issues;
Just Rewards Angel's status as neither living nor dead,
human nor demon; Unleashed the monster within. My continuation
of this argument is that maybe these parallels were deliberately
intended to gently explore Angel's core psychological and philosophical
issues for those BtVS-only, or completely new, viewers who are
just starting.
Briefer notes:
Unleashed was the first episode for quite some time (at
least a season and a half) to concentrate on altruistic "helping
the helpless", so it's possibly no surprise that it led to
further attempts from certain quarters to impugn Angel's motives
as self-serving. The only argument that came out of that debate
that seems to me to deserve detailed examination is the question
of Angel's alleged sexual-attraction-based favouritism to Faith
over Lindsey way back in S1. My personal take on this issue is
that it may have been the result of Angel's attitude to Faith's
clear mental instability as compared to the pragmatic decision
to turn evil of Lindsey. (I'm also slightly surprised that this
argument was raised given the level of belief in Angel and Lindsey's
mutual sexual tension.) It did, admittedly, muddy the waters to
cast an actress as Nina who had such a strong physical resemblance
to Julie Benz (not to mention some similarity in costuming as
well).
Unleashed shows a distinctly darker werewolf concept than
BtVS episodes, in line with the general greater darkness of AtS,
in particular McManus's return to human form on his death and
the implication that Nina suffers bloodlust in her human form,
which was never shown with Oz. As well as the greater darkness
of AtS in general, I believe that these decisions were made to
point up the similarities with Angel's state. Some criticism has
been made of Angel's statement to Nina that vampires can control
themselves, but Angel does immediately follow that line with "If
they want to", and I would argue that at that stage it would
not have been the best idea to confuse Nina with a lengthy side
explanation of souled and unsouled vamps.
The nudity in Unleashed has come in for some criticism
which I believe was exaggerated. From discussions on the board,
I got the impression that Nina was "served" practically
naked, whereas on screen she was covered from shoulder to ankle.
If anything, I found the very visible centering of certain shots
on Amy Acker's legs in the Conviction scene where the crew
first research into the Fries problem more distracting.
I was also more than a little surprised by Angel's physical weakness
in Conviction and Just Rewards. His weakness in
the fight with Hainsley at the end of Just Rewards could
be explained by Hainsley's, albeit weakened, magical powers. However,
Hauser should not have been able to fight with him in hand-to-hand
combat on such an equal plane at the climax of Conviction
unless he had some magical augmentation (which is not impossible,
but wasn't mentioned).
Anyone else think Knox is deliberately reminiscent of John Carter
in early er? Maybe it's just the slight physical similarity
of the actors.
Those lifts in the W&H building with simultaneously opening doors
on both sides make anyone inside seriously vulnerable to ambush
by anyone waiting on the landing. Good if you can trust the people
working with you, less good if you can't.
There were some interesting extra shots in the semi-subliminal
slash cuts in Conviction. In particular a silhouette of
the White Room cat at a certain moment I forget, and what seemed
to be a brief image of Eve examining the bloodstain left by Hauser's
shooting after the incident. Nothing corresponding in the later
eps.
Why does the postboy wear a Mexican wrestler's mask? US cultural
in-joke?
No future spec here, because I can remember how badly off anyone
trying to predict future developments on the basis of the first
three episodes of S2, S3, or S4 would have been. (Not currently
spoiled for any unbroadcast eps, but looking forward to Hellbound)
Replies:
[> Oh, and... -- KdS, 11:15:12 10/26/03 Sun
Gunn's Gilbert and Sullivan may not be a throwaway joke. Interested
parties may like to pay close attention to The Mikado's
remarks on punishment and, especially, Ruddigore.
[> [> The direct reference is to the Pirates of Penzance
-- Lunasea, 11:30:17 10/26/03 Sun
I'm surprised the connections weren't really discussed. Is Gunn
playing Frederic or is Angel or perhaps both?
[> [> [> I don't see the detailed comparison --
KdS, 11:38:05 10/26/03 Sun
Apart from the indenture. Can you expand?
[> [> [> [> Re: I don't see the detailed comparison
-- Rob, 11:47:41 10/26/03 Sun
I'll let Lunasea continue with a more full analysis, if she wants
to, but for diction, elocution, and an overall metaphor for the
expansive knowledge Gunn has now obtained, what better song than
"I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General?"
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> The very model of a modern major
attorney -- Lunasea, 11:58:58 10/26/03 Sun
AI is becoming the model of a modern major something or other.
The lyrics of this song do fit Gunn. Perhaps Gunn is the Major
General and Angel is Frederick.
The information the Senior Partners inhanced him with fit with
the song rather well. I'm sure someone could rewrite it to be
about the law, human and demon. Perhaps someone could keep track
of all the things that Gunn knows (such as how to get Hainey off,
how to hurt the Necromancer and about that baby-eating demon)
and at the end of the season we could rewrite the song and include
it in the Gunn section.
Just an idea. I am the very model of a modern stay-at-home mother
:-)
[> [> [> [> Re: I don't see the detailed comparison
-- Lunasea, 11:51:12 10/26/03 Sun
The overall theme of Pirates is one about honor. What does honor
mean and who has it. The pirates are more honorable than the noblemen.
That could play out in some interesting ways this season.
Also, poor Frederic. He is freed from his indenture and made into
a full pirate. This is similar to Gunn who is no longer just muscle.
Freddie uses this freedom to leave the pirates and work towards
their demise. We will have to see how Gunn uses his new knowledge.
Then the Pirate King and Ruth show Freddie the wording of his
contract, his 21st BIRTHDAY. A great lesson in the law about how
important the wording of a deal is. Angel made a deal with Lilah
that we don't know the wording of. Will he try to get out and
be held there by the wording? What will his honor dictate? Same
thing with Gunn. What was the fine print of his deal with the
big cat?
Lots of possibilities.
[> [> [> [> [> spoiler for P of P -- skeeve,
08:49:39 10/27/03 Mon
Freddie was born on February 29.
His 21st birthday was going to be a long time coming.
[> [> [> i nominate... -- anom, 12:33:04 10/26/03
Sun
"Is Gunn playing Frederic or is Angel or perhaps both?"
...Connor! Who else was involuntarily apprenticed to a "pirate"--or
bad guy, at least--& has lived to adulthood or nearly so although
his birthday has probably only occurred once on Earth? You might
even be able to make a case for a parallel between the pilot/pirate
mixup & Wesley's interpretation of the prophecy, although one
was a mistake & the other the result of deception.
[> [> [> [> Small problem -- Lunasea, 12:54:43
10/26/03 Sun
Connor would require too much backstory. This is the newer less
backstory-ee Angel, where episode are more self contained and
you don't have to watch everyone this season, let alone be familiar
with past seasons. The mindwipe will be revisited, but not Connor
himself. Cordelia's arc still needs closure. Connor's has been
closed.
[> [> [> [> [> who says? (don't answer that
if it's a spoiler) -- anom, 16:52:43 10/26/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm a spoiler phobe, so
no spoiler other than the direction the show is going -- Lunasea,
17:19:34 10/26/03 Sun
And that is obvious from summer interviews with Bell, WB press
and what we have seen so far.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> In the Angel magazine
(Issue # 1) -- Arethusa, 17:28:23 10/26/03 Sun
Whedon responded to a question about the mention of Connor in
"Conviction," saying, "...I thought it would be
nice to put it in because it makes what happens affect Angel on
more than just an, "I'm having an ethical delimma!"
sort of [level]. It punches him in the gut, which is what he needs.
It's also a sense that we will see Connor again at some point."
(pg. 58)
Can I just say, Whoo Hoo!! if this means he'll be back.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Possible Casting
Spoiler for Season 5 Above -- Arethusa, 17:30:02 10/26/03
Sun
[> [> [> [> [> Never say never when it comes
to JW. -- Rufus, 01:21:07 10/29/03 Wed
[> [> More on S5 and 'Ruddigore' -- KdS, 11:21:44
10/27/03 Mon
A synopsis and full script of Ruddigore can be found here.
The interesting part from the point of view of S5 lies in the
curse that afflicts the characters. The aristocratic Murgatroyd
family, on succeeding to their title, fall prey to a curse inflicted
by an unjustly burned witch, that they must commit a crime a day
or die an agonising mystical death. Sir Despard Murgatroyd, holder
of the title at the opening of the operetta, has reached a compromise
with himself that he will commit his crime a day but do good works
for the remainder of his time:
Two days since, I stole a child and built an orphan asylum.
Yesterday I robbed a bank and endowed a bishopric. To-day I carry
off Rose Maybud and atone with a cathedral!
His brother Ruthven refuses the curse, and is apparently doomed
to die when he recognises a distinctly legalistic quibble:
A Baronet of Ruddigore can only die through refusing to commit
his daily crime. Therefore, to refuse to commit a daily crime
is tantamount to suicide! But suicide is, itself, a crime.
The curse locked up in an unbreakable paradox, everyone is free
to live happily ever after (or until 20th century legal reform
abolished the criminal status of suicide and doomed any surviving
Murgatroyds all over again). So is Angel Despard, fooling himself
by thinking he can bargain with evil? And if so, who is going
to be Ruthven, thinking outside the box and using the letter of
the law to break the spirit of the curse?
[> Posting my thoughts tomorrow, but just to say --
Rahael, 15:42:36 10/26/03 Sun
Really liked all three episodes. They had a certain quality, different
to the feel of AtS seasons before, but still interesting.
Connor and Cordy were missed though.
[> Re: I've seen 5:1-3! (no later spoilers) -- Rufus,
18:13:53 10/26/03 Sun
Angel's apparent abandonment of Royce to be eaten alive in
Unleashed is reduced later in the episode by the announcement
that the restaurant has been shut down, although the lines were
easy to miss.
Just a comment. There is a subtle difference between how Angel
approaches his position at Wolfram and Hart. He wants to help
the helpless but I feel has become almost one of them in his confusion
over where his place in the world is now. It's clear that many
employee's aren't evil as much as they are part of a business
machine that they don't fully understand, or if they do the fact
none of it doesn't directly touch them, find it easy to ignore.
Allowing Royce to be taken was a way to escape a big collateral
damage type fight, but Angel didn't seem to cut up about abandoning
Royce. He had judged Royce to be as big a monster as Nina could
be considered, difference being Royce's actions were calculated,
Nina's a result of forces beyond her control (as a new werewolf
even more so). Could it be that Wolfram and Hart found the best
way to control Angel by giving him the ability to work and live
in the day reducing him to the status of a bureaucrat instead
of super-hero?
[> The monster within, and Spike as Jester (Spoilers, Eps
1-3 AtS S5) -- Rahael, 04:35:19 10/27/03 Mon
Some thoughts on the first three eps:
Conviction:
I liked it. Full of metaphory goodness. The speech by Hauser is
what reassured me about the possible arc of Angel eating of the
apple of moral ambiguity and potential badness.
Hauser says that he is pure, that he has conviction. He is someone
whose world is cut and dried. There is no doubt, no ambiguity
or complexity in his mind. If a contagion has to be contained,
there's no problem, just kill as many people as you can. Though
his "I'm fully committed to Evil" just made me giggle,
because that's not very realistic, is it? How many of the people
who commit the most truly evil acts even think of themselves in
such a way? I mean, why is he even trying to contain a contagion?
I think what he meant was, "I am fully committed to Wolfram
& Hart, and their unambiguously evil intents".
He taunts Angel about his doubt and uncertainty and lostness.
He is but a mote, a nothing. And Angel, in his chilling act, with
the word 'mercy' on his lips demonstrates how far he has strayed,
how lost he is.
This reassures me. In previous seasons, Angel's nearly always
been sure, what's right, what's not. In fact, when he embarks
on courses of action which deep down he feels is 'bad' he takes
drastic action like sacking his co-workers. His overstepping of
the boundaries is deliberate and conscious. This time, he has
been thrust into choices he doesn't like. He's at the mercy of
events he can't control. Like all of us, he doesn't know whether
he is doing the right thing or wrong thing. He's no longer a 'champion'.
No longer the dichotomy between Angelus and Angel. One bad, one
good. Like never before, Angel faces his confused identity, and
I hope, by the end of the season re-forges his commitment, and
his self identity anew.
The over-arching metaphors of Conviction seem to support this.
It is full of the idea of adversarial justice - that somehow,
courts of law work by having the defence and prosecution working
against, not with each other. At the end, justice is served, even
if it sometimes means that the defence has to defend the unsavoury.
The idea of trial, suffering, atonement. That's what Angel's always
been about. But out of contraries, will emerge some form of truth,
and justice. Angel and Spike stand between Heaven and Hell. Perhaps,
they will eventually find their place in the middle, on Earth.
Gunn's situation is also metaphoric for that of the AI at large.
He's been given knowledge. He's made a choice with full knowledge
(perhaps more so than any other member of AI). Angel accepted
a dreadful bargain. Fred, Wesley and Lorne, thanks to the memory
wipe cannot be said to truly have made an informed consent. Yet
it's clear that Gunn knows things that no one else does.
