April 2002 posts
Poetic Justice? What happened to
Anya in 'Hell's Bells' -- Liam, 10:52:36 04/19/02 Fri
What do people think of the thought that Anya, in terms of her wedding being wrecked by one of the
many men she took vengeance on, got what she deserved? After all, she never showed any remorse
for what she did as a vengeance demon; indeed, she was _too_ nostalgic.
[>
Yes, and I also think Buffy beating the shit out of Spike in Dead Things was poetic justice.
-- fireflyone, 12:07:30 04/19/02 Fri
He is just a violent murdering thing, that deserves as much from Buffy. Hell I would love if she beat
him up a hell of alot worse. That animal deserves to be put down.
[>
Re: Poetic Justice? What happened to Anya in 'Hell's Bells' -- Arethusa, 12:31:33
04/19/02 Fri
Like Angel, we have three aspects of Anya: the original human, the demon, and the souled post-
demon.
The original girl lived around 1,100 years ago, about 900 C.E. The Roman empire was collapsing,
Gaul was being sectioned into petty kingdoms, the Vikings were raiding, and the Church was busy
destroying what little scientific knowledge existed. (Exempting Irish monks, of course.) I wouldn't
expect someone living around that time to have developed 21st century notions of civil behavior.
Anya lived in very troubled times, especially for dating a Norseman.
ANYA: Well, he wasn't a troll then! You know, he was just a big dumb guy, and ... well, you know, he
cheated on me and I made him into a troll, which by the way is... (embarrassed) how I got the ... job
as a vengeance demon.
So now she's Anyanka, Vengance demon and scourge of faithless men.
Anya: So she wished her husband's head would explode, which was great except we were standing
three feet from him at the time. What a mess. Of course, you know, during the plague it was always
parts falling off. Well, that got old since pretty much they were anyway. The Renaissance, that was
... (The Prom)
Since it is generally accepted that Angel is not to blame for Angelus's sins, I would not blame
Anyanka the Vengance Demon for doing evil things.
But what of Anya, the post-demon human?
Anya: (dramatically) For a thousand years I wielded the powers of The
Wish. I brought ruin to the heads of unfaithful men. I brought forth
destruction and chaos for the pleasure of the lower beings. I was feared
and worshipped across the mortal globe. (disgustedly) And now I'm stuck
at Sunnydale High. (despondently) Mortal. Child. And I'm flunking math.
Anya: (desperately) Do you have any idea how boring twelfth graders
are? (stands up) I'm getting my power center back. (defiantly) And if
you won't help me, then, by the pestilent gods, I will find someone who
will! (The Wish)
Anya obviously resents being human and and wants to return to vengance. She has little, if any,
regret for what she did. She barely even remembers being human. But gradually, over time, she
begins to realize that she is now mortal again, and not only do other people suffer and die, but so will
she.
ANYA: So... what happens next?
SuaveXANDER: Well, at some point we take off our clothes.
ANYA: I mean what happens next in our lives? When do we get a car?
SuaveXANDER: (confused) A car?
ANYA: And a boat. No, wait, I - I don't mean a boat. I mean a puppy. Or a child. I have a list
somewhere.
SuaveXANDER: What are you talking about?
ANYA: Just ... we have to get going. I don't have time just to let these things happen.
SuaveXANDER: There's no hurry.
ANYA: Yes there is. There's a hurry, Xander. I'm dying.
ANYA: I may have as few as fifty years left.
SuaveXANDER: Fifty years? What is thi- Oh, wait a minute. This is about this. (Touching her arm
sling)
ANYA: What about the sling?
SuaveXANDER: You haven't been hurt like this since you became human. (She nods reluctantly)
Maybe it's finally hitting you what being human means.
ANYA: (pouting) No, that's not it.
SuaveXANDER: Yes, I think it is. You were gonna live for thousands of years. (Anya nods) And now
you're gonna age and die. That must be terrifying.
ANYA: You don't understand what it's like.
SuaveXANDER: Being suddenly human? I think I can get what that would be like. And we can get
through it together.
ANYA: You can't make it any different. I'm going to get old. And ... you can't promise you'll be with
me when I'm ... wrinkly and my teeth are artificial and stuck into my wrinkly mouth with an
adhesive.
SuaveXANDER: No, I can't promise that. But it doesn't sound terrible. And that's saying something.
(Anya looks somewhat comforted) (The Replacement)
ANYA: (crying) I don't understand how this all happens. How we go through this. I mean, I knew
her, and then she's, (sniffling) there's just a body, and I don't understand why she just can't get back
in it and not be dead anymore. It's stupid. It's mortal and stupid. (still teary) And, and Xander's
crying and not talking, and, and I was having fruit punch, and I thought, well, Joyce will never have
any more fruit punch ever, and she'll never have eggs, or yawn or brush her hair, not ever, and no
one will explain to me why.
Life is becoming precious, because now it will end. Love and pain and betrayal are no longer
abstract ideas, to be used as weapons.
ANYA VOICEOVER: '...and I had seen what love could do to people, and it was ... hurt and sadness.
Alone was better. And then, suddenly there was you, and ... you knew me. You saw me, and it was
this ... thing. You make me feel safe and warm.'
ANYA: 'So, I get it now. I finally get love, Xander. I really do.' (Hell's Bells)
So, does Anya deserve to have her wedding and happiness destroyed? Now that she no longer thinks
as a child and has left behind childish things, should she be punished for being uncivilized, or a
demon, or childish in her lack of understanding of human nature? Anya lives very much in the now
(like Buffy). She doesn't worry about the past, which cannot be changed, and she is still learning to
worry about the future. I can forgive Anya, even if her victims, who understandably have a different
point of view, cannot.
Quotes by Psyche
[> [>
Nicely done. Two questions. -- Sophist, 12:57:43 04/19/02 Fri
At what point can we decide that someone like Anya (or Angel or Spike) has turned the corner and
committed to moral behavior?
Does full acceptance of a formerly evil person/demon require demonstrated repentance and/or
attempts to atone for previous wrongs done?
[> [> [>
Re: Nicely done. Two questions. -- Scroll, 13:13:48 04/19/02 Fri
I'm not sure what it would take for Anya or Spike to become 'moral' except maybe an episode or a
scene (or hell, even a line) where they show that they actually understand that their past evil actions
have evil consequences. Maybe that moment when Anya realised the demon at her wedding was
actually one of her victims was that moment... But we didn't get to see the pay-off. I want to see
Anya come to grips with her past, and I don't think we have yet.
As much as I admire Spike for sticking with Dawn all summer and protecting the gang, I don't
consider any of that to be 'moral' in the strictest sense. He was doing good stuff and I think the
Scoobies should remember that more often, but Spike still hasn't shown any moral behaviour. (And
probably won't unless he gets a soul, which isn't likely to happen and shouldn't.)
I doubt Anya and Spike could ever make recompense for all the evils they've done (just like Angel).
Therefore I'd settle just for them finally regretting their past and at least discontinuing any type of
behaviour that could be an attempt to regain that past (i.e. Spike can't be hiding any more demon
eggs in his crypt).
[> [> [>
Re: Anya's past -- Amber, 13:15:38 04/19/02 Fri
In my view Anya was a weapon. Scorned women would call upon her to exact the revenge they
wanted. Unlike Angelus who picked his own victims and intentionally tortured them for his own
pleasure, Anya simple did what she was told by others. Not very morally upstanding, true, but I
think she saw the whole vengence thing as her job, where as Angelus saw it as a hobby.
Is it Anya who should be remorseful, or the women that asked for the vengence in the first place?
They're just as responsible for what happened to their former lovers as they would be if they had
shot them with a gun. At least that's one way Anya (and the other Scoobies) could be justifying her
attitude to her past.
[> [> [> [>
Unlike an inanimate weapon, -- Sophist, 13:47:05 04/19/02 Fri
Anya was consciously aware of what she was doing when inflicting pain. There seems to be much
greater moral accountability for that. Isn't her case more like that of the Mafia hit man who attacks
whatever target his capo selects?
Completely agree that the women who called upon her powers also bear responsibility.
[> [> [> [> [>
Calling on her powers? -- matching mole, 14:11:45 04/19/02 Fri
I agree about the women making the wishes bearing responsibility only if they know that their
wishes are going to be fulfilled. Lots of people wish for things that they would be horrified to see
actually happen. The two instances we've seen of vengeance demons granting wishes were both done
without the wisher (Cordelia or Dawn) knowing that their wish would actually be carried out. I can
hardly think they can be held morally accountable for actions taken on their behalf without their
explicit consent.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Of course you're right. -- Sophist, 16:17:37 04/19/02 Fri
[> [> [> [>
the wishers -- skeeve, 14:07:39 04/19/02 Fri
It should be noted that not all women realized that their wishes would be granted. Cordy certainly
didn't.
[> [> [> [>
Guilt of the vengence demon (spoilers for episodes in season 3, 4, & 6) -- Robert,
15:14:13 04/19/02 Fri
>> "... Anya simple did what she was told by others."
Sort of like a hired killer ...
>> "Is it Anya who should be remorseful, or the women that asked for the vengence in the first
place?"
Anya should bear at least as much remorse as any hired killer should have. The women who were
the clients of the vengeance demons do not necessarily share the guilt -- only if they knew and
approved the consequences of their actions.
>> "They're just as responsible for what happened to their former lovers as they would be if they had
shot them with a gun."
NO, THEY ARE NOT!
Take Cordelia for example. Cordelia had no idea that Anyanka was a vengeance demon when she
wished that Buffy had never come to Sunnydale. Cordelia had no reasonable way of knowing the
consequences of her wistful wish. This is HUGELY different from a woman hiring a killer to
slaughter an unfaithful husband or lover. In "The Wish", Cordelia was quickly remorseful when the
consequences of her wish became apparent, and she took deliberate and constructive action
(resulting in her death) to rectify the situation.
Let's take a look at the only other example provided to us, "Older and Far Away". Dawn's wish
resulted in suffering for the gang and the near death of an innocent man. Would that make Dawn
guilty of attempted murder? Dawn could not reasonably know that the "guidance counselor" was
Halfrek. Halfrek pushed Dawn quite hard to extract the wish. All Dawn wished for was for her
friends and family to stop leaving her. She had no reasonable way to know the consequences of this
wish, and she held no malace towards her friend and family in having such a wish.
We have one more view of the vengeance demons in "Something Blue". D'Hoffryn offers Willow the
job of vengence demon, based upon the chaos she caused with her "I will it so" spell. In this case,
Willow was fully responsible for the havok she caused, not due to any malace on her part, but
because she recklessly used a spell when she should have known better.
The vengeance demons may call themselves "justice" demons, but it doesn't make it so. They realize
the idle wishes of people in pain without the least attempt to determine if these are the honest
wishes of their clients. The vengeance demons are serving their own needs for vengeance, over and
over again. They are agents of chaos, not justice, and they are victimizing their clients as much as
the objects of the vengeance.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Guilt of the vengence demon (spoilers for episodes in season 3, 4, & 6) -- Liam,
05:16:20 04/20/02 Sat
It's nice to see the interest my question has provoked! I agree completely with what you said, Robert,
regarding the guilt of vengeance demons:
They realize the idle wishes of people in pain without the
least attempt to determine if these are the honest wishes of their clients.
Because of this, they are somewhat different from an ordinary hitman (or hitwoman), who is asked
to kill or physically injure certain specified people. In fact, they are worse, because they have a huge
amount of discretion regarding the punishment. Anya, in 'Triangle', implicitly criticised some of the
women, who would repeatedly get involved with the same unsuitable type of men. Did she ever think
at the time about telling these women to look at themselves, that perhaps maybe they were partly
responsible for things going wrong? No, she did not.
It is for these reasons that I had problems about Anya getting involved with Xander and becoming
part of the Scoobies in season 4, without an argument, or even a discussion about her past. Buffy was
able to justify her relationship with Angel on the grounds that he had repented of the evil he had
done, and was trying to atone; Xander had no such excuse regarding Anya.
[> [> [>
Re: Nicely done. Two questions. -- Arethusa, 13:31:25 04/19/02 Fri
That would be putting conditions on relationships. In other words, "I will love and/or respect you if
you fulfill the following requirements...." I don't ask my friends about their past mistakes and if
they've made an acceptable degree of atonement, to be determined by me. If I find I can't respect
their present actions, I stop seeing them.
That is not carte blanche (?) for bad behavior, of course. I just happen to intensely dislike rightous
indignation.
[> [> [> [>
Hmmm. -- Sophist, 13:58:02 04/19/02 Fri
I have a lot of sympathy with this point intellectually. I think, though, that emotionally I'd find it
hard to be chummy with Heinrich Himmler just because he left the Gestapo and took a job as a
librarian. What is it that lets me know that good old Heinrich has truly forsaken his evil ways?
At the same time, I'm quite aware that we can't undo the past. Usually, we can't even fix the
mistakes we've made (much less undo a gruesome murder). If we're going to have a policy of
redemption, we must have forgiveness. Maybe my 2 questions would be better as At what point do
we forgive?
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Hmmm. -- Arethusa, 14:45:16 04/19/02 Fri
I don't know. As I said in the forgiveness/redemption thread below, sometimes forgiveness is moot,
or even destructive. (Buffy's "don't forgive me" to Tara.)
Maybe we just treat each case individually, forgiving when we and they need it, and reserving
judgement when we don't. If one doesn't judge, then one doesn't need to forgive.
Oh, and Sophist? I've never, ever been friends with Himmler. ;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Thank you for not -- Sophist, 16:25:49 04/19/02 Fri
reacting more strongly to my poorly chosen analogy. I was in a hurry and couldn't think of another
quick example of someone whose acts were as horrible as Anyanka's. Never meant to suggest you
were or would be.
Another point I didn't make clear was that I see a difference between befriending someone (for which
I probably would require a higher standard; and certainly would to marry), and simply letting
someone out of jail. The standard you mentioned above is probably the one I would adopt for the
latter case.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
This is an interesting question: a friend's history -- Vickie, 20:00:47 04/19/02 Fri
Arethusa and Sophist, you've raised a very interesting question. At what point does a friend's history
interfere with our current friendship with them?
If we know someone, like them, maybe love them (agape or eros, doesn't matter), have respected the
actions we've observed, does it matter if we find out that they once murdered someone?