Just Rewards:
Good golly, Spike is interesting again. His plight is genuinely
moving. He doesn't belong either to this world, or to hell or
to heaven. He was truly stuck in one moment, in the amulet. Burning
up. And now he's fading away. His description of the chasm underneath
reminds me of a line from George Herbert (the world is too
little for thy tent/ A grave too big for me.....would great God
measure with a wretch? Shall he thy stature spell? - I paraphrase).
I loved the spookiness of the necromancer. There seemed to be
a very Victorian feel to him. I really like Spike and Angel's
relationships. And in a shallow aside, I must note a welcome return
to DB's naked chest! Who was saying he was fat! That's all muscle,
that is.
Ummm, right, back to my review. Loved the scene between Spike
and Angel in his bedroom. There were chords of resonance for me
of Shakesperian history plays. The troubles of a king. The weight
of the crown. Henry V lying awake before battle. Richard III saying
that he now cannot sleep since he took the crown. Richard II feeling
the weight of his mortality, death as the jester, mocking him.
Allowing him to monarchize and kill with looks, before pressing
the pin into his skull and then, "farewell King!". Spike
is the Jester. Taunting Angel. Threatening him, and yet, also
is a kind of holy fool.
Unleashed:
I liked this ep too. I found Nina a potent metaphor for the monsters
within, and really a return to the idea of showing us of the beast
inside Angel. I have no idea why so many people objected to Angel
telling us that the monster within could be controlled? Remember,
it also applies to Spike. Both have slipped up. Both have reasserted
their moral agency and choice. What Angel says is important for
his future arc. It sets up his moral responsibility for future
actions. What he's saying is: I accept responsibility for what
I might do. I have choices. I cannot make excuses. The statement
about control must be counterbalanced with Angel's other admission
to Nina: "I'm a monster too".
The diners on exotic meats was a macabre and yet amusing satire.
Creepy, scary and funny. This is the way I like AtS. It is infinitely
superior to the whole ep about Doyle's ex's new fiancee's families
habits. This time round, the focus is entirely about human evil.
Every episode has concentrated on this. Angel's killing of humans
is symptomatic of this concentration. No longer is AtS shirking
some of the more difficult issues that lie at the heart of both
supernatural shows. Oh, we'll have the monster of the week, and
then the hero/heroine will kill them, and because they are demons,
we don't have to think very hard, because it's okay to kill them.
Now, when Angel killed the babyeater, KdS and I both knew that
it was his 3pm appointment. Because now the show is tackling the
idea, not whether it is right to kill humans, but, is it right
for us as viewers to gain satisfaction from the tidy deaths of
the problem of the week? I mean, haven't we watched the easy kills
week in week out of previous seasons? Isn't it the satisfying
conclusion to a cool fight? Now, we are left uneasy and disturbed.
Good!
We ourselves, like AI are left asking uneasy questions. Is this
right? Or wrong? Uncertainty. More productive to thoughtful behaviour
than convictins and easy guidelines: Monster, kill on sight.
"I'm a monster too"
Perhaps we all could be.
[> [> No later spoilers above. -- Rahael, 05:06:21
10/27/03 Mon
[> [> Interesting -- KdS, 11:04:48 10/27/03 Mon
I'm not so sure about this because it seems to be such a flip-flop
from the arguable resimplification of BtVS7 - the trickster D'Hoffryn
of S6 becoming all-out evil again, the renewed portrayal of vampires
serving evil as a positive thing rather than just being hedonistic,
the idea that Willow's magical problems are just down to some
external taint that can be burned out of her.
Let's put it this way, I got so badly burned by the way I misread
S7 (convinced all the way through that the FE would be about the
temptation to do evil in the desperate fight against evil, rather
than "I'm going to take over the world with my thugs"
- at least Adam made his own thugs) that I'm no longer capable
of giving ME that much credit for moral metaphor.
[> [> [> That might be giving S7 -- Rahael, 04:42:11
10/28/03 Tue
too much weight....after all, while they were making S7, they
were also making S4. of AtS.
Plus, I don't think you misread it. I think the hand left the
wheel as S7 progressed. I think Joss got bored.
Well that's what I hope.
Plus S7 still had stellar eps like Storyteller and Potential and
Selfless. I refuse to accept that I misread those eps!
[> [> Great post, Rah. Enjoyed it. -- s'kat, 23:15:10
10/27/03 Mon
Interesting take on Unleashed.
The difficulty most people had on the whole controlling the monster
inside deal - was a continuity nit-pick regarding Angelus/Angel.
That said, I rather like your take on it:
"What Angel says is important for his future arc. It sets
up his moral responsibility for future actions. What he's saying
is: I accept responsibility for what I might do. I have choices.
I cannot make excuses."
Hmmm, does this mean ME is moving towards integration? No more
of this - that wasn't me, that's Angelus, I have no control over
that entity and besides I was soulless at the time? Not sure.
But, it would be an interesting route to take if they choose to
pursue it - certainly grays up the series a bit more, also removes
something I've always found somewhat annoying about the character
- a black/white aspect which you do a good job of describing here:
In previous seasons, Angel's nearly always been sure, what's
right, what's not. In fact, when he embarks on courses of action
which deep down he feels is 'bad' he takes drastic action like
sacking his co-workers. His overstepping of the boundaries is
deliberate and conscious. This time, he has been thrust into choices
he doesn't like. He's at the mercy of events he can't control.
Like all of us, he doesn't know whether he is doing the right
thing or wrong thing. He's no longer a 'champion'. No longer the
dichotomy between Angelus and Angel. One bad, one good. Like never
before, Angel faces his confused identity, and I hope, by the
end of the season re-forges his commitment, and his self identity
anew.
If your right, which I think you are having watched Hell Bound,
Unleashed may be worth taking a second look at later on. It certainly
reassures me about the season.
Oh - enjoyed your analysis of Angel, Spike, Gunn and the other
characters in Just Rewards and Conviction - very interesting.
Tend to agree on the whole.
Particularly with the view of Spike as the Jester and Angel as
the wounded king. I think there is very much of a sibling thing
going on there with mythic undertones of -
wounded king/lost jester. Almost makes me want to rent The Fisher
King with Robin Williams and Jeff Bridges.
Sorry not much else to add...except that I really liked your take
on the episodes! Thanks.
sk
[> [> [> Thanks SK! -- Rahael, 04:48:49 10/28/03
Tue
I'm interested in your mention of the The Fisher King and the
Wounded King. I'm not familiar with either, but it sounds apposite.
As for continuity nit picks, well, there is absolutely no continuity
for the whole Angel/Angelus thing. It's pretty much a shifting
metaphor, just like the no sex thing. I regard the Angelus of
S2 rather as I regard Darla of S1 - an early version of the character,
but only a version.
And in AtS, I pretty much see Angel at times rejecting and building
the wall between his two identities, and at other times acknowledging
how close they are. Sometimes it's blatantly because of the needs
of the plot.
But then I regard Angelus and Angel as pretty much the same person,
and Angelus as a metaphor.
[> [> [> [> It was interesting... (Spoiler for
5.4) -- Masq, 06:36:23 10/28/03 Tue
All through seasons 1 through 3 of AtS, Angel would refer to his
unsouled years (1753-1898, 1998) as "me" and "I".
For example, in the season 3 opener, Heartthrob, when he was telling
the gang how Holtz caught up with him in Marseilles in the late
18th century. Or in "Waiting in the Wings" when he talks
about going to the ballet in 1890 and getting all choked up despite
the fact that "I was evil!"
Then suddenly in "Players", the ep after Angel gets
his soul back in season 4, he's distinctly talking about Angelus
as if he is a different person. And so is the gang.
Now, in "Hellbound" he's back to his usual habit of
referring to his time as Angelus as "me" and "I"
again:
"That's not fair! I didn't have a soul then!"
Angel and Angelus are the same person, but Liam, that person,
has a dark side to him that is exposed when his soul is gone.
When his soul is present, he struggles valiantly against that
dark side and keeps it in check.
The metaphor of Angelus is that struggle human beings have against
their worst impulses.
[> [> [> [> Oooh I like this & on The Fisher King/Wounded
King -- s'kat, 08:37:20 10/28/03 Tue
And in AtS, I pretty much see Angel at times rejecting and
building the wall between his two identities, and at other times
acknowledging how close they are. Sometimes it's blatantly because
of the needs of the plot.
But then I regard Angelus and Angel as pretty much the same person,
and Angelus as a metaphor.
Yes, that's how I always preferred to read the character of Angel,
seeing Angelus much like one would see Mr. Hyde in the Robert
Louis Stevenson tale: Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde.
The metaphor for all the monsterous attributes. I just get worried
occassionally that the writers see it less psychologically. (Note
to self - stop reading David Fury interviews or rather stop taking
them seriously, which may be better advice.)
The Fisher King - is a story of the Holy Grail Legend - which
Rufus referenced a great deal for Chosen last year.
It's also the title of an interesting film, that I have vague
memories of. Starred Robin Williams, Jeff Bridges and Mercedes
Rule and was about a man's search for enlightment.
The Wounded King/Fisher King is also referenced by Wagner in the
Parsifal Opera apparently. Where the knight Parsifal heals the
wounded king with the grail.
I also saw the reference in the film Excaliber, 1980s?
Can't remember the director. In the last portion of the film,
Arthur has given up hope, he's just killed his son Mordred (who
wounded him in the side with a spear - but the wound is deeper),
and sits aging and weary, without hope, cut off from his advisor
Merlin, cut off from his love Guenivere, cut off from his friend
Lancelot...and the knights go out in search of the Holy Grail.
One man who could not meet Arthur's standards for a knight, finds
it and brings it back to give Arthur a sip - which
renews Arthur's strength. It's been a long time since I've seen
the film, but I believe that was the final twenty minutes. It's
a long film - one of the few that does the entire Arthurian legend,
also quite violent and gruesome in places.
[> [> [> [> [> And I like this -- Rahael,
08:57:46 10/28/03 Tue
Much to chew up on. The resonances with Modred. And indeed, his
mother, and Darla. The love triangle besides.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Fisher King --
Rob, 09:25:24 10/28/03 Tue
And if you're interested in more Fisher King info, I wrote a Classic
Movie of the Week column for OnM last April that's in the archives
here.
It is very spoilery, though. I'd really recommend you see the
movie. It's one of my all-time favorites.
Rob
[> [> [> [> And in a synchronous sort of way (mild
spoilerific Angel 5.1-5.4 -- fresne, 13:10:47 10/28/03
Tue
There's an absolutely incredible discussion of Parsival/the Fisher
King in Archive 2 (subject to change - like the weather only Voynaky).
The top thread
From the Angel's Soul board: Angel S5 and Wagner's Parsifal (WARNING!
Spoilers up to 5.8) -- cjl,
which, based on the title, has spoilers.
But about half way down, shadowcat posted
Edited for the unspoiled - just the literary and philosophy ref.
- no mention of ATS characters
Which you might find interesting. Since, I knew none of the listed
info (I am now spoiled for Wagner), I certainly did.
At the moment, having recently finished Lois McMaster Bujold's
Paladin of Souls, I'm much filled with the concept of the
person as cup/soul as water metaphor. And for that matter the
consequences of mixing with a demon. Both being devoured and osmotically
merging. Of things living out of season, which surely a vampire
with a soul (corporeality included, but only if you call within
the next 15 minutes) would be.
Blood washes away sin. The goat. The son. Hyperion has set as
Apollo rises. The quest for not a sword or a shield, but a cup,
the grail. The quest to heal the land that is certainly wounded.
To heal the king who bleeds internally. Hidden, his wounds do
not heal.
And as I consider the link between the king's fertility and the
land's, what does it mean for the land when the king is dead,
but walking?
I should post before the archives go deeper. And so I fall words
to action.
[> [> [> [> [> tangential Fisher King recommendation
-- leslie, 22:19:31 10/28/03 Tue
A truly fascinating take on the theme of the Fisher King is Tim
Power's trilogy, Last Call, Expiration Date, and
Earthquake Weather, which use the myth in the context of
modern California. Three of my favorite books in the world.
[> [> Great points. -- Arethusa, 05:04:22 10/28/03
Tue
Like Angel, we're now debating every death and moral decision.
Because he is not taking orders from TPTB any more, he can no
longer take it for granted that his actions are rightous. IMO
that's a very existential delimma-having to examine every moral
issue through his personal moral code.
[> [> [> The moral implications of Home (Spoilers,
Home & Conviction) -- Rahael, 06:06:54 10/28/03 Tue
Also, I think Angel really crossed the line with what he did with
Connor, and I think his intense sense of guilt and shame is at
the heart of his new ruthlessness - if I gave that up for the
world, what choice may I not make now?
He definitely can't see himself as the Champion anymore. He undercut
his most deepest wants and feelings.
If everything that happened maneovered up to Home, if he even
believes what Skip told him, well the Powers screwed with him
royally. Angel's all alone now. And he's isolated himself and
his feelings because of the memory wipe.
In Conviction, there's a flash of an image, of Eve examining Hauser's
blood. Then she asks him, "how did you do?", contrasting
his actions with Gunn's bloodless win.
[> [> [> [> Why bother -- Lunasea, 08:02:34
10/28/03 Tue
I really don't think we are going to revisit whether Angel was
right in what he did to Connor. That would require a LOT of backstory.
Where I think they are going with the mentions of Connor is in
"Peace Out" Insect Priest tells Angel why he was trying
to undo Jasmine. It wasn't to save a world that doesn't want him.
It wasn't for the girl. It was for the boy, his son. Angel ended
world peace for his son. Then he lost that son. Save the world,
end up running an evil law firm. Cause and effect. Damned if you
do and damned if you don't.
I don't think he feels guilty about what he did to Connor. I think
he feels guilty about still wanting him. He saved his son. That
doesn't mean he doesn't want to be with him. I think that is the
conflict he feels. He wants what is best for his son, and he did
that. He got in bed with W&H for it. That doesn't mean he wouldn't
give anything to still have his son. That's why he doesn't feel
so championy. A champion wouldn't want his son. He would just
want him to be happy. That is what Angel will have to work through.
He let Buffy go so she could bake. He let his son go so he could
have a normal happy life. That doesn't mean he can't still want
them.
[> [> [> [> [> I have to disagree here (Spoilers,
Conviction) -- Rahael, 08:39:14 10/28/03 Tue
Part of what made Home so heartrendingly powerful was Connor's
accusation to Angel "You let him take me!"
And everything about Connor clicked into place. Connor was *never*
satisified with Holtz. WHen he came back to 'kill' Angel, he really
came back for his father. And that's what makes Connor so tragic,
and so moving right at the end, and more besides, because Angel
gives him away again.
If Angel doesn't feel guilty, why does he react so angrily to
Corbin Fries? Didn't he have some responsiblity in the mess Connor
ended up in, in Home? Didn't he cut his throat with a knife belonging
to W&H? Connor still saw Angel do that, the very last thing
he saw happen. What an ironic counterpart to Buffy's declaration
about Dawn: "The last thing she'll see is me protecting her".
Why did Angel start when the phone message said "to sacrifice
your loved ones" - the message didn't say "to save your
loved ones", or "to get back your loved ones".
The word was sacrifice.
To be honest, to deny Angel guilt or culpability for what he did
in Home is to make him a less complex or interesting or likable
character. Because what would Connor tell him, if he had his memory
back? I'm pretty certain it isn't "thank you". And Angel
must know that. And that is in itself a heartache.
Who was Angel saving in Home? Connor? Or, in reality, Angel himself?
The terrible irony is that Angel knows that he simultaneously
damned himself.
The reason why Spike's criticisms are so easily ignored by Angel
as an annoyance is that Spike cannot truly touch at Angel's real
pain and vulnerability. When Angel says "you know nothing
about this!" he's thinking about Connor.
Bereavement and loss is painful, and Angel literally has been
bereft of Connor. And Eve's wording was significant, I thought:
She said "He's happy now he doesn't have a memory of you".
Not "he's happy now he doesn't remember the terrible past"
or "He's happy now that he has no memory of Holtz or Quartoth
or Cordelia or Jasmine". No memory of Angel. How that must
cut Angel up. The blame is being laid squarely at his door: He
made Connor unhappy, Eve is telling him, so it was necessary for
Angel to give him up.
But perhaps in Angel's secret heart, he knows that Connor wanted
Angel to be there, and Angel wanted to be there for him. And that
would have been their mutual salvation. W&H could do all sorts
of amazing things, and yet, Angel chose these terms?
Complicated backstory? Like you mean, Spike's backstory? How on
earth will people understand Angel's conversation with Eve or
why he's running an evil law firm, without understanding who or
what Connor is?
[> [> [> [> [> [> That's what makes the board
fun -- Lunasea, 09:30:55 10/28/03 Tue
Complicated backstory? Like you mean, Spike's backstory? How
on earth will people understand Angel's conversation with Eve
or why he's running an evil law firm, without understanding who
or what Connor is?
Connor is Angel's son and he loves him very much (son=love). He
gave him up to prove his love and had to agree to take Wolfram
and Hart's LA branch as part of the deal. What more needs to be
said?
Spike: They gave his backstory. In love with Buffy. Got his soul.
Died to save the world for love and all the right reasons. Angel
and he have a history of animosity. His issues will be brought
up since he is a player.
Lilah blames Angel. Eve insinuates that Connor is happier never
having known Angel. They are evil just like Spike used to be.
That evil taints things. It is Angel's choices, not Angel himself
that has led Connor to this point. "You let him take me!"
Shut up Connor. Angel did no such thing. He did the only thing
he knew that would keep you alive. That is the dramatic contrast.
He let Holtz take Connor rather than have him killed. Then he
worked to get him back. In "Home" he kills Connor to
save him. He can't work to get him back and it hurts. He has no
where to channel his grief. He knew before that Connor was in
a Hell dimension and could justify trying to save him. Now he
is in the life he wanted for Connor and he can't get him back.
I liked the phone messages. When you sacrifice something, you
get something out of it. Angel didn't sacrifice Connor. He didn't
get anything out of it. That is what is driving him nuts. In "home"
he tells Lilah that he has to see him. He has to see Connor happy.
He has to know that Connor got something out of it and therefore
he did. He doesn't feel that way any more. He just wants his son.
Why did he flip out about Fries? Angel would give anything to
have his son back. This man was going to murder his own son. Or
course that pisses him off. No more backstory is required other
than fatherly love.
To be honest, to deny Angel guilt or culpability for what he
did in Home is to make him a less complex or interesting or likable
character
That is your opinion. There is plenty of stuff for the show to
explore. Whether Connor was savable (which I think a bomb straped
to him, Cordy and innocents pretty much answered) isn't necessary.
His guilt lies in knowing what he did was right, but wishing Connor
was still there. Should I have done X is something the board obsesses
about, not Angel. Angel deals with is feelings about X.
Because what would Connor tell him, if he had his memory back?
I'm pretty certain it isn't "thank you".
Why? because you wouldn't? If Connor had memories of both lives
and could chose, why are you assuming he would go back to Angel?
He was ready blow himself up. That is suicide. He wanted his existence
ended. Angel did that for his son in a manner that allowed him
to still live. "Gee Dad. I wish you hadn't given me a good
life the only way you knew how. Instead I realllly wanted to end
up on the ceiling, and floor, windows, that mannequin and oh yeah
you. That would have been a much better ending."
you see your story and I see mine. I see a father that loves his
son and misses him. In missing him he feels guilty. His son is
better off without him. That doesn't stop him from wanting him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That's what makes
the board fun -- Rahael, 10:03:26 10/28/03 Tue
You ask, rather combatively:
Why? because you wouldn't?
But you pretty much answered your own question:
"You let him take me!" Shut up Connor.
It doesn't really matter what Connor feels then, right? My point
is, Connor already feels so resentful about something Angel really
had no choice about, do you think he would be happier with Angel's
active decision to give him away again? And if the conclusion
of some is that Connor is so exasperating, why bother or worry
about him being written out, I'd suggest that these people don't
care about Connor as a character. However, we know that Angel
has never loved anything or anyone like he loved Connor. Angel
cares what Connor thinks.
and:
"Gee Dad. I wish you hadn't given me a good life the only
way you knew how. Instead I realllly wanted to end up on the ceiling,
and floor, windows, that mannequin and oh yeah you. That would
have been a much better ending."
Well, what happened to the bomb and the explosion? That's right,
Angel changed the course of events with magic from W&H. He
tells Lilah that he was going to dictate the terms. Well, why
didn't he dictate better ones?
And as for Connor's backstory, as you put it:
Connor is Angel's son and he loves him very much (son=love).
He gave him up to prove his love and had to agree to take Wolfram
and Hart's LA branch as part of the deal. What more needs to be
said?
Yes indeed, and it doesn't seem overly complicated to add onto
that Angel's incredibly complex feelings about the deal he made
so that Connor vanished from his life.
Should I have done X is something the board obsesses about,
not Angel. Angel deals with is feelings about X.
I admire Angel most of all the characters in the Buffyverse because
he does regret, because he does ask "Should I have done this".
Because he knows his faults, because he admits them. Because his
greatest strengths are also his weaknesses. Whether it's killing
the demon protector of a pregnant woman, or it's firing his employees
or leaving human beings to be leeched on by a fear demon in a
hotel....the examples are countless. If all Angel cared about
were his own feelings about his trangsressions, then, I guess,
I can see why some sections of the fandom have never liked him
or his attitude to repentence.
But that's not my view of the character. I guess, you'll remind
me that's my own opinion. Which it very much is!
I would find AtS 5 a richer, better season if it did deal with
the events of Home. Just as I would have enjoyed S7 better if
it didn't dismiss the ambiguous actions of its heros. I guess
what affects me is those who are left voiceless, denied their
chance to speak, to have their place in the narrative. I'm coming
close to understanding why writing out of Connor has caused so
much controversy, if the writers then append that it was A Good
Thing To Do. Because that would really wipe out the wonderful
3 three seasons beforehand,inc S4. The compassion of it all, the
power the narrative had on me. And that would make me grouchy.
Lorne:It's Joanie loves Pity
I hope Angel finds his way back to mercy, pity, peace. I have
every expectation that he will.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We don't know
the deal -- Lunasea, 11:50:15 10/28/03 Tue
So it is hard to say how much Angel got to dictate and how much
was dictated to him. We do know one thing (actually lots of things,
but this one pertains to the deal).
ANGEL: Good. (whispers) Just one more piece of business. I got
to see him.
LILAH: I'm sorry, Angel, but that wasn't part of the deal.
ANGEL: Value of compromise. Remember, Lilah? I need to see him.
From this, I would contend that giving up Connor permanently wasn't
part of what Angel dictated, but what was dictated to him. Letting
him see Connor briefly was a compromise on the part of Wolfram
and Hart. Could Angel have dictated better terms? Much of the
criticism of his actions rest on that.
It doesn't really matter what Connor feels then, right?
Depends. My mother is severely mentally ill. We've had to commit
her several times, usually after a suicide attempt. Does it matter
what her feelings are when it comes to a choice about whether
to be committed? Connor isn't in his right mind. Sometimes you
have to make decisions for people like that. There was another
exchange in the season that foreshadowed what would happen. In
Magic Bullet:
CONNOR: I'll find her. Bring back her scalp.
WESLEY: No. Jasmine wants her alive.
ANGEL: Wes is right. Fred gets to live until we understand why
she rejected Jasmine's love.
CONNOR: Why would anybody reject love?
GUNN: Maybe 'cause she has a history of doing that.
ANGEL: Whatever the reason is, we have to find her so Jasmine
can straighten her out.
In this episode we do find out why Connor has been rejecting Angel's
love. I think they should have shown it more by perhaps using
his dreams to convey what life on Quor-toth was like. The fact
that Jasmine's mojo didn't work on him also showed how damaged
he was.
Does it matter what Connor is feeling? What is he even capable
of feeling? He completely rejects the love that Angel shows him.
When loving Angel is returned in "Orpheus" he is disappointed.
He can only hate, only lash out, only need.
Connor already feels so resentful about something Angel really
had no choice about, do you think he would be happier with Angel's
active decision to give him away again?
Connor only knows how to feel resentful. Angel gave him a way
to feel other things. The Connor we saw in the store might resent
Angel's decision, but we are talking about if Connor had the capabilities
of feeling what he did at the end of "Home" being the
one to have those memories back. What would *that* Connor do?
The Connor that had a bomb straped to him isn't capable of being
happy.
And if the conclusion of some is that Connor is so exasperating,
why bother or worry about him being written out, I'd suggest that
these people don't care about Connor as a character.
What does that even mean? I sure as heck don't like Spike, but
I think he does add something to the story, so I care about him
as a character. I feel for the situation Spike has been placed
in and I feel for the situation Connor was placed in. I felt for
Dru and Darla as well. Connor was damaged by an extreme situation,
even more than Fred was. Fred had a loving family that gave her
a foundation before she was sucked into Pylea. What did Connor
have?
I can feel for him and realize that he is irredeemable. I thought
it was beautiful how they both acknowledged this and saved him.
Writing him out was an act of mercy. I would rather have seen
that than watched him go darker and darker. I would rather have
seen that than had him just rise above his past quickly with his
memories intact. What they did both validated Angel's love and
the power of the past. I had no problem with it.
Yes indeed, and it doesn't seem overly complicated to add onto
that Angel's incredibly complex feelings about the deal he made
so that Connor vanished from his life.
Guilt doesn't just come from doing wrong things. Angel feels guilty
more about what he wants than what he's done. There are two scenarious
that would bring about broody boy. You are saying he feels guilty
for taking the easy way out and removing Connor from his life.
That is one way they could go. I don't think that is where they
are going. Angel doesn't have to believe what he did was wrong.
He just has to want something he thinks is wrong. Wanting his
son is such a thing. He has no way to deal with these feelings.