I think it does. I doubt I could withhold judgement (heck, fear even) without knowing the
details.
Buffy was able to "forgive" Angel his actions as Angelus pretty much sight unseen--mostly (I think)
because of hormones. Willow, Xander, and Giles weren't, until they had a much bigger sample of his
more current actions to observe.
But could any of us accept a friend who, after some months, turned out to have been a killer, a
perpetrator of hate crimes, a rapist? Probably only after a lot of discussion around how they had paid
for their crimes and why they were different now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I think you're right about how we would react. -- Sophist, 20:50:44 04/19/02 Fri
"Whether they've paid for their crimes and why they are different now." I like that. See if you agree
with my response to Malandanza in the Machiavelli v. Cordelia thread.
As for Buffy and Angel, I think her reaction was more complicated. I saw her as reserving judgment
based on the distinction between souled/unsouled.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
demonhood (mild spoilers up to OAFA) -- Slain, 00:13:58 04/20/02 Sat
The 'soul vs. soulless' idea of morality does seem to me to be breaking down a lot in BtVS - not solely
because of Anya and Spike, but because of demons in AtS. Let's not forget that the Host is a demon.
As is Clem. Demonhood has nothing to do with being evil, as some demons are evil and some
not.
With Anya, everyone has assumed that she was evil as a demon. Or, rather I'd rephrase that;
everyone has assumed she knew she was evil as a demon. I don't think she did. Halfrek is a
vengeance demon, yet considers herself to be doing good, and I think Anyanka did too. When
Angelus and Spike kill they are fully aware of what they're doing, but Anyanka seemed to believe
she was providing a service. This explain's Anya's lack of guilt - Angel feels guilty because he
deliberately acted with evil intent; whereas, from her own point of view, Anya was doing nothing
wrong.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
consequences -- Anne, 08:49:22 04/20/02 Sat
Sorry, but they just reran "The Wish", and if you look at the scene between Giles and Anya it is quite
clear that her intentions there are malevolent -- she's just as pleased as punch that Cordelia's wish
turned out to have such harrowing consequences.
Some dialogue:
ANYANKA
(smiling)
I had no idea her wish would be so...
exciting. A brave new world. I hope
she likes it.
GILES
She's dead.
ANYANKA
It happens.
And when Giles gets the pendant from her to smash it she says:
Trusting fool! How do you know the
other world is any better than this?
But she knows perfectly well that the other world is better for Giles and the Scoobies. Finally, the
way EC plays the part, her whole attitude with Giles is hostile and gloatingly malevolent.
I will admit that Halfrek's comments in OAFA suggest that she, at least, is a vengeance demon who
thinks she's right to be doing what she's doing. I can think of only two reasons for this
difference:
a. Halfrek is a different person, with different motivations than Anya or
b. It's a piece of retcon regarding the nature of vengeance demons on the part of the writers, who
may not have envisioned Anya's involvement with Xander at the time that "The Wish" was written.
In any case, I actually think that letting Anya completely off the hook for her vengeance demon days
makes for a less interesting story. With regards to the original question, I think the issue is not so
much "justice" in the sense of "right", as the pure and simple fact that actions have consequences,
whether we want to call it pretty and nice that they do so or not.
Anya hurt a lot of people in her vengeance days, what goes around comes around, and it came
around. Whatever she thought about her actions in her vengeance demon days, it now behooves her
to reflect on the idea that maybe what she did back then was wrong, or at the very least imprudent.
So far, however, there's no evidence that she's doing anything but feeling sorry for herself, and
disregarding any connection between her own behavior and the wrecking of her marriage. (I'm not
absolving Xander here, but from a moral point of view Anya's concern has to be the beam in her own
eye). Until I see her make that connection I'm not particularly interested in seeing her back with the
Scoobies.
[> [>
Crime and Punishment -- Malandanza, 22:06:11 04/19/02 Fri
"So, does Anya deserve to have her wedding and happiness destroyed? Now that she no longer
thinks as a child and has left behind childish things, should she be punished for being uncivilized, or
a demon, or childish in her lack of understanding of human nature? Anya lives very much in the now
(like Buffy). She doesn't worry about the past, which cannot be changed, and she is still learning to
worry about the future. I can forgive Anya, even if her victims, who understandably have a different
point of view, cannot."
I think Anya's realization of what love is combined with the wedding disaster has matured her --
together, these events were her Epiphany. She is now capable of understanding the harm
she inflicted as a vengeance demon. As such, I think that she has, for the first time, the ability to be
redeemed. Whether or not she chooses the path of redemption is another question.
A while back, the board debated whether or not redemption is a process or an event. It seems to me
that the epiphany is the event -- at that point, the character is set on the correct path and desires to
follow it. There is the sudden moment of introspection when the character realizes that his deeds
have been selfish, petty, evil and misguided. There is a sincere desire to reform -- there are tears
and oaths, there is soul searching and contrition. The character is born again! Forgiveness abounds,
a fattened calf is killed in honor of the prodigal returned to the fold!
And, in a day or two, the character often gets over his crisis of faith and goes back to being the same
person he always was -- with little hope for amendment in spite of all those noble schemes for reform
hatched during those dark hours.
However, when a character is punished for his misdeeds, the reformation sticks a little longer. The
pain and humiliation serve as gentle reminders; when the penitent drifts from the path of
righteousness, the pain guides him back to his proper path.
I don't think it's an accident that the people who suffered the most (Angel and Buffy) are also the
most saintly. Compare them with Spike and Willow -- always sorry, but never reforming. Spike
says "A man can change" -- well, why hasn't he? Willow has been told time and again (Buffy and Oz,
in particular, cautioned her in season 4, and Tara took over that role later) to be cautious with the
magic, yet even after losing Tara, she continued to run amok.
To use an example from literature, consider Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov is
sentenced to 10 years in prison for a double murder. Early in his prison career, he has an epiphany
and understands that everything he did was wrong. He is a changed man -- his own mother wouldn't
have recognized him. Abandoning his amoral principles, he embraces society with all its rules and
codes of ethics. Yet he still has to serve the 10 years.
What would have happened if Anya had had her epiphany (seeing the demon punishing her --
risking her whole future happiness) but Xander had still gone ahead with the marriage? Would her
understanding that her past actions were wrong have lasted beyond her first week of marriage (or
even, beyond the reception)? I feel sorry for Anya too; she really didn't understand what she had
done. Now she does. But not only does she needs to be punished, but in her present penitent state,
she should willing accept any punishment visited upon her. She'll be a better person for it.
[> [> [>
But does the punishment fit the crime? -- Traveler, 00:45:09 04/20/02 Sat
Anya spent her time as a vengence demon tormenting male philanderers. If she had cheated on
Xander and then been made to suffer, that could be seen as poetic justice. However, she was
tormented because of what she had done 100's of years ago as a vegence demon, not because of
anything she did to Xander. Besides which, the whole thing is punishing Xander as much as it is
Anya. What was Xander's crime that he needs to atone for? Maybe things happened not because ME
was trying to make some kind of statement about how Anya needs to pay for her crimes, but rather
it illustrates how much she has changed and will act as a much needed catalyst in her relationship
with Xander. I would argue that what Anya did as a vengence demon doesn't define who she is now,
but how she reacts to this newest setback will.