What does love mean? Angel is always doing what he thinks is best
for others because he loves them. He did what he did in "Home"
because he loves Connor. Is wanting it undone or wishing he didn't
have to do it mean he doesn't love him? I find that line interesting.
I hope they do explore it.
I admire Angel most of all the characters in the Buffyverse
because he does regret, because he does ask "Should I have
done this".
No he doesn't. He says "I shouldn't have done X" or
"I wish I didn't have to do X" and broods. He knows
what he should and shouldn't do. That is told to him by his soul.
He doesn't brood because he doesn't know if he should have left
Buffy. He broods because he misses her. He does actions he knows
are wrong. He doesn't debate whether it was right to seal the
lawyers in with Darla and Dru. He knows it was wrong and he is
going dark. There is no should or shouldn't about that. We can
debate that, but that isn't the level he functions on.
Angel tries to do what he should and then feels bad about what
feelings he has. He doesn't eat people because he shouldn't, but
he still has his vamp dreams and feels bad about that. He doesn't
question whether he should have these dreams. He shouldn't, which
is why he feels bad. I don't think he questions whether he should
have taken Wolfram and Hart's offer. That's Wesley's function
in the story. He knows he should. He just hates having to do it
and doesn't feel so championy because of those feelings.
Whether it's killing the demon protector of a pregnant woman,
or it's firing his employees or leaving human beings to be leeched
on by a fear demon in a hotel....the examples are countless.
Angel never debates whether he should have done any of these things.
He knows he shouldn't have. Angel does things he's not supposed
to. That is what makes him gray. He doesn't rationalize his dark
actions. That's one of the things I love about him. He makes amends
for them instead. That is another thing I love about him. Killing
the demon protector was wrong. He never debates whether he should
have done it. It was a mistake. He then takes on the demon's mission.
He changes his attitude to prevent future mistakes. Another thing
I love about Angel.
He was never torn about whether firing the gang was right or wrong.
At first he thought it was the right thing to do to protect them.
Then he learned it was the wrong thing. There was never a period
of questioning in there where he doubted it. He never rationalized
something he knew was wrong. He admitted it and set about to make
amends.
When it came to the Thesulac demon, he never questioned whether
what he was doing was right. He didn't care when they lynched
him and he knew it was wrong later and fixed things. He doesn't
have to ask himself whether something is right. He knows.
Should I kill Cordy? Should I save Connor? These aren't questions
he asks. Just like Buffy. Should I kill Angel? Should I save Dawn?
Not even questions that enter their minds.
I guess what affects me is those who are left voiceless, denied
their chance to speak, to have their place in the narrative.
The show is called Angel for a reason. They aren't real people.
They are characters. Speak up for the living. The characters are
the voice of the author and are a package deal. What Connor doesn't
say, Fred may scream.
I'm coming close to understanding why writing out of Connor
has caused so much controversy, if the writers then append that
it was A Good Thing To Do. Because that would really wipe out
the wonderful 3 three seasons beforehand,inc S4.
Cordelia going pod person on us doesn't wipe out the sacrifice
she thought she was making in Birthday unless you let it. Why
should Angel doing what is best for his son wipe out how desperately
Angel tried to connect with his son? If Angel Shanshus, will that
wipe out his journey?
I think what Angel did for Connor was a beautiful thing, a good
thing to do. That doesn't negate the sacrifice that Darla made
for her son, which was made that much more powerful when she came
back in "Inside Out" and learned like Angel that sometime
no matter what we do, it isn't enough. "Don't let my death
mean nothing." It means nothing to Connor, but it means a
lot to me and it meant a lot to Angel. That doesn't negate the
pain he felt when he had to accept that he couldn't provide everything
for his son as Cordy dangled him in the sunlight. That doesn't
negate the fear he felt as his son was hunted by everything. That
doesn't negate the anguish he felts seeing his son taken by a
madman or anything else that happened season 3 or 4 any more than
Jasmine's machinations take away from what the gang did.
That's just me.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: We
don't know the deal -- Rahael, 15:41:22 10/28/03 Tue
Wah. Head hurts now.
The show is called Angel for a reason. They aren't real people.
They are characters. Speak up for the living. The characters are
the voice of the author and are a package deal. What Connor doesn't
say, Fred may scream.
Well, Angel isn't all that real either. And I am puzzled by the
command to speak up for the living. Who am I failing to speak
up for? Which living people am I neglecting in my attempt to speak
for the dead? Or perhaps you are thinking of "Let the dead
bury the dead". Of all the characters I'm speaking of, Angel's
deader than most.
I think we have such dramatically different views of Connor the
character, that it's impossible for me to wade into an explanation
as to why I see the character the way I do - I've posted at length
on here and Lj as to why he's so resonant and moving, and why
he, made Angel seem a finer, better, character, and why his presence
on the show made Angel as a character more compelling. For a while
there, it was Connor who was the central character of the show
for me. And that is well and good because it made me believe that
he was the central person in Angel's world.
If Connor was/is irredeemable than Angel is searching for mercy
and redemption in the wrong world.
He was never torn about whether firing the gang was right or
wrong. At first he thought it was the right thing to do to protect
them. Then he learned it was the wrong thing. There was never
a period of questioning in there where he doubted it. He never
rationalized something he knew was wrong. He admitted it and set
about to make amends.
When it came to the Thesulac demon, he never questioned whether
what he was doing was right. He didn't care when they lynched
him and he knew it was wrong later and fixed things. He doesn't
have to ask himself whether something is right. He knows.
Should I kill Cordy? Should I save Connor? These aren't questions
he asks. Just like Buffy. Should I kill Angel? Should I save Dawn?
Not even questions that enter their minds.
A character without doubts, misgivings? Who doesn't know uncertainty,
and is always sure of himself? Who always knows his mind? Unquestioning?
Wow. That's startling to me.
Connor only knows how to feel resentful. Angel gave him a way
to feel other things. The Connor we saw in the store might resent
Angel's decision, but we are talking about if Connor had the capabilities
of feeling what he did at the end of "Home" being the
one to have those memories back. What would *that* Connor do?
The Connor that had a bomb straped to him isn't capable of being
happy.
I'd contest that Connor could feel a whole lot more than resentment.
I had a very different perception of him, and his feelings toward
Angel, as well as the capacity of human beings to feel happiness
and joy, no matter how very damaged they are, no matter what they've
done.
Depends. My mother is severely mentally ill. We've had to commit
her several times, usually after a suicide attempt. Does it matter
what her feelings are when it comes to a choice about whether
to be committed? Connor isn't in his right mind. Sometimes you
have to make decisions for people like that.
Without wishing to be impertinent, or trespass into making pronouncements
upon matters on which I don't know all that much, I'd say that
you are making hard choices Angel skipped. He's not there, making
decisions for Connor. He's not there, committing him, or giving
those intimations every day of his continued thought and regard.
He sent him away. Connor doesn't even *know* that he's having
his decisions made for him.
Short circuiting the proces of mending by taking away memories
is as fake as short circuiting knowledge by having it poured into
your brain, rather than the process of learning. It's the learning
that counts; it's the process of mending that's important. If
we lose the ends, all we are left with is the means. We better
hope that the ends are what Angel (and Gunn) hoped they were.
That he isn't just left holding on to lies, and nothing else,
and no one else around him.
No, we don't know the deal. And I am not unsympathetic to Angel.
But I do feel my sympathy draining away when I listen to some
defences (as I do with all characters, actually). I'm actually
keeping my empathy for his character alive and intact (because
I want to enjoy this season if I can) by defending him in my own
way, for his right to be a fallible, doubt stricken, thoughtful,
'hero'. Angel Agonistes. This is when I love him. This is why,
apart from Connor and Cordy, he's why I watch this show.
Oh, and Angel's Hotness. And Wesley and Gunn's hotness too.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
We don't know the deal -- Lunasea, 07:29:30 10/29/03 Wed
I'm sorry if my comments offended you. By speak for the living,
I was saying that the characters aren't living. They are the voice
of the author. There is no need to speak up for them. We don't
have to speak up for Connor or Fred or Wesley or Angel. They aren't
the speaker, but the speech. They aren't even the entire speech,
but a small part of it. Problems people have with one character
are usually addressed with another.
One thing that does annoy me when it comes to some analyses is
when people put the characters in a vacuum. The laws of the Buffyverse
apply to all characters. At the beginning of Season 3 is "Fredless"
one of my favorite episodes. Fred is able to recover with her
ordeal on Pylea because we see that she is a rarity in the Buffyverse,
she has two wonderful parents who totally support her. When we
see her in StB, she is the only one that is remotely a normal
teen. In a Buffyverse where that sort of normalcy gives Fred the
foundation she needs to deal with Pylea, if Connor doesn't have
that, how is he supposed to overcome anything? In a world where
love can save someone, if you reject love, you don't get saved.
Connor isn't about being irredeemable, but shows how powerful
love really is. He is irredeemable because he rejects it.
If Connor was/is irredeemable than Angel is searching for mercy
and redemption in the wrong world.
Connor represents one part of Angel. That part is irredeemable.
Angel's salvation lies in moving beyond that part, in killing
it so to speak. Connor was a wonderful way for Angel to deal with
his daddy issues and luckily we were spared exposition about this.
Connor didn't believe that Angel loved him, just like Angel didn't
believe that his father loved him. Angel can move beyond this,
beyond the pain that fuels Angelus. Using his free will, he can
move beyond his inner child. Spare the exposition, show it symbolically
instead.
I'd say that you are making hard choices Angel skipped. He's
not there, making decisions for Connor. He's not there, committing
him, or giving those intimations every day of his continued thought
and regard. He sent him away. Connor doesn't even *know* that
he's having his decisions made for him.
So the show should now resolve around Angel's quest to help his
son? My mother is never going to be okay. We find one med
that works until it becomes toxic (last one lasted a full year).
Then the process starts all over again. If we could give her a
new life that would actually cure her, we'd do it in a heartbeat.
There is no question about it.
There's this value placed on free will that makes it paramount.
Angel took away Connor's free will, therefore what he did was
wrong. He made decisions for him. That is wrong. Connor should
make them. Connor made his decision. He strapped a bomb to himself,
Cordelia and innocents and wanted Angel to choose. Angel chose.
Would it have been better if Connor had actually been killed?
That was a viable ending. I wonder what audience reaction would
have been then? It seems people have trouble over Angel taking
away Connor's free will. Perhaps they would have been happier
if Angel had just killed Connor outright.
A character without doubts, misgivings? Who doesn't know uncertainty,
and is always sure of himself? Who always knows his mind? Unquestioning?
Wow. That's startling to me.
There are more things to doubt than what we should and shouldn't
do. The Angel see doesn't doubt what he should do very often because
he deals with those other things. He had the visions to guide
him. He doesn't have to think about whether he should follow them
or not. He admits that what he did soulless was wrong. So is a
lot of the things he did souled. He gets through that level quickly
so he can move on to what to me is more intereseting. He doubts
his own goodness, not his actions. Even if he does good, is he
good? I find that interesting. Not what should I do, but what
I am? Not what should I do, but what am I going to do?
Short circuiting the proces of mending by taking away memories
is as fake as short circuiting knowledge by having it poured into
your brain, rather than the process of learning. It's the learning
that counts; it's the process of mending that's important. If
we lose the ends, all we are left with is the means. We better
hope that the ends are what Angel (and Gunn) hoped they were.
That he isn't just left holding on to lies, and nothing else,
and no one else around him.
Not necessarily. Part of the process is what is done with it after
it is attained. Dawn is fake. All those memories that eveyone
has of her is completely bogus. That doesn't mean that Buffy doesn't
love her or accept her as her sister. When Buffy was in her catatonic
state, she remembered things that weren't real, that never actually
happened. So what if either Gunn's knowledge or Connor's new life
is fake? What matters is what they do with that.
Angel was cursed, artificiallly given back his soul. If the process
is what matters, what process was there for this? The process
came AFTER he got his soul. Now that Connor has no memories of
his past existence and new memories of a loving family, he can
actually start living. How does that not count? He is going to
college and has a girlfriend. THAT is what matters, not how he
got there.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: We don't know the deal -- Rahael, 08:06:41 10/29/03
Wed
I am not offended. Why should I be? Perhaps it's the blunt way
I responded to your blunt responses ;).
We can all make normative statements about other human beings
lives and experiences, about art, and how trauma affects people
and how essential good parenting is, and what the nature of love
is.
It's not a recipe for unanimous agreement.
And of course we don't have to speak up for fictional characters.
I do it cuz of the fun! It doesn't need to be explained
to me. I feel I have grasped essentials like the fictional nature
of fictional characters.
I also think that narratives do not speak with one unanimous voice,
one opinion. The very best narratives contain discord, tension
and oppositions. Especially where there is a whole team of writers.
I accept that your version of Angel works best for you, narratively
speaking. But he doesn't seem very convincing to me.
I've never said that S5 should be about the quest to find his
son again. I said a) Angel feels guilt and b) I hope the storyline
is resolved, perhaps inc. an appearance from Connor.
Re Souled Angel being an easy shortcut - Angel had to live with
his memories, live with the memory of his behaviuor as Angelus.
HOw is this comparable with Connor's current situation? If Angel
had a soul and no memory and was just had some odd personal habits
about drinking pigs blood and not tanning, well, yes, that would
be an easy shortcut.
I was going through the rest of your points and answering them
in a similar fashion when i realised there isn't much of a point.
I'm not creating light, only heat.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: We don't know the deal -- Lunasea, 09:21:39
10/29/03 Wed
I said a) Angel feels guilt
But what guilt? I didn't say that Angel was happy carefree, I
did what was best so let's go tra-la-la through the daisies. You
have Angel doubting whether killing Connor was the right thing
to do. I have him feeling guilt because he wishes Connor was with
him even though he knows Connor is happier now. I'm sure Connor
will be back to help him deal with this. Angel felt a lot better
at the end of "Home" when he saw how happy Connor was.
I also think that narratives do not speak with one unanimous
voice, one opinion. The very best narratives contain discord,
tension and oppositions.
That doesn't mean it doesn't speak with one voice. My voice is
full of discord, tension and opposition. I explore things through
my essays and stories. I puzzle things out on paper and on on
screen. In the very best narratives, this goes somewhere, to some
sort of conclusion, even if the conclusion is one isn't possible.
Souled Angel being an easy shortcut - Angel had to live with
his memories, live with the memory of his behaviuor as Angelus.
HOw is this comparable with Connor's current situation? If Angel
had a soul and no memory and was just had some odd personal habits
about drinking pigs blood and not tanning, well, yes, that would
be an easy shortcut.
Angel didn't ask for his soul. He didn't fight for it. Compared
to Spike, he got it the quick way. Then his redemption was jump
started. The process began. The process sucked, but there was
no process in actually attaining it, like Spike.
Connor is still alive and has to make his way in the world. He
got a shortcut to that life, but he still has to deal with that
life. Life isn't so easy. He isn't up in heaven with Darla playing
harps.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: We
don't know the deal -- Seven, 20:39:34 10/28/03 Tue
"He was never torn about whether firing the gang was right
or wrong. At first he thought it was the right thing to do to
protect them. Then he learned it was the wrong thing. There was
never a period of questioning in there where he doubted it. He
never rationalized something he knew was wrong. He admitted it
and set about to make amends."
Not exactly true. He does rationalize at one point that I can
remember off the top of my head. At the end of "Redefinition"
Wesely says
Someone has to fight the good fight (and walks away)
[Angel says nothing then throws a knife that misses his target.
(representing his acknowledgement of what he is doing as wrong)]
and then thinks to himself:
"Let them fight the good fight, somebody has to fight the
war." And proceeds to hit his target, representing his rationalization.
Angel rationalizes letting his friends go. He doesn't want to
admit that he is wrong to do this, he makes himself believe that
it needs to be done. SOMEONE HAS TO FIGHT THE WAR is a rationalization.
He also rationalizes to Lorne, saying he had to do things that
were despicable and essentially kill a lot of people. "They
weren't ready to handle that."
He rationalizes firing the team. He is essentially saying they
were not strong enough to do what needs to be done. The truth
was that he was too weak to do what needed to be done----essentially
forget about the distraction that was Darla, the thing that W&H braught
back to do just that, drive him away from hsi friends and turn
him dark. He didn't want to admit that. He rationalized by saying
that he was saving them by letting them not have to participate
in his own destruction.
Another part I wonder about though, which is of a completely different
topic, is what was the reason Darla was brought back? Really it
was to make a vessel to carry Angel's son/father-of-the-antichrist.
Lindsay and Lilah and likely Holland Manners didn't know that.
They were under the impression that she was brought back to help
Angel go dark. My theory is that t no one at W&H really knew
what was going to happen, they just knew that the SP were very
interested in Angel and probably thought that since they are in
the business of evil, they probably want him evil. They didn't
know what her real purpose was.
But remember, if the SP were responisble for Darla and if Darla's
real purpose was to mother Conner, and all things Conner were
set into motion by Jasmine, then it could be argued that Jasmine
is a Senior Partner. If that be true, we must recognize that Jasmine
hinted at being a "Power" herself. As in a Power That
Be.
Jasmine (From Peace Out): "The other power's don't care!"
So it could be argued that She was one of the Powers That Be and
that she was one of the Senior Partners. Who's to say that she
wasn't both?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Interesting
quote -- Tchaikovsky, 03:43:33 10/29/03 Wed
The Connor that had a bomb straped to him isn't capable of
being happy.
If I believed that, I would lose a lot of respect for the shows.
My interest is that even characters hitting the grimiest depths
of despair- Buffy annihilating her name and past in Anne,
Willow attempting to destroy the world in Grave, Angel
in perfect despair in Reprise, Faith collapsing, begging
to be killed, in the compassionate despairing rain of Five
by Five, my personal favourite image, when played up against
Sanctuary of Angel's run.
If the Connor who has a bomb strapped to him isn't capable of
happiness, what does this say about the people in the real world
who do this? That they have no chance of being happy in this world?
That that's not ME's interest? That this despairing branch of
humanity isn't within their remit? If ME's argument is that the
only way of letting Connor be happy is to annihilate his former
life, then I'm extremely edgy about the upcoming season. For me,
Angel's palapable reaction to 'To sacrifice a loved one or pet,
press the pound key', has to be to do with what he did. Love is
sacrifice. But the sacrifice of the person loved, or the person
loving?
TCH
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Connor
is an extreme situation -- Lunasea, 06:22:36 10/29/03 Wed
He isn't Buffy, who had over a dozen "normal" years
before she was Called and knew what normalcy was. She had a mother
and sister who had loved her and she loved. That gave her a foundation.
Willow's mom wasn't the best mom, but she wasn't abusive. She
had a decent childhood and a best friend. Her mom probably left
her alone more and more as she got older.
Angel didn't believe that his father loved him, but his father
did. He also had a mother and a sister that he loved very much.
Buffy's love reached him and he was able to save Darla with love.
Faith is probably the closest to Connor, but even alcoholic mom
can't compare to Quor-toth. Faith was able to respond to love.
When she was in Buffy's body it affected her. She wanted to die
because she thought she was bad.
This is all contrasted with Connor. He came back a teen,
but he was taken as an infant. He had no real childhood.
He didn't have a dozen years of normalcy. He didn't have a best
friend. He didn't have a mother who loved him. Most importantly
Connor couldn't respond to Angel's love. As Angel said in "Magic
Bullet" Fred gets to live until we understand why she rejected
Jasmine's love.
Connor is an extreme circumstance. He was tied to a tree and left
there for days. Connor has no idea what love or normalcy is. That
is shown in Magic Bullet, where the above line comes from. Below
is a thread about whether Crowley raised Robin with the purpose
of having him seek revenge for Nikki's death. We've seen this
story line, with Holtz and Connor. Holtz didn't take Connor to
replace the children he had lost. He took him to seek revenge
on Angel. How did Connor get back? Angel didn't open a portal.
That would have ripped the fabric of space. Someone in Quor-toth
punched through from that side. Just taking Connor wasn't enough.
Darla and Angelus did more than kill Holtz's family. They turned
his daughter. Holtz turned Connor.
Can a vampire be unturned? Connor, in essence, needed to be resouled.
Giles dosed Willow with the true essence of magic so that Xander
could reach her. Without this, could Willow have been reached?
Her pain covered up her humanity. Willow was reachable because
her humanity was reachable. Her humanity had been nurtured for
two decades prior to her grief. Not Connor.
What does this say about the real world and people like this?
How many people are like this? How many people in real life are
tied to a tree for days at a time and raised to seek vengeance?
Connor is the exception that proves the rule. He shows why Buffy,
Willow, Angel and Faith had the potential to be redeemed. Let's
include Darla, Lindsey and Lilah on that list as well.
If Connor is going to reject love, the one thing that can save
him, how is his redemption possible? Angel ended world peace for
his son. He tried to reach him before he had to resort to magic.
Tim wrote some very specific lines to show how far gone Connor
was.
I would have liked if he was redeemable and Angel could have had
his son. Connor is more than a character though. He is symbolic
of Angel's younger self. If Connor is redeemable, than Angel can
find his innocence. That's just not possible. Instead, in Connor's
death is shown where Angel's redemption lies. Angel has to move
completely beyond his past, kill it so to speak. Our past may
inform us, but free will allows us to move beyond this. Season
4 was a play between these two things.
That's the story I saw. Maybe another season Connor could have
lived, but not that one.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Connor is an extreme situation -- yabyumpan, 07:00:02
10/29/03 Wed
This is all contrasted with Connor. He came back a teen, but
he was taken as an infant. He had no real childhood. He didn't
have a dozen years of normalcy. He didn't have a best friend.
He didn't have a mother who loved him. Most importantly Connor
couldn't respond to Angel's love........
What does this say about the real world and people like this?
How many people are like this? How many people in real life are
tied to a tree for days at a time and raised to seek vengeance?
Actually, it's not as uncommon as it may seem. There are many,
many children in Uganda, the Congo and other countries around
the world who are taken away from their families at a young age
and are taught to fight, to fire a gun, to kill people. There
are many young people who have spent their early life in an 'hellish'
existance. What disturbed me about 'Home' was that ME seemed to
be sending out the message that these young people are 'unsaveable',
that they cannot be 'redeemed'.
If Connor is going to reject love, the one thing that can save
him, how is his redemption possible?
It would have been possible with a lot of hard work from Angel
and those that loved him, just as that children caught up in wars
and abuse around the world can also be saved, and are saved.
While I can sympathise with Angel's decision, by the end of S4
I would also have done any thing to not see Connor suffer any
more, I don't believe it was the right decision. Angel did what
he always does when relationships get tough, he walked away. There
was no growth for Angel in S4, he ended up back where he started
'poor me, everthing I touch turns to ashes etc'. Connor's arc
and resolution is one of the reasons why S4 is my least favorite
season. It seemed to say to me that what ever Angel does he's
always going to screw up and that a young person of 18 can be
beyond saving, neither message inspires me to watch.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Well said -- Rahael, 07:21:51 10/29/03 Wed
The extreme seems normal for those who live those 'extreme' lives.
Everyone's life is extraordinary. Everyone's life has something
in it that might seem unbearable to others.
We can all still recognise our common humanity. Connor's shone
out like few other characters.
If his life and experience is extreme, what must it be like to
have the long hundreds of years life filled with murder and torture
and atrocities? How can a person like that EVER come back? Yes,
childhood experience is very important in shaping us. But an adult
life full of the worst kind of experiences also must be taken
into account. Redemption must belong to all, must be available
to anyone who can fight for it, and live the life it requires,
or it is meaningless.
And the whole point of Darla appearing and talking to Connor is
a metaphor that Connor's birth, and the love he carries within
him, the love that gave birth to him, Angel's, and Darla's, protected
him, allowed him to keep himself together. Connor is no Wolf Boy.
He is intelligent, articulate, empathetic. And if childhood experiences
are so formative, than Connor would still be damaged even if his
memories were wiped. I remember very little from my early childhood,
and yet, I think they still influence me (frex, parts of my mother
tongue that shapes the world I see, that I cannot readily call
to my mind, yet, somehow reappears in sparks and shards of memory
at odd moments)
I still contest that Home was not saying that Connor was beyond
saving. I think it was saying that Angel was wrong wrong wrong.
(How can lies save anyone? How can that be any meaningful message?
Why is a mindwipe on Tara abuse, and one on Connor and AI a heroic
act?).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Last thing I am saying -- Lunasea, 08:58:01
10/29/03 Wed
The extreme seems normal for those who live those 'extreme'
lives.
I don't mean to belittle anyone who has lived through extreme
circumstances, but the show isn't written for them. It can't be
everything for everyone. "I was tied to a tree when I kid,
what does the show say about me?" There isn't some universal
message of hope that no matter what happens, you will be okay.
Nothing is rainbows and unicorns in the Buffyverse. The message
is that love can save people. Everyone on the show who has been
saved has been saved by love. I think it took guts to explore
what happens when someone rejects love. It is easy to redeem people.
ME has gotten really good at it. It is another to not do so.
If his life and experience is extreme, what must it be like
to have the long hundreds of years life filled with murder and
torture and atrocities? How can a person like that EVER come back?
He got a soul. It is an extreme circumstance and without his soul,
he isn't savable. Even Spike knows this. Magic has enabled the
five worst characters in the Buffyverse to be reachable. Faith
had the switchy spell with Buffy. Willow was dosed by Giles. Angel
was cursed with a soul. Darla was brought back human and then
had the effects of Connor's soul. Connor was given another life.
Each thing showed how someone can be redeemed. They are metaphors
for the human condition, not actual people. Walk a mile in someone
else's shoes, find your heart, find your conscience, connect with
another, get beyond the past. All these things led to redemption.
I find each story beautiful and Connor was no less saved than
Darla was. To you Connor wasn't given a chance. To me, he was
saved and given the only chance he had.