And you are right, pain and humiliation are great reminders. They remind Anya of why she became
a vengence demon in the first place. It was the love and acceptance that Xander showed Anya that
helped her become the person she is now, not pain. You cited Crime and Punishment as an example
of proper response to crime. Raskolnikov had to be punished for his crimes, even though he was no
longer a threat to society. You say that without punishment, he would revert back to his old ways.
How interesting. Every study I've ever read about prisons show quite clearly that they rarely reform
anyone. In fact, many people who are quite gentle when they enter prison become hard and violent
by the time they are released. I would argue that people reform despite prison sentences, not
because of them. You say Buffy and Angel are almost saintly because of all the hardships they have
endured. Say what!? They are both very flawed heroes who often make selfish and mean decisions. If
you really want to argue this point, I can present you with a lot of evidence to support my
statement. Besides which, what exactly is it that Buffy needs to atone for? What heinous crimes has
she committed that merit such harsh punishments?
Yes, pain is a great way to influence somebody's behavior, but it won't change a personality or
beliefs. Only experience, and maybe a little guidance, can do that. If Anya learns to empathize with
her past victems, it will be despite what the demon did to her, not because of it.
[> [> [> [>
Re: But does the punishment fit the crime? -- Liam, 05:27:16 04/20/02 Sat
With respect, Traveler, Anya was still punishing unfaithful men in the third season episode 'The
Gift'. It's not a question of what she did hundreds of years ago; it's a question of what she _began_ to
do hundreds of years ago, well into the late twentieth century, which she would have still been doing
if Giles hadn't broken her amulet.
In 'Hell's Bells' the 'demon' was not satisfied with wrecking her wedding; he also physically attacked
her. What if he had done nothing like that, but instead reproached Buffy and the others for being her
friends, despite knowing of all the unrepented evil she had done?
[> [> [> [>
Re: But does the punishment fit the crime? -- Malandanza, 06:27:45 04/20/02 Sat
"You cited Crime and Punishment as an example of proper response to crime. Raskolnikov had to
be punished for his crimes, even though he was no longer a threat to society. You say that without
punishment, he would revert back to his old ways. How interesting. Every study I've ever read about
prisons show quite clearly that they rarely reform anyone. In fact, many people who are quite gentle
when they enter prison become hard and violent by the time they are released. I would argue that
people reform despite prison sentences, not because of them. "
Well, American prisons are not quite the same as Russian gulags. Somehow, I doubt that the
recidivism rate was as high in Russia during Dostoyevsky's time as it is in America in our time. The
worst punishments our prisons offer is meted out by the other prisoners. Even then, in Arizona, at
least, roughly 40% of the people never return to prison. My feeling is that people who cannot be
reformed by punishment are unlikely to be reformed by less harsh means. Look at the difference
between our juvenile justice system and the adult system -- juveniles face little real punishment for
their crimes so are not dissuaded by the correction that they do receive. The result is that we end up
with a "hard and violent" adult population long before those new adults ever see the inside of an
adult prison.
And what is the option? If a criminal approaches his sentencing full of genuine tears of contrition
should we simply release him? Or is he like the person waking up from a previous night's binge with
a splitting hangover who swears off alcohol (and is sincere) only to return to his debauchery the next
weekend when the pain is but a distant memory (maybe if hangovers lasted a month there would be
fewer alcoholics)? Willow is the best example of this momentary conversion -- she regrets the harm
she caused when Tara complains about her first use of the forget spell, yet Willow casts the same
spell again in TR. Angel talks about it best in Blind Date when he questions Lindsey's
commitment to the side of truth and justice:
LINDSEY: They watch you constantly. Other companies have drug testing; they have mind
readers. I go back in there they'll kill me.
ANGEL: That's what we call an acceptable risk. (comes around desk) You're panicking right now;
you can't believe how bad you let things get. That's not change. You have to make a decision to
change. You do that by yourself. Most people never do.
LINDSEY: I get myself killed, that'll convince you I've changed?
ANGEL: It's a start.
Lindsey's decision to change doesn't come until Epiphany (Angel, Lindsey and Kate all have
life-changing epiphanies in this episode) and his decision isn't confirmed until Dead End.
Lindsey's change is a direct consequence not only of his desire to change, but also of Angel's less-
than-gentle reminders of the consequences of not changing.
"Yes, pain is a great way to influence somebody's behavior, but it won't change a personality or
beliefs."
Of course pain won't change a personality or beliefs. Spike is evidence of that. My point is that it
will reinforce a preexisting desire to reform, not that it is the sole agent of reform. If Anya hadn't
understood that she had caused pain during the past 1100 years or so, the punishment would be lost
on her, as the chip's punishment is lost on Spike. But now that she understands her past mistakes,
her punishment will make it easier for her to reform.
"You say Buffy and Angel are almost saintly because of all the hardships they have endured. Say
what!? They are both very flawed heroes who often make selfish and mean decisions. If you really
want to argue this point, I can present you with a lot of evidence to support my statement. Besides
which, what exactly is it that Buffy needs to atone for? What heinous crimes has she committed that
merit such harsh punishments?
I think that Buffy has suffered disproportionately to her crimes. She tries her best to do the right
thing, but she sometimes fails -- and suffers as a result, whether she punishes herself or is punished
by others (and she gets off easier when someone else does the punishing). There are, however, two
instances where I see Buffy having escaped punishment -- her attempted murder of Faith (for which
she seems not to have suffered many pangs of conscience) and her mistreatment of Angel when she
went to L.A.
And speaking of disproportionate punishments, I don't think that it is necessary that the
punishments fit the crime. Even a slight punishment coupled with the censure of her friends might
have stopped Willow before now. As it is, she resembles Morrissey's "Sweet and Tender
Hooligan":
He was a sweet and tender hooligan, hooligan
And he said that he'd never, never do it again
And of course he won't (oh, not until the next time)
He was a sweet and tender hooligan, hooligan
And he swore that he'll never, never do it again
And of course he won't (oh, not until the next time)
Poor old man
He had an "accident" with a three-bar fire
But that's OK
Because he wasn't very happy anyway
Poor woman
Strangled in her very own bed as she read
But that's OK
Because she was old and she would have died anyway
DON'T BLAME
The sweet and tender hooligan, hooligan
Because he'll never, never, never, never, never, never do it again
(not until the next time)
Jury, you've heard every word
So before you decide
Would you look into those "Mother me" eyes
I love you for you, my love, you my love
You my love, you my love
Jury, you've heard every word
But before you decide
Would you look into those "Mother me" eyes
I love you for you my love, you my love
I love you just for you, my love
Don't blame
The sweet and tender hooligan, hooligan
Because he'll never, never do it again
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: But does the punishment fit the crime? -- Traveler, 15:49:34 04/20/02 Sat
"And what is the option? If a criminal approaches his sentencing full of genuine tears of contrition
should we simply release him?"
Then again, we release criminals all the time who are proud of what they did and would do it again.
After they serve their term, they get out regardless of whether they are contrite or not. Besides
which, are we talking about law or human nature? You mentioned that 40% of people in Arizona
don't committ crimes after they leave prison. Once again we are talking about behavior, not desire. I
don't want Anya and Spike to act like good people because they are afraid of the consequences. I
wanted them to change because they want to.