Redemption must belong to all, must be available to anyone
who can fight for it, and live the life it requires, or it is
meaningless.
So the Nazi heirarchy were redeemable? Milosovich, Hussein, Bin
Laden, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mussolini? I am not advocating Capital
Punishment, but sometimes we have to accept that we can't save
everyone. That was a hard lesson for Angel to learn. It was a
hard lesson for Buffy to learn. If Connor won't fight for it,
how can it be available to him in traditional means? Angel gave
it to him using magic instead.
And the whole point of Darla appearing and talking to Connor
is a metaphor that Connor's birth, and the love he carries within
him, the love that gave birth to him, Angel's, and Darla's, protected
him, allowed him to keep himself together.
And he rejected that. He was so buried in his past that he still
thought that his dead mother couldn't love him. Angel cut through
all that and allowed the heart that everyone sees to flourish.
In everyone is the seeds of redemption. Those seeds can grow in
the right circumstances. Angel got a soul. Willow got dosed. Even
his mother couldn't reach him, so Angel made Connor's circumstances
change.
And if childhood experiences are so formative, than Connor
would still be damaged even if his memories were wiped.
He wasn't just wiped. He was given memories and a loving family
as well. Just wiping the memories would have created a blank slate,
not what we saw at the end of "Home." You are assuming
that just his conscious memories were wiped. That is what happened
to the gang, but they still retain what they got from those memories.
Connor didn't. He has no memory of Angel conscious or unconscious.
I didn't remember what happened to me as a child. It affected
me on a very profound unconscious level. Eventually it came back
as flashbacks, but for 10 years it was completely suppressed.
Connor seems a bit more than this.
(How can lies save anyone? How can that be any meaningful message?
Why is a mindwipe on Tara abuse, and one on Connor and AI a heroic
act?)
Dawn is a lie and she saved Buffy. Willow wiped Tara because Tara
was mad at her. On Connor, he did it because of a bit more than
anger.
Now the gang on the other hand. That is something that is wrong
and will have repercussions. Until we know the deal, I won't hold
Angel accountable for this, though.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Last thing I am saying -- CTH, 12:46:41
10/29/03 Wed
Just a lurker but I wanted to say how much I love your post. ME
has dealt so often (and so well) with the concept of redemption
that it needed a character who could not be redeemed, who could
not be pulled back from the edge. Otherwise, the other characters
redemption arcs can become rather trite (a problem in S7 Buffy
because it feels like every character is having a redemption arc).
I also agree that to state ME is saying some people can never
be saved or redeemed is to overstate quite a bit. ME is saying
Connor can't be redeemed (maybe, we will see about that). To take
a specific character and draw some overarching relation to the
outside world is a dangerous way to look at any work of fiction.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Can we have a tragic character with a happy ending?
-- Ponygirl, 08:46:29 10/29/03 Wed
In fiction, but certainly not in real life, there is a terrible
perfection to tragedy. The wrong turns and mistakes gather with
ruthless speed, the could have been's grow in poignancy, and finally
the end is unavoidable. The path that seemed so murky becomes
a straight line leading to one point. I give Angel credit for
recognizing that Connor was in a tragedy and out of that inevitability
he was able to find some measure of hope for him. It was most
likely a mistake on his part, one that may turn out to be Angel's
own fatal mistake if his story turns out that way, but for me
it was not a mistake of the writing but a sad, hard, little gem.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Catharsis -- Rahael, 09:03:26 10/29/03 Wed
In my view, the most perfect of tragedies are cathartic. I know
it has been asserted here before that Connor's storyline was cathartic,
but it relied on different meaning of catharsis than the one I
use.
Clearly, it worked as catharsis for some, and not others. I found
Home immensely perfect, but looking at the new season, I do not
find it cathartic. Perhaps because it was not the end. It goes
on and new satisfactions must be found, and the questions have
not been finished or resolved.
I thought the Gift was very cathartic, even with S6, because S6
brought entire new questions, and new issues. The Body was not,
and I think intentionally so. Befitting an ep that relied on hyper-realism,
and the dreadful truth that death does not solve or resolve anything.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> They can when it is a comedy, (not even sure if
that counts as 5.4 spoiler) -- fresne, 12:34:45 10/29/03
Wed
Which is a story that begins in tragedy and ends in joy.
We want the joy. The catharsis. Since, this is ME, we get more
freaking climbing out of the pit. Although, this season seems
to promise more hanging on the couch moments than last season's
excellent, but vale of unremitting tears. Or as Gunn put it, turgid
soap opera. BTW: not a phrase that should be used while your housemate
is eating. Tragedy and yet the funny ensue.
At this point, since that Angel is a champion brooder (and he
has the trophies to prove it) I'm inclined to see Angel not just
brooding over the choice of Home, but of all the choices that
led to it. The what if's. The what if of his emergence from his
watery tomb. Of his use of the word champion. Once a badge of
honor, now a wound. The pavane of steps simple. Steps double.
Where a "conversion" is preferable to stepping backward,
and yet when you're in a dance line, it's what you do. The what
if of his final souled leave taking from his father's home. As
he sits on his couch, with his, oh let's call it Waterford crystal,
glass of blood and broods over the inevitability of his own damnation.
He's like the Speed Racer of brooding. Go, Angel, go.
Which is why I'm excited by the idea of Spike wandering around
saying, "Marry nuncle, crabs do skitter into the paths of
gulls." And whatnot (with optional capering) while Wesley
ponders the why of the what if as a good council to the king should.
And possibly we can climb out of this rung of Hell, below the
belly of the beast, and onto Purgatory. I want my catharsis, my
new epiphany and I want them now. I blame MTV and possibly sprayable
cheese spread.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Very well argued -- Tchaikovsky, 07:01:52 10/29/03 Wed
I just see it differently. I don't see Connor as merely a thematic
counterpoint to the people who were able to be redeemed by others'
love impacting upon their humanity. I see him as a person, like
Faith, who has the capacity to see joy and happiness, and is at
base human, even more than human, and who has, in Angel's love,
one of the most powerful oves in the world. Not only the love
of a parent, but the love of a parent who never thought he could
do any good, never thought he could create anything other than
the spectral Drusilla, coming back to haunt his present. He is
bowled over by the idea of parenthood- and this is the hook on
which the elegant gown of Season Three's tragedy is hung.
One year's worth of episodes didn't, in my reading, take Connor
to the point where it was death and reformation or death period.
Some part of me has to believe that Connor was redeemable as Connor-
despite Holtz, despite Cordelia and despite Jasmine.
I would have liked if he was redeemable and Angel could have
had his son. Connor is more than a character though. He is symbolic
of Angel's younger self. If Connor is redeemable, than Angel can
find his innocence. That's just not possible. Instead, in Connor's
death is shown where Angel's redemption lies. Angel has to move
completely beyond his past, kill it so to speak. Our past may
inform us, but free will allows us to move beyond this. Season
4 was a play between these two things.
Yes, free will, sacrifice, past choices impact on present situations,
the intersection of the when and the now. It's the fragmenting
in that moment towards the end of Home. Angel can never
move beyond his past, just as we can never escape how our nownesses,
our essences, have been moulded by Time and experience. It's still
all about Darla, Buffy, Cordelia, Connor, his Father and whoever
else one cares to mention. Angel's existential dilemmas are fuelled
by the deep well of confusion he has over his choice in Home-
his killings of Hauser, Hainsley, and the justice or otherwise
given to Royce can be considered symptomatic of the deeper problem.
I believe that Angel needs to treat the disease, not the symptoms,
and this involves a resolution with Connor. It is what that is,
that still intrigues me.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> How do we know what love is? -- Lunasea, 10:18:37
10/29/03 Wed
Thank you.
I see him as a person, like Faith, who has the capacity to
see joy and happiness, and is at base human, even more than human,
and who has, in Angel's love, one of the most powerful oves in
the world.
But how can he see what he doesn't know? It's beyond tragic. He
thinks being with Cordy was the real thing. He doesn't know what
the real thing is. Angel does love him. Darla does love him and
he just can't see it. That what is so beautiful about what Angel
does. He makes it so he can see it, even if it means it isn't
with him.
It's like Connor is dying of thirst, but doesn't know what water
is. There is a huge lake in front of him with a big sign that
says "drink me" but he doesn't. It's hard to fathom
someone not knowing what water or love is, but how would he?
The debate becomes is this something innate in us? The need for
it is, but how do we know what it is? Angel doesn't think that
his father loves him. We can talk about what a bad father Angel
had, but his father did love him. Spike thinks that his mother
does love him and she does. He confuses her approval and coddling
with that love though.
Connor's redemption through normal means would have meant him
recognizing the love that Angel had. It would have been a beautiful
poignant moment that I fantasized about all season. It's my fault
it didn't happen. Serves me right for wanting it. All I wanted
from this season was to hear Connor say "I love you Dad."
I thought it was possible. Until the season unfolded and Connor
rejected love at every turn, real love, not what Cordelius was
feeding him. his redemption would have to involve a way not to
reject this. Perhaps the Senior Partners could have done something
else to make this happen. I don't know what deal was made. Could
Connor have been dosed like Willow?
Angel can never move beyond his past, just as we can never
escape how our nownesses, our essences, have been moulded by Time
and experience.
Depends on how you define move beyond. My mother as a mother sucks.
That doesn't mean that as a mother I have to suck. I can move
beyond the grasping and selfishness her emotional abuse instilled
in me. I don't need the approval of a mother that will never give
it to me. Having these things to get over will inform who I am.
Getting over them will inform me. I can move beyond my issues
and past and towards living and the present.
Angel doesn't need his Daddy's approval, or Buffy's, Darla's,
Cordy's, Connor's or anyone else's. Instead he can give approval,
to Fred, Wesley, Gunn, Lorne and now Spike. Thus the words of
the Prayer of St. Francis are realized:
Lord make me an instrument of your peace
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon...
Where there is doubt, faith...
Where there is despair, hope
Where there is darkness, light
And where there is sadness, joy...
O divine master grant that I may...
Not so much seek to be consoled as to console...
To be understood as to understand...
To be loved as to love...
For it is in giving that we receive
And it's in pardoning that we are pardoned
And it's in dying that we are born...
...to eternal life...
That seems to be a mission statement of both Buffy and Angel and
to me the overall message of both series.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Ooh interesting --
Ponygirl, 09:55:00 10/28/03 Tue
I was reading an Angel review somewhere that suggested that by
not asking for forgiveness it makes the crime become unforgivable.
Connor is the unforgivable sin, the secret Angel cannot share
and therefore can never be absolved from. And I don't think Angel
would want to - the guilt and silence is a form of rememberance,
the only kind Connor can get. No mercy from Angel this season,
and no mercy for him either.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ooh interesting
(Spoilers, Mayor of Casterbridge) -- Rahael, 10:16:06 10/28/03
Tue
Yes, Angel himself made it so that Connor wouldn't recognise who
he was. It's *so* tragic!!
I read somewhere, and I do wish I could credit it (it may have
been me surfing friendsfriends) that Angel was like Michael Henchard
in the Mayor of Casterbridge, one of my most favourite (and beloved)tragic
characters in fiction. The more I think about this, the more i
love this parallel.
Henchard, an alcholic sells his wife and daughter at a fair. He
later rebuilds his life, abjures alcohol completely and becomes
rich and influential, and Mayor. But then his wife and daughter
turn up in town, and slowly a sequence of tragic events occur.
His wife doesn't mean any harm, and his daugther doesn't even
know he's her father. It's a set of terrible coincidences that
allows the secret out - the old woman who sold him his 'rummity',
that he got drunk on before selling his family, she turns up in
his court, and he finds himself in judgement over her. (hmmmmmmmm!)
His secret gets out, and the towns people are outraged. They form
a frightning mob which creats an effigy of him. Henchard, in my
favourite scene in the novel, gazes down despairingly at a bridge,
and he sees his own effigy float past. As he falls, the Mayor
slowly becomes more and more human, more and more innocent, worthy
of pity, love and compassion. And he finds his salvation at his
lowest point.
It's Thomas Hardy's greatest novel, and it's highly recommended.
There's also a young upstart who at the beginning is very sympathetic,
the traditional 'hero' to Henchard's villain, only as the novel
progreses we find out his moral bankruptcy. And the greatness
of Henchard, and how much he has repented and changed.
If they did this with Angel, I think I would like die, in a paroxym
of delight. But I'm rather odd ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not that I
was even thinking of any parallel re young upstart! -- Rahael,
10:27:58 10/28/03 Tue
But then I re-read an thought I should you know, add a disclaimer.
If I were to see any parallel, it really could be any sympathetic
member of AI.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Angel and Connor --
Masq, 10:26:42 10/28/03 Tue
Hmmm, maybe people (like ME?) are coming around to the point of
view I've been pushing all summer. Angel should have been there
for Connor from "A New World" on up through all of season
4.
Sure, Connor was seriously messed up and patricidal, but Angel
got all caught up reacting to Connor's actions (sinking
him below the ocean, being a rival for Cordelia), and lecturing
him about "Champions", rather than doing everything
he could to help his own son recover from the trauma of those
years in Quortoth.
I mean, he let the boy live Homeless in Los Angeles when he should
have been giving him attention and love, no matter how difficult
Connor made it for him. That would have been the real "proof"
of Angel's love, not sending him away to another life in "Home"
after it was too late.
Yeah, I know the Beast and all that was a bit of a distraction,
but I don't think it would ever have gotten as bad for Connor
as it had in Home if Angel had done whatever he could to keep
Connor at his side (and away from the manipulations of Cordelia
and Jasmine).
Because if he had, maybe he'd have his son in his life, and he'd
learn something in the process of caring for and loving a human
being that you don't learn from mere friendships and romantic
relationships.
And I think Angel's realizing that too, now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree -- Rahael,
10:46:22 10/28/03 Tue
with everything you say about A&C's relationship. And yet,
I loved the depiction of it, and loved S4, and loved Home. In
spite of, because of, what Angel did. I think it's because the
narrative supported Connor's claims. There was some truly chilling
moments, like when Angel talking to the lost children underground,
has his hands covered with blood (Connor's blood). He'd just beaten
Connor mercilessly!
And if Connor was willing to believe Jasmine's lies, it was because
it was more attractive than the ugly lies that Holtz told him.
And Angel lied to him from the beginning, when he should have
offered him truth, and love.
But he kept getting it wrong, no matter how hard and how ernestly
he kept trying, to fix it. Therin lay Connor and Angel's tragedy,
and why S4 became my favourite season. (which I know you disagree
with).
And why I loved is, that a world where everything goes wrong just
speaks to me, with truths that happy endings just don't have.
A world where loss and sadness and regrets and bad actions exist
is a world where joy and beauty is too. Connor's 'happy ending'
in 'Home' only highlights how unsatisfactory the happy lie is,
how it curdles everything, how it lies uneasily, and then everything
reminds you: this isn't the way things are meant to be.
Gunn asks for knowledge (he's scary, but he doesn't lie, he says
of the White Room). Truth, in all its shades of light and dark
- it can be terrible. Gunn's comment about the guy in the White
Room is a deeply ironic counterpart to Angel, sitting right there.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes. --
Arethusa, 11:15:53 10/28/03 Tue
The tragic flaws of both Angel and Connor brought them to that
terrible moment in Home. Both wanted desperately to be accepted
and loved, yet kept pushing each other away. In fact, do you think
that Connor's issues were much the same as Angel's, and he was
not able to help Connor because he's unable at this point to sove
his own? And that by coming to terms with his monster he will
be able to understand why he failed Connor?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great
point Arethusa (Vague spoilers, S4, AtS) -- Rahael, 16:01:53
10/28/03 Tue
I think this is particularly underlined in "Spin the Bottle".
'Liam' comes face to face with Connor. There is a curious mixture
of antagonistic bonding. They both have severe father issues for
instance. Connor, could even be seen as the very human part of
Angel. With his own issues about the monster within, with his
deep longing for love and acceptance from his father (is it Holtz?
Angel? Angelus? All of them have their monstrous face).
God, when I get the S4 DVD, I shall rewatch with your thougth
in mind, of Angel's own deep lingering doubt as to his own salvation,
as he tries to go out and save a world cast in darkness ( a metaphor,
really for Angelus, whose appearance clouded the face of the Sun,
and of the inhabitant of the Hyperion). Suns and sons and the
'special' people and the sinners. Sacrifice.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes,
exactly. -- Arethusa, 16:57:12 10/28/03 Tue
I reread that section of STB after I wrote that post and they
say exactly the same thing about their fathers. Angel was forced
to go through the same thing his father went through-to raise
a son and know he failed to give him what he needed to be a healthy
person (for whatever reason). A child doesn't understand how or
why these things happen, but now perhaps Angel is beginning to
understand his relationship with his own father through examining
his failure with Connor. Which is enough to make anyone brood.
Lovely post, Rah.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thank you :) -- Rahael, 07:25:54 10/29/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Tragedy is
more interesting than happiness in fiction -- Masq, 12:13:04
10/28/03 Tue
But something about the tragedy of Connor and Angel just got under
my skin.
I loved, for example, the doomed love of Buffy and Angel in season
2 of BtVS. She loves him, he turns evil, she's forced to send
him to hell. When he returns, he decides he's not good for her
and leaves her.
Good stuff, man. The stuff that fine literature is built on. The
same can be said of Wesley's betrayal of Angel in season 3 of
AtS. Wesley only wants to save Connor, and ends up making the
child's life worse. And some of it can traced back to Wesley's
own failings, his estrangement from his friends, his inability
to take his fears to Angel. Classic classic stuff of the Greek
tragedies. Eat that up with a spoon.
But this particular tragedy, what happens to Connor after his
return with his father, something about that hits too close to
home for me. I've never been able to figure out what it is. I
have a healthy strong relationship with my parents. Maybe it's
my lack of children of my own and my anger at Angel (who I have
always identified with) for not doing right by child he would
otherwise never had had.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Tragedy
is more interesting than happiness in fiction -- Eloise519,
14:14:00 10/28/03 Tue
I agree, Masq. These parent/child tragedies get to us -- "The
Body," "Lies My Parents Told Me," "Hamlet,"
"Oedipus," the 11 o'clock news, etc. The p/c relationship
starts before birth and lasts after death -- more primal and permanent
than the other relationships. When Angel allowed Holtz to take
Connor, I knew, as a parent, Connor would blame Angel for his
Solomonic choice. Even after children become teens and adults,
they expect their parents' actions to be (and to have always been)
perfect, heroic, and prescient. Children often blame their parents
for their own choices: "why did you let me... why didn't
you make me... why didn't you stop me...?" Think of the questioning
adopted child: "why didn't you keep me, why did you give
me away?" For a lot of us, it takes years to see our parents
a human beings and to understand their choices. Connor was too
young and hurt to see that in "Home." I wouldn't expect
a thank you from Connor unless he takes another metaphysical detour
and returns as a compassionate old Grandpa.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I can
understand that about storylines -- Rahael, 16:18:23 10/28/03
Tue
I'd certainly never argue that people should be happy with things
they aren't happy with, or that their readings are just 'wrong'.
Or, unhappy with things they are happy with.
Mostly, I concentrate on having opinions, both positive and negative,
about shows, eps, storylines and characters that everyone else
violently disagrees with!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
I can understand that about storylines -- Masq, 16:31:16
10/28/03 Tue
I think this is a case where I agree with you about the poignancy
of the Angel-Connor story, and can appreciate (along with you)
that ME weaved an interesting tale.
What I am calling "appreciating" and "seeing the
poignancy of" is a different thing from my own visceral reaction.
No matter how I spit and railed at ME at the end of "Home",
it was Angel I was really angry at, not ME (well, not much with
ME... since they gave Buffy and Dawn a happy ending, why not Angel
and Connor?)
So I can see your artistic point, even while it hit the wrong
emotional chord with me. I'm sure everyone has some story line
that hits the wrong emotional chord with them, even though it
is still a "good" story line in a literary sense.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Oh and another thought, Rah -- Masq, 16:50:43 10/28/03
Tue
It occurs to me that the fact that I am angry at Angel because
of how season 4 ended up means that ME did its job well. That
was one of the effects they hoped to cause in their audience (being
the sadist that they are).
I remember being very angry at other viewers who loved how the
Connor story line ended up because they thought that was the best
way to "wrap it all up". It was over and done with,
and "wasn't that nice". I thought, "There is no
way that can just 'wrap it up all nice' for Angel. He's a father
who lost his beloved son." And I was right about that, I
think. Watch Angel brood!
Nor would that "wrap it up nice" for Connor if he ever
found out what happened. When an adopted child finds out the circumstances
of their adoption, that's the beginning of the journey. Although
that part of the story has probably been left by ME to the fans
as a fan-fic exercise.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Well my own appreciation is conditional -- Rahael,
17:20:38 10/28/03 Tue
On a lot of brooding, and perhaps even maybe a guest starring
role from Connor. After all, I waited a long time for the resolution
to "Fool For Love". That turned out well!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Agree! -- Masq, 17:33:39 10/28/03 Tue
My appreciation is conditional on a resolution to the memory wipe
plot device. It must be addressed and the characters need to remember
*my boy*. Er... Angel's boy. You know what I mean.
An appearance by Connor would be ideal and icing on the cake,
but I won't get my hopes up to have them dashed against the wicked
rocks of ME, actors, and agents.
There was a resolution to "Fool For Love"? What was
it?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> I'm guessing she's referring ironically to
'Lies My Parents Told Me' -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:24:03 10/28/03
Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> In which case 'That turned out well'
was ironic -- Masq, 19:04:22 10/28/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Yes. Maybe I shouldn't get my
hopes up this time around -- Rahael, 07:30:03 10/29/03
Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel's
choice -- Ann, 12:19:22 10/29/03 Wed
There was no easy choice that Angel could have made and there
will never be a good resolution to it. If Connor never reappears
then Angel will miss him forever. If he reappears, Angel will
have to deal this the consequences of that choice. I don't see
this as an adoption scenario because Connor was not a young child
and I think Angel had the means to deal with Connor.
I too was angry about the choice Angel made because he ended his
child's life. I guess this is very personal for me as I lost my
son after he was born with many issues and we had to institute
a DNR order allowing him to die. This sadly was the kinder choice
as we had no alternative and he was going to die no matter what
we did. We had no choice.
Angel had a choice but in effect allowed Connor to die even though
he gave him another "life". But Connor as Connor doesn't
exist anymore. Parents are ultimately responsible for their child's
life and need to take that responsibility. Angel made this choice
but I am not sure he was taking responsibility. I have a hard
time with his decision. His son was still!!! alive !!! with potential
so I still think he should have helped Connor work his way out
of his hell instead of taking away that choice of at least trying.
It would have been the harder choice but I think in the end the
more fulfilling and fair choice to Connor and to Angel. It would
have alleviated some of Angel's guilt. He allowed his son to die
when he still had options. When you have children you may be faced
with the ultimate question of life and death and this is the agreement
from the start. You deal.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Word.
-- Masq, 14:01:50 10/29/03 Wed
Sorry to hear about your son, but glad to hear there are parents
who disagree with Angel's choice.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel and Connor
-- sdev, 18:18:29 10/28/03 Tue
Angel feels guilty more about what he wants than what he's
done... Angel doesn't have to believe what he did was wrong. He
just has to want something he thinks is wrong. Wanting his son
is such a thing. He has no way to deal with these feelings.
I don't think people feel guilty for wanting something they are
denying them selves, in this case a role in Connor's life, knowing
they have no intention of acting on it. That may arouse longing,
a sense of futility and depression but not guilt unless Angel
has plans to undo what he did and reclaim Connor. I have seen
no evidence that Angel plans to take such any such action. He
seems pretty resigned to leaving the situation as is.
Having said that I do see evidence of guilt feelings from another
source. Parents even when they have limited choices often do second
guess themselves and feel guilty for outcomes. This was a pretty
terrible outcome. In Angel's case there were many choices all
along the way that might have affected how Connor ended. I agree
with Masq's comments above about how Angel's actions should have
differed. How could he not feel guilty for those choices?
He knows what he should and shouldn't do. That is told to him
by his soul.
A soul is not a parental answer book. The other choices he made,
even Buffy, don't come close to this in the guilt quotient. The
anger and hurt of the child is echoed in the guilt of the parent.
[> Dead envoys -- KdS, 23:49:59 10/27/03 Mon
Just had a quick nasty thought about Just Rewards - there
is a rather subtle equation of Angel and Hainsley. Angel kills
the Groxlar but it's not a complete disaster because the Groxlar
respect aggressive negotiators. Hainsley kills Novak, which certainly
leads Angel to pay more attention to him. Admittedly Hainsley
killed Novak quite deliberately while Angel assumed the Groxlar
was there to attack him, but it's an interesting parallel.
[> [> I agree (Spoilers, Eps 1-3, AtS S5) -- Rahael,
06:15:25 10/28/03 Tue
I think there's a definite trend in the last three eps where the
villains have all illustrated some aspect of Angel.
Hainsely is a necromancer, associated with the dead, with power
over the dead. Angel, CEO of Wolfram and Hart, has now ascended
into worldly power, power over some pretty evil minions. His realm
is of the dead and the dark. And, Hainsely is his client, too.
Corbin Fries - His son. The connection was explicit. And there's
an association with Hauser too. Ruthlessness. Lack of mercy.
And the macabre banqueters of course have resonances for the whole
vamp thing (With a capital V!). And Nina sees her young niece
as food, rather than a human being.
I remember the Groxlar demon from 'TOGOM', which was a Gunn centric
ep. I wonder if that has any significance, that they went back
and used a demon that's actually appeared before, and known to
us for baby-eating.
[> [> [> More of a contrast than an illustration (Spoilers,
Eps 1-3, AtS S5) -- Lunasea, 08:18:39 10/28/03 Tue
Hainsley is a necromancer, and has control of the dead and not
his finances. Angel is in the reverse position. He has control
over money, but he can't control his clients.