"Willow is the best example of this momentary conversion -- she regrets the harm she caused when
Tara complains about her first use of the forget spell, yet Willow casts the same spell again in
TR."
This isn't really a good example either. Willow decided to cast the forget spell in TR as a result of
Tara saying she might leave Willow even if she stopped using magic, not because Tara forgave her.
Here, the punishment actually caused the crime. Also, Lindsey didn't reform because Angel beat the
crap out of him. He had already decided to leave Wolfram and Hart by that point and wanted to kill
Angel before he left.
"My point is that it will reinforce a preexisting desire to reform, not that it is the sole agent of
reform."
This is the main point that I'm arguing against. I believe that punishment/pain CAN aid in reform,
but it can also retard and reverse it. Here's an example. Let's say a young child named Bobby didn't
clean his room last week. However, he saw you cleaning his room and felt guilty, so he did clean his
room all this week. Well, in the meantime you went to see a child psychologist who says you must
punish your kids to teach them. So when you get home, Bobby proudly tells you that he cleaned his
room this week. Your response is to ground him, because he still needs to be punished for what he
had done before. Question: do you think this punishment re-enforces Bobby's desire to clean his
room? I doubt it. All Bobby knows is that he cleaned his room and got punished anyway, so why
should he clean his room? For punishment to be effective, it has to be a direct response to the offense.
In many of your examples, the event a character needs to atone for has nothing to do with the
"punishments" they receive. Buffy tries to kill Faith, so she gets ripped out of heaven? What
relationship do those two events have to do with each other? What I am trying to say is that
punishments are most effective if the person being punished can see a clear link between the crime
and the punishment.
Also, when you are talking about the carrot and the stick, don't forget the carrot. Rewards are just as
important as punishment in changing behavior. Now, since you insist on using Spike as example of
somebody who is unreformed, let us talk about him. What incentive does he have to become a better
person? In "Smashed," Spike goes to Buffy and tries to do the right thing. He tries to talk with her
about what's going on between them and figure out her feelings. Her response is to hit him and call
him an "evil thing." Later in the same episode, Spike picks a fight with Buffy and she ends up having
sex with him. Buffy punishes Spike for his good behavior and rewards him for his bad behavior. This
pattern has continued throughout season six. Really, it's amazing that Spike isn't any worse than he
is. Besides which, what gives Buffy the right to punish Spike? Is she his mother? His
therapist? A law official? Yes, Buffy is a vampire slayer, but we have seen hints that her powers may
also be rooted in darkness. That hardly gives her divine right. I could go on, but I have to go; I look
forward to your response :P
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: But does the punishment fit the crime? -- Malandanza, 20:12:21 04/20/02 Sat
"Then again, we release criminals all the time who are proud of what they did and would do it
again. After they serve their term, they get out regardless of whether they are contrite or not... I
don't want Anya and Spike to act like good people because they are afraid of the consequences. I
wanted them to change because they want to."
There are some criminals who can be turned into law-abiding citizens without severe punishment.
In our country, first time offenders are unlikely to end up in prison -- or even in the county jail. I am
in favor of second chances -- and even third or fourth chances if there is enough distance between the
crimes or there are mitigating circumstances. But a repeat offender who is proud of his crime when
arrested, proud when sentenced to prison and proud when he is released is not the sort of person I
am talking about. For them, prison is not about reform or punishment -- it is about keeping them
away from decent society. Rather, I speak of the offender who is contrite immediately after having
been caught. Like Willow.
I have never doubted that Willow is very sorry after one of her debacles and "[s]he'll never, never do
it again / And of course [s]he won't (oh, not until the next time)." I disagree that Tara's threat that
she might have to leave at some point in the future is a "punishment" that caused Willow to cast the
amnesia spell. Willow had suggested the amnesia spell as a means of making Buffy happy -- she just
added Tara to the mix. When Willow said "A week? That's easy" I believe her to have been sincere --
yet the next day she was using magic again -- not because she was punished, but because she was
not. Tara gave her another chance. But let's not quibble over this scene -- pick your favorite Willow
moment (there are plenty), from Dopplegangland to Wrecked where she messes up
using magic, promises to be better, then backslides.
I'd also like Anya and Spike to change because they want to. I believe Anya has the possibility of
doing just that -- she understands what she did as a demon was wrong (finally). But I can easily see
her following Willow's route -- especially if Xander had married her. She'll have plenty of time for
soul-searching while she's alone and suffering and will have a better chance of reforming. Yes,
there's the possibility that she'll try to bury her conscience as Faith did or seek an escape as Buffy
has done this season with Spike, but I believe that she'll have a better chance of true reform (rather
than the quickly forgotten lip-service Willow pays to reform) because she is suffering. But if she
doesn't reform, I'd prefer that she acts like a good person to avoid the consequences rather than gets
back into vengeance.
"Also, Lindsey didn't reform because Angel beat the crap out of him. He had already decided to
leave Wolfram and Hart by that point and wanted to kill Angel before he left."
Angel beating Lindsey was not their first and only meeting since Lindsey rejoined the firm -- it
began with Angel slicing off Lindsey's hand and ended with Angel smashing the prosthetic hand. I
see the scene in Epiphany as a culmination of a series of punishments that helped Lindsey
reach his decision to repent. I can easily see Lindsey wondering if he made the right choice after
being half-strangled in the W&H parking lot after work -- if there had been no punishment for his
choice, I think he would have remained happily insulated from his conscience for the remainder of
his tenure at W&H.
"This is the main point that I'm arguing against. I believe that punishment/pain CAN aid in
reform, but it can also retard and reverse it...What I am trying to say is that punishments are most
effective if the person being punished can see a clear link between the crime and the punishment.
I think we are essentially in agreement on this point. Punishment should be swift and clear -- I don't
see Buffy's being ripped out of heaven as punishment for trying to kill Faith (or anything else --
although she might). I don't think Buffy was ever punished for Faith. I think that there are some
people who will reform without punishment -- these saints do not concern me, they will reform
whether they are punished or rewarded. I am concerned with the people who wish desperately to
make things right when their world seems to be falling apart, yet forget all their noble resolutions as
soon as things are back to normal. For these people, reform without punishment is, almost by
definition, an impossibility. Punishment serves to remind them why they made all those noble
resolutions, thereby helping them to keep these resolutions. In these borderline cases, punishment
may push them one way or another, but lack of punishment guarantees failure. After wrecked,
Willow is punished by having all her magic taken from her. Not a particularly bad punishment, but
for the first time Willow is sticking to her reforms.
But arbitrary and random punishment serves no purpose.
"Also, when you are talking about the carrot and the stick, don't forget the carrot. Rewards are
just as important as punishment in changing behavior. Now, since you insist on using Spike as
example of somebody who is unreformed, let us talk about him. What incentive does he have to
become a better person? In "Smashed," Spike goes to Buffy and tries to do the right thing. He tries to
talk with her about what's going on between them and figure out her feelings. Her response is to hit
him and call him an "evil thing." Later in the same episode, Spike picks a fight with Buffy and she
ends up having sex with him. Buffy punishes Spike for his good behavior and rewards him for his
bad behavior. This pattern has continued throughout season six. Really, it's amazing that Spike isn't
any worse than he is. Besides which, what gives Buffy the right to punish Spike? Is she his mother?
His therapist? A law official? Yes, Buffy is a vampire slayer, but we have seen hints that her powers
may also be rooted in darkness. That hardly gives her divine right. I could go on, but I have to go; I
look forward to your response :P"
I'm not sure Spike belongs in a thread about redemption -- except as a reminder that not everyone
can be redeemed. He hasn't had his epiphany and, until he does, he is incapable of true reform. This
talk about Spike being evil only because he is rewarded for evil actions and punished for good deeds,
though, is nonsense. Throughout Season Four and parts of Season Five, Buffy and the Scoobies did
treat Spike like a man. They included him in their club and he repaid them with contempt, betrayal
and hatred. He ran to them for sanctuary (more than once) and sold them out when he thought he
was safe. The problem isn't that he was rewarded for evil deeds, the problem is that he was never
punished for evil deeds. Okay -- tortured by Glory, tried to help save the world, saved Buffy in his
imagination, babysat for Dawn -- I've heard the arguments that Season Four and Five don't count
because now he's a noble vampire on a mission of redemption. His Season Six behavior still leaves
much to be desired. Consider just the most recent episode, Normal Again: Buffy meets him
in the graveyard and treats him like a man, talking to him about the wedding. Spike seems to
sympathize -- he "didn't see that coming." A few minutes later he is mocking Xander for having
deserted Anya. How does he expect to be treated?
Which brings me to my next point -- let's reverse things. Why is Spike treated so badly by the
Scoobies? In his dealings with them, he has always paid back their good intentions with
punishment. Why should they treat him any better? Hasn't he, through repeated application of the
stick and exceedingly rare application of the carrot, conditioned them to treat him badly? He's lucky
they haven't staked him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Sigh. I don't think we'll ever agree about Spike. -- Traveler, 02:36:16 04/21/02 Sun
I agree with the essence of a lot of what you said, but I mostly disagree with your application of these
ideas and your examples. I don't feel like arguing about all that, so I'll argue about Spike instead
:P
"This talk about Spike being evil only because he is rewarded for evil actions and punished for
good deeds, though, is nonsense. Throughout Season Four and parts of Season Five, Buffy and the
Scoobies did treat Spike like a man. They included him in their club and he repaid them with
contempt, betrayal and hatred"
The scoobies did give him asylum when he asked for it, but they rarely treated him with anything
but contempt. Even by the end of season five, he only got a sort of grudging respect from Buffy. Spike
did betray the gang more than once, but I'm not making any claims about his past; I'm just going by
his actions since he started trying to change himself into a man Buffy could love.
His Season Six behavior still leaves much to be desired. Consider just the most recent episode,
Normal Again: Buffy meets him in the graveyard and treats him like a man, talking to him about the
wedding. Spike seems to sympathize -- he "didn't see that coming." A few minutes later he is
mocking Xander for having deserted Anya. How does he expect to be treated?"
Many of the character's behavior leaves much to be desired. In the example you use, Spike picks a
fight with Xander after Xander snarkily tells him to go away. Spike really did sympathize,
but he lashed out when Xander treated him badly. Even in that fight, Xander threw the first punch,
knowing full well that Spike couldn't hit him back. Then when they are leaving, Xander says "she's
our friend, we'll take care of her." Xander was a bigger ass than Spike was, so I'm surprised
you used this example.
"Which brings me to my next point -- let's reverse things. Why is Spike treated so badly by the
Scoobies? In his dealings with them, he has always paid back their good intentions with punishment.
Why should they treat him any better? Hasn't he, through repeated application of the stick and
exceedingly rare application of the carrot, conditioned them to treat him badly? He's lucky they
haven't staked him."
He has treated them better, especially Dawn, Buffy, and Willow. He saved Buffy's life, Gile's
life, and Dawn's life. Xander doesn't hesitate to ask Spike for help when hunting the demon that
stung Buffy, but still treats him like dirt. Spike has said many nice, romantic, and sincere things to
Buffy. You can count on one hand the number of nice things Buffy has said to Spike. He defended
Willow when Xander and Anya were trying to push her into doing magic. It's been a long time since
Willow stood up for Spike against one of her friends. He brought flowers for Joyce's funeral, and
Xander accused him of somehow trying to get to Buffy. Does he apologize when Willow notices that
there is no card? Of course not. Because it's just Spike, the vampire. Nobody cares about his feelings.
The fact of the matter is that the gang rarely gives Spike credit for any of the good things he does
and are quick to point out the bad. This may be understandable considering his history, but it hardly
reinforces his positive behavior.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Well, we can agree about that -- Malandanza, 09:13:15 04/21/02 Sun
"The scoobies did give him asylum when he asked for it, but they rarely treated him with
anything but contempt. Even by the end of season five, he only got a sort of grudging respect from
Buffy."
The point that Spike would be a better person if he wasn't treated so shabbily by Buffy and the
Scoobies begs the question: why do Buffy and her friends treat him so badly?
Spike rarely treated the scoobies with anything but contempt. He did his best to make them hate
him. Every overture was treated with contempt and hatred. He ran to them when he needed help
and abandoned them when he was safe. If you believe that Spike would be a better person if his
positive actions were better received and that the Scoobies are responsible for reinforcing his bad
behavior, who but Spike has been responsible for reinforcing the Scoobies' bad behavior? Whatever
benefit of the doubt you think he deserved was used up rather early in Season Four.
But I know that nothing I say will convince you, so I'll let Spike do the talking
(Quotes from psyche):
SPIKE:
I came to you in friendship! Well, all right, seething hatred but I've got useful information and I
feel I'm being mistreated.
BUFFY: So tell me everything you know.
SPIKE: I'm too hungry to remember everything.
BUFFY:
Then sit.
Pangs
************************************
(Xander trying to get to sleep while Spike is staying with him)
SPIKE: (as Anya) Xander, don't you care about me?
XANDER:
Shut up.
SPIKE:
(Anya) We never talk...
XANDER:
Shut up.
(Beat.)
SPIKE: (Anya) Xander...
XANDER:
Shut up.
Hush
***********************
XANDER: (re: Spike) Why does he have to come?
BUFFY:
Xander, Spike is going to be my husband. I want him included.
SPIKE:
I think I agree with Xander here. Seems like a lot of work for people who aren't us
Something Blue
************************
Willow, Xander and Spike are walking away from the museum. Xander and Willow both look
discouraged, while Spike clearly continues to wallow in self-pity.
WILLOW: Great. No Word of Valios.
XANDER:
Not even a syllable of Valios.
SPIKE:
(mildly hopeful) Which means I'm one step closer to melting in a sea of molten hell fire, yeah?
WILLOW: You shouldn't talk like that, Spike. Okay - you can't kill anymore. But there are other
fun things you can do. You'll adjust.
SPIKE: Adjust? And what - end up like the two of you? No thank you.
XANDER:
Here it goes. (to Will/mocking her) "We can't just leave him here to
stake himself. It's not right."
SPIKE: I should think you'd be glad to greet the end of days. I mean, neither one of you is making
much of a go at it. (to Xander) You. Kids your age are going off to University -- you made it as far as
the basement (re: Will) And Red here. You couldn't even keep dog boy happy. I mean, you can take
the loser out of high school-
Spike's tirade is clearly getting to both Willow and Xander - but Willow offers protest
nonetheless.