Fries plants a bomb in his son and doesn't care about anything
but me. Angel saves his son and cares about everything more than
himself.
Hauser's dependency on tradition and conviction is contrasted
with Angel who is trying to figure out the new way of doing things
and how to work with areas of gray.
The Oz wolf was a parallel to Angel. Same with the Nina wolf (Oz
was a regular wolf when Angel had lost his soul, and Nina is a
special breed now that Angel is a special vampire). The banqueters
are going to eat the wolf. Angel is being eaten inside by having
to deal with Wolfram and Hart. He isn't the eater, but the eaten.
He is able to save Nina from them. The contrast is that he can't
save himself yet.
The baby-eating Groxlar demons are a great contrast to baby saving
Angel ("Darla"). He is negotiating to get them to stop
eating babies. He didn't negotiate with himself. He tried to.
He just couldn't. No negotiations and rationalizations worked.
This is something that exists in Angel on a visceral level.
[> [> [> [> Insightful points on Hauser, Hainsley
and Nina -- Rahael, 08:44:24 10/28/03 Tue
[> What is an NTSC-compatible TV? -- Marie, 09:05:12
10/29/03 Wed
And what advantages (apart from the obvious Angel-getting ones!)
does it have?
M
[> [> NTSC Playback -- Rahael, 09:10:24 10/29/03
Wed
I didn't even notice until I checked, but my cheap little tv/video
player, on top of the video part said, among other things "NTSC
Playback".
Which meant to say that it could play American videos.
I got lucky that I bought the right tv without even knowing it!
*smug, Angel-getting Rahael*
[> [> [> In case Marie isn't aware -- KdS, 12:11:27
10/29/03 Wed
There are two major technical formats for colour TV transmissions
- NTSC (used in North America) and PAL (used in most of Europe,
including Britain). This means that most TVs and video recorders
over here in Europe won't play videos taped off US TV.
My analysis of 'Hellbound' is up -- Masquerade,
21:52:22 10/26/03 Sun
Spring forward, fall back. Thank God for the extra hour. Here.
Replies:
[> Re: My analysis of 'Hellbound' is up -- Seven, 10:02:46
10/27/03 Mon
"Spike in his ghost-like form felt useless, as if he had
no will, no ability to affect the world. What Pavayne teaches
him is it's not his corporeality that affects it, but his mind,
his spirit. ...The very end shows the corporeal Pavayne trapped,
his "will" removed. While Spike is still incorporeal
but with his will is able to pick up a cup (shadowkat, 25 Oct
2003 14:57)."
This really put the entire episode in perspective for me. I really
hated the idea of incorporial Spike in the first 3 eps but this
idea along with the rest of the episode has made me re-think that.
Can't wait to see what's next.
7
[> Great analysis, Masq. Enjoyed it. -- s'kat, 22:41:40
10/27/03 Mon
Also thank you muchly for the quote. ;-)
[> [> Quotage appreciated from me, too. :o) -- Rob,
23:36:43 10/27/03 Mon
Spike and the Spark, (Spoilers for Beneath You
and Hellbound -- LeeAnn, 07:47:08 10/27/03 Mon
The Spike and the Spark
I was watching Beneath You this morning, the great church
scene, and several things that Spike said reminded me of Hellbound.
In Beneath You he described himself, as "flesh,
solid through" and his soul, which he got for Buffy,
as the spark. Now on AtS all he is is "Spark", the soul,
that is all that is left of him. The flesh is gone, burned away,
because of the spark, the fire he got for Buffy. When he has the
choice of saving Fred or becoming corporeal Pavayne says to Spike
"Decisions. The girl... heh... or the flesh. There's no
time for both." Pavayne doesn't know that Spike has made
that decision before and each time he chose the girl and in Hellbound
he chooses a girl again (if not "the girl").
As a vampire Spike was only flesh, "flesh, solid through,"
and then Souled Spike was flesh with the spark, now Spike is only
the spark, only the soul. He's chosen against the flesh at least
3 times. Once when he went for his soul. Again in Chosen
when he allowed himself to be burned alive to save the world.
Again in Hellbound. He's chosen, he's the chosen, because
he has chosen good each time. The first time he shouldn't have
even been able to make that choice. But he did. He describes how
"I wanted to give you what you deserve, and I got it.
They put the spark in me and now all it does is burn." In
the end the spark burned his flesh completely away.
In Hellbound Spike speaks of "Feeling the tug of
eternal damnation...Using all my mentalies just to keep from slipping
into hell." In Beneath You he was feeling it as
well, "now everybody's in here, talking. Everything I
did...everyone I- and him... and it... the other, the thing beneath-beneath
you. It's here too. Everybody. They all just tell me go... go...
to hell." When Angel tells him, "You're starting
to feel it, aren't you? How close you are now... to hell?"
it's not like it's a new feeling for Spike. He's had that
feeling since he got the soul. He had beaten it back, but it was
still there. So he accepts it. Believing the voices, believing
Angel, believing Pavayne (both of whom seem to be singing from
the same book), believing that he deserves it, believing he will
go to hell. But not today. And Spike confirms that "I'm
not gonna end up like Pavayne-cheating hell any way he could,
no matter who it hurt." Angel had goodness thrust upon
him but for Spike goodness was a choice. Angel does good because
"What else are we gonna do?" but Spike does good because
he wants to be a certain kind of man.
DmP and class again -- MsGiles, 09:37:41
10/27/03 Mon
Part 2!
Well, having started, I carried on. More stream-of-consciousness
on DmP and class
First of all, I was looking back at the intro. This goes back
over various themes (sex addiction, magic addiction) and comes
onto Buffy's broke-ness, which was introduced as a major issue
in S6 with 'Flooded' and her first attempts to find 'proper work'
in 'Life Serial'. This establishes DmP as a return to this theme:
finance and its importance. At this stage in the series, the nerds
seem to be illustrating this theme as well: as Anya points out
at the start of this episode, they are attempting to short-cut
their way to wealth.
ANYA: But supervillains ... want reward without labor, to make
things come easy.
So to what extent is this to do with class? I would suggest that
this *is* to do with class. It is to do with the way status attaches
to money. Buffy's status, as compared to her responsibilities
and ability, has always been an issue in BtVS. As a schoolgirl
she had to Slay in secret, and was criticised at home and at school
because of the resultant deficiencies in her study, which were
always put down to lack of application. At College she was forced
to drop out, despite clear ability. And College is a route to
higher earnings, and hence greater social status.
The American dream is not of a classless society, but of one in
which class can be transcended, by hard work and ability. The
low status of the poor is seen as an essential component of the
mix: the incentive to 'better oneself' is the fuel that drives
the social engine. Success is the carrot, the potential for failure
is the stick. In order for this view of society to be accepted
as fair, it must be assumed that those who fail do so because
of lack of commitment or ability. Buffy is therefore condemned,
even though her commitment and ability are unimpeachable, and
even though she saves the world on an annual basis.
MANNY: Why do you want to work here, Buffy? You seem like a sharp
young woman, and there are a lot of other jobs.
BUFFY: Well, I-I kinda need money pretty quickly, like, today,
and, and so I didn't want to go through a lengthy interview process,
and I figured this was probably the fastest... way... to...
She pauses as she catches sight of Manny's stern face.
BUFFY: Be...cause I ... wanted to be part of the DoubleMeat experience?
This exchange establishes the hypocrisy inherent in the Doublemeat
experience. Everyone knows that no-one would work there if they
had a choice, but the brand demands that this is concealed behind
a mask of cheerful commitment, not just to the public using the
service, but between the workers themselves. This is not due to
a belief that if everyone pretends to be happy they will be happy,
but part of a profound cynicism. As long as they look happy, and
use the language of happy people, it actually doesn't matter
if they are happy or not.
MANNY: They're lifers.
Manny is clearly not happy. He uses the language of prison without
irony, however. Like Gina, Philip and Timothy, and the other long
term employees, he has had any flicker of humour ground out of
him by the relentless pretense at cheeriness, combined with the
grinding monotony of the job. As Gary says: 'Levity is the time-thief
that picks the pocket of the company.'
Gary is one of the few sympathetic characters working at the DmP.
He is young, and awake enough to be amused by Buffy's attempts
at levity. He is rapidly eaten, of course, really and/or metaphorically.
It is significant that it is immediately after he shows his human
side to Buffy that he gets chomped. Wigwoman may not be one of
the DmP's official employees, but as the representative of numbing
dispair, loss of ability to act, and eventual disappearance, she
goes with the fast food chain like ketchup with fries.
The other employees, apparently braindead to the point of coma,
remain untouched, long enough to clock up their badged years of
service. Manny succumbs later in the episode, after lasting 10
years, his lack of interest in the disappeared employees broached
by the discovery of the finger.
BUFFY: The DoubleMeat Medley is people!
In a sense it is. But not in the direct sense that Buffy has identified.
The employees are not being killed and minced, in a Sweeney Todd
scenario. Nor is their disappearance directly the chain's responsibility.
The only fault of Manny and co, is that they have allowed themselves
to become so disempowered, as to have ceased to care about the
fact that co-workers vanish and leave all their possessions, on
a regular basis. The fault of the organisation, is that it promotes
this attitude by discouraging individuality and the use of initiative.
The employees are treated as automatons, and they have come to
resemble them.
Is this a class issue?
Surely no-one should have to expect this sort of treatment. It
can't be what was in the mind of the founding fathers, when the
States were established as a new kind of society, a 'land of the
free'. Just because people are on the breadline doesn't mean they're
lazy, feckless, stupid or scum. To brand them thus is no more
enlightened than it is for William's contemporaries to condemn
the working classes of their time:
This is by no means a callous age, indifferent to the hardships
and sufferings of the poor: philanthropy flourishes exceedingly,
and to the rather wicked and to the very poor we are entirely
kind. But philanthropy rather spoils manners to the individual:
it is apt to make people think that, in their relations with others,
they must constantly be on the watch to do good or improve. This
is not, by any means, the spirit to introduce into domestic relations.
We need, rather, that behaviour which is the basis of all true
ties between human beings, and which lies at the bottom of all
courtesy. I mean, a certain respect and belief, which every human
being has the right to claim of another, whatever his station
may be, till he has definitely proved that he is unworthy of it.
Especially is this tone necessary in domestic service, where the
business relation and the human relation are so inextricably mixed
up with each other, and both so close and personal, and where
it seems to me important to make the employed feel that her subordination
in work to her mistress does not extend to her character and her
life. If the wealthier classes feel they owe more to their less
fortunate brethren, let them cultivate a certain tolerance and
forbearance, and faith in human nature. Faith is thought to be
an excellent thing till it comes to be applied to human character.
It is then that it is thought to be dangerous. But whatever the
danger be-and, as a rule, it is most blindly and gratuitously
exaggerated-it seems to me that it is better to be taken advantage
of a thousand times than to suspect once unjustly. Ellen W.
Darwin on "Domestic Service", The Nineteenth Century
39 (August 1890), pp. 286-296 (from http://www.victorianlondon.org/professions/relationship.htm)
MANNY: What are you doing? I thought you were part of the team!
It's a measure of Buffy's lack of power in the DmP environment
that the only people she manages to fight are her co-victims,
the people she works with.
SPIKE: You don't belong here. You're something ... you're better
than this.
An odd statement for Spike, proponent of predatory relations with
the consumer society and vague anarchist. In this episode he has
a grey sweater, and is less of the outsider. In fact, he comes
over as part of a melieu that Buffy is in danger of dropping out
of, in spite of his usual rejection of society's norms. Both Anya
and Dawn also identify the fast food employment as a move down
for Buffy:
ANYA: We're here to support your subsistence-level employment.
Bravo.
and Todd in AYW rubs it in by emphasising how he is on the up,
although currently working at the Palace:
TODD: I'm working on my MBA. Think I wanna spend the rest of my
life cleaning grease traps? (shakes head) Ooh, don't forget to
lock up before you go, and the gum under the tables? Be sure to
give it a good scrape before you leave.
That's enough rambling!
I look forward to reading your essay, Rob
Replies:
[> Excellent stuff! Thanks again, MsGiles... -- Rob,
23:38:46 10/27/03 Mon
I especially love the stuff you wrote about the Doublemeat Medley
indeed being made out of people, but not in the literal way. I
am definitely going to be using some of your ideas in the essay
(and of course giving you credit). Thanks a million!
Rob
skeeve -- evil is measurable (spoiler for
Hellbound), 12:54:49 10/28/03 Tue
Fred's device was powered by nuclear-scale evil.
This raises one issue and settles another.
It raises the issue of whether Spike recorporealized by nuclear-scale
evil would be a good thing.
I've mentioned this before.
It settled the issue of whether there was an objective definition
of evil.
Since the device was just that, a device, its definition of evil
was objective.
Since the device worked, the definition must have been correct.
Replies:
[> My, what a turvy-topsy thread! ;o) -- Rob, 21:46:41
10/28/03 Tue
Current board
| More October 2003