WILLOW (cutting him off) I see what you're doing. You're
trying to get us to dust you-
SPIKE: Am not. I just don't want pity from geeks more useless than I am.
WILLOW: We are not useless! We - we help people. We fight the forces of evil-
SPIKE: Buffy fights the forces of evil. You're her groupies. She'd do just as well without you. Better,
I'd wager - since she wouldn't have to go about saving your hides all the time.
XANDER: That is so not true. We're part of the team. She needs us.
SPIKE: Or - you're just the same 10th grade losers you've always been - and she's too much of a softy
to cut you loose.
Spike moves out ahead of them, feeling a little better after doling out that punishment.
Both Xander and Willow look like they are fighting off major insecurity attacks.
Doomed
***************
XANDER: You own nothing. This shouldn't take so long.
SPIKE: Hang on, let a fellow get organized.
XANDER: That's my radio!
Xander grabs the radio out of Spike's hands.
SPIKE :
And you're what? Shocked and disappointed? I'm evil!
ANYA: So, what kind of place are you looking for?
SPIKE:
Dunno. Maybe a crypt. Someplace, you know, dark and dank. But not as dark and dank as this.
ANYA:
It's pretty depressing, isn't it?
SPIKE: I've known corpses with a fresher smell. In fact, I've been one.
Spike flicks his cigarette ash onto the floor. Xander points to the ashtray sitting right next to him.
XANDER:
Ashtray. Not getting any... more like an ashtray.
SPIKE: Piss off.
A New Man
******************
SPIKE: Wipe your feet when you enter a person's home.
GILES: Yes, careless of me. Tracking mud all over your mud.
SPIKE: (re crypt) I'll admit... bit of a fixer-upper. Needs a woman's touch.
(then) Care to have a crack at it?
GILES:
While I'd love to go on trading jabs with you, Spike, perhaps I'll just get to the point. Much as it
pains me to say it, I owe you a debt of gratitude for the help you provided me during my recent...
metamorphosis.
SPIKE: Like hearing about the "pain" part, but stuff the gratitude. You owe me more than that,
mate.
Giles nods, reaches into his pocket and pulls out a wad of twenties. He hands it to Spike.
GILES: Three hundred dollars. Count it, if you'd like.
SPIKE: I'll do that.
And he does. Giles takes a moment, pacing.
GILES: Thinking about your affliction -- as well as your newly discovered ability
to fight only demons. It occurs to me - and I realize it's against your nature - but have you considered
there may be a higher purpose--
SPIKE: Aagh. Made me lose count. What are you still doing here?
GILES: Talking to myself, apparently.
SPIKE: Well, piss off then. This piece of business wraps up any I got with you - and your slayerettes.
From here on, I want nothing to do with the lot of you.
GILES: Your choosing to remain in Sunnydale might make that difficult.
SPIKE: You and yours'll just have to show a little restraint, is all. Get out.
Giles moves to leave.
SPIKE: And I don't want you crawling back here, knocking on my door, pleading for help the second
teen witch's magic goes all wonky or Little Xander cuts a new tooth... We're through, got it?
Honeymoon is over.
He slams the door.
The I in Team
********************
SPIKE: Got to hand it to you, Goldilocks, you have bleedin' tragic taste in men. I have a cousin,
married a regurgitating Frovlax demon, has better instincts than you.
BUFFY: What does my taste in men have to do with this?
SPIKE: You think Riley was off knitting booties for your future offspring while Maggie was
stringing you up?
Goodbye, Iowa
*********************
XANDER:
Spike.
GILES: What are you doing here?
SPIKE: Me? Hey, I'm not the one out of place here.
XANDER: For your information, smarty, we've got a rogue slayer on our hands. Real psycho-killer,
too.
SPIKE:
Sounds serious.
GILES: It is. What do you know?
SPIKE: What do you need?
XANDER: Her. Dark hair, this tall, name of Faith, criminally insane…
GILES:
Have you seen her?
SPIKE: This bird after you?
XANDER: In a bad way, yeah.
SPIKE: Tell you what I'll do, then. Head out, find this girl, tell her exactly where all of you are, and
then watch as she kills you.
Off Giles's and Xander's dazed expressions.
SPIKE: Can't anyone in your damned little Scoobie Club at least try to remember that I HATE YOU
ALL?!?
Points to his head.
SPIKE: And just because I can't do the damage myself doesn't stop me from aiming a loose cannon
your way. (beat) And here I thought my evening'd be dull.
He shoves past Xander and Giles, heading out the alley.
XANDER: Go ahead - you wouldn't even recognize her.
SPIKE: Dark hair, this tall, name of Faith, criminally insane - I like this girl already.
Spike storms out of the alley, smoking. Xander turns to Giles.
XANDER: We're dumb.
This Year's Girl
*******************
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I meant to stop posting. Honest! -- Traveler, 12:39:10 04/21/02 Sun
"The point that Spike would be a better person if he wasn't treated so shabbily by Buffy and the
Scoobies begs the question: why do Buffy and her friends treat him so badly?"
I'm not trying to start a chicken or the egg debate here; who did what to who first. I appreciate the
effort you went to to find all those quotes from Spike, but I'm a little surprised you find them so
decisive. Most of them are just Spike being snarky, and they are all before Spike begins falling in
love with Buffy. Certainly, Spike treated the Scooby gang with at least as much contempt as they
treated him. However, more recently he has at least been trying to extend an olive branch, but some
of them (most notably Xander) just don't seem to see that. You say that Spike reinforced the scooby's
ill treatment of him by behaving badly towards them, but even at his worst, he only wanted to kill
them. He never jumped on top of Buffy and started beating her mercilessly, telling her that she was
an evil thing incapable of love. In that scene, Buffy was literally trying to beat the good out of Spike,
while he just took it in the hopes that it would keep her from turning herself into the police. I'm not
suggesting that the scoobies have caused all of Spike's bad behavior. Of course not. I firmly believe
that people are responsible for their own actions. However, they certainly haven't been encouraging
his good behavior. So if there is a cycle of hate that is being perpetrated here, they are just as
much at fault for it as he is.
One thing I'm curious about. How did you view Tara's reaction to Buffy's admission that she had
slept with Spike? Tara said "Do you love him? It's ok if you do, he's done a lot of good." We don't
really know what Tara thinks of Spike in general, but we can see here that she doesn't condemn him.
Also, I think this is the first time any of the scooby gang has admitted that he has done some
good. Yes Spike has also done some not so great things, even in season six, but he is a complicated
character, and I think it is oversimplifying things to focus completely only on the good things he
does, or the evil.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I meant to stop posting. Honest! -- Ruth, 16:44:47 04/21/02 Sun
Spike was a bastard in season 4. The scoobies tried to reach out to him in a way after he was
chipped. E.g Giles let him stay in his apartment (albeit it tied up in the bath). Yet Spike mocked
their idea that he was going to become housebroken.
But in season 6 he has done good. He has helped the scoobies and wanted to be a part of the gang.
Xander saw he was hurt and crying in Afterlife at being excluded but they don't seem interested in
Spike now Buffy is back. Spike did bring it on himself as he behaved badly in the past because he
wasn't ready for change. But he has reformed to an extent now. In Wrecked he was hesitating about
eating a woman even after Buffy told him he was a thing only capable of evil. Perhaps if the scoobies
tried telling him he was capable of nobility he might behave better? In TR he was keen to be a noble
vampire fighting the helpless which suggests he is capable of more.
[> [> [> [> [>
And in the midst of life, we are in death, etc. -- Dead Soul, 16:17:53 04/20/02 Sat
[> [>
Anya's original worldview? -- Ixchel, 23:17:38 04/19/02 Fri
The idea of Anya's past is intriguing. She was born in a time so very different from the present (at
least from the present Westernized world). In her world death would have been all around (wars,
plagues, famine, high infant mortality, etc.), as well as vengeance (tribal hatreds, blood feuds, etc.)
and violence.
While I don't expect strict historical accuracy from the show, I wonder about Anya's relationship
with Olaf. (As to his speaking English, well, he spent a lot of time in that crystal. Maybe he learned
by listening?) What follows is pure musing on my part. Would they have "dated" in that time period
or were they maybe betrothed? If he rejected her for someone else (in SB she says she was
"dumped", in Triangle she says he "cheated" on her), then this could have been much more serious
than hurt feelings. For example, if they had some sort of sexual relationship before marrying, then
after he rejected her no other man may have wanted her. This would have possibly ruined her life.
Of course, this is not an excuse for turning someone into a troll (or for causing boils, etc.), but it could
explain why she would want to become a vengeance demon (aside from the power and, apparent,
freedom from emotion).
I also wonder about the difference in vengeance seekers between when Anya began her demon
existence and the present. It seems at least some of these vengeful women actively called her, while
others did not (Cordelia). That Anyanka was "feared and worshipped" indicates that at some point
some people recognized the presence of vengeance demons.
Ixchel
[> [> [>
Re: Anya's original worldview? -- Rahael, 10:40:51 04/21/02 Sun
Many thought provoking points, Ixchel.
I hate to generalise about the past! but in many past cultures, at least in early modern Europe and
the recent history of the Indian sub-continent, a woman's reputation is precious.
That is, once sullied, never recovered. Of course we derive this from didactic literature which told
women how to run their lives. One starts to wonder why exactly this kind of literature went on and
on about women's reputations. Could it have been because people didn't toe the line? In the early
modern period, in England, it was customary for many couples to engage in sexual relations before
marriage. A simple and private 'betrothal' ceremony, conducted between the couple, by themselves
alone was a good enough token of a promise of marriage. The church did start cracking down on it
though, and insisted that only a ceremony, performed by a priest was sufficient. Of course, if a
caddish man agreed to a private betrothal to get his wicked way and then absconded, the woman was
in a very difficult position.
Secondly, the call for veangence. Perhaps Dawn and Cordelia didn't explicitly call for veangence. But
did a visceral call from their hearts do the job? Just as Willow's rage called out to d'Hoffryn? Are the
veangence demons a powerful and warning metaphor about the desires of our heart, and how we
should examine with care our feelings and our actions in the world?
[> [> [> [>
Re: Anya's original worldview? -- Ixchel, 16:17:03 04/21/02 Sun
Thanks, Rahael.
I thought it interesting the possible difference between the events leading to Anya's becoming a
vengeance demon described in (speculated) time appropriate terms and its description in modern
terms (where it appears comical, SB and Triangle).
Wonderful point about a woman's reputation. At the risk of gneralizing (as you say), in some
societies, in some time periods, her reputation may have been the only thing of value a woman
had.
Excellent point, why would authorities (the church, etc.) go on and on about something that didn't
occur (and possibly often)?
I also like your point about the vengeance demons. Are they rage and pain made flesh? And a
warning that allowing rage to consume you can transform you to a "monster" who deals only pain to
others?
I do wonder if in modern times Anyanka had to rely more on trickery (getting a person to make a
wish) rather than being explicitly called?
One fascinating aspect of vengence demons is their disregard for the well-being of the wisher, which
has parallels with the sometime indifference of human law. Anyanka clearly believes that Xander
must be punished, but has no regard for Cordelia (TW). Halfrek also believes Dawn's "family" must
be punished, but doesn't consider that Dawn herself would have eventually starved to death (OAFA).
In a similar (though less severe) way sometimes the law, in its haste to punish the guilty, disregards
the victim.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [>
Vengeance is a living thing -- Rahael, 09:31:54 04/22/02 Mon
It's always been an important motif in the Buffyverse. It's come even more to the forefront this year,
with Holtz, Sahjan and Angel all out for vengeance; and with Halfrek running around unaccounted
for in Sunnydale....
I guess I would make a distinction between justice and vengeance:
Justice, to my mind should be public, fair, evenhanded and impersonal.
Vengeance is often unfair; deals often with private matters, or issues of justice dragged into the
private sphere. It is highly personal.
I think the disregard of the vengeance demon could perhaps be tied into the capricious fate argument
in Sunnydale. It is full of dieties and demons you can invoke, whose power is primal and unguided.
We go back all the way to Hecate, and Diana in the early seasons of BtVS.
'Victims' are the people who are most at risk, most susceptible to invoke the dark powers of
vengeance, the furies, whether in a corporeal demonic form, or in the in spirit (like Holtz, or Justine).
Which poster made the excellent point a couple of weeks ago (was it Ete?) about the fact that the
idea of 'justice' is central to AtS, pointed out by the presence of Wolfram and Hart.
Isn't it difficult, in the Buffyverse, where injustice and tragedy is conducted in the supernatural
sphere, to obtain normal, human legal justice. I wonder if the Vengeance demons are a kind of
symbolic court of justice. Though in AtS, we did have trial by combat in the season 2 ep
'Judgement'.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Normal courts and the undead -- Liam, 12:55:14 04/22/02 Mon
The problem with trying to look at the Jossverse in terms of
'normal, human legal justice' is how it could deal with the undead. For example, what standing has a
vampire in the eyes of a human court? If it is using the body of a human who has been legally
certified as dead and buried, it can't claim to be the human. Of course, if the dead body of the human
was never found, so the person the vampire is using was never recognised as legally dead, the
vampire could in theory claim to be that person. What do people think?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Normal courts and the undead -- Rahael, 13:19:20 04/22/02 Mon
That's the point I was trying to reach for, probably very unclearly when I said that since a lot of
crimes happened in the supernatural sphere, you couldn't have recourse to human courts of
law.
What's interesting is that Wolfram and Hart exploit that by dragging supernatural crime to human
courts and getting their clients off.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Vengeance vs Justice -- LittleBit, 14:57:56 04/22/02 Mon
Was it not Jenny's Uncle who clearly told her that the clan was not interested in justice for Angelus,
but in vengeance, clearly seeing the two as separate and possibly incompatible goals?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Vengeance is a living thing -- Ixchel, 20:25:59 04/22/02 Mon
Excellent points again, Rahael.
The theme of vengeance in BtVS is so perfectly woven throughout the entire series along with
(perhaps its inverse?) forgiveness.
Indeed, capricious fate could account for the disregard of the vengeance demons (D'Hoffryn's
indifferent, not malicious, attitude toward the fallout from Willow's will-be-done spell, SB). These
forces seem to have an innate backfire factor.
Regarding Holtz and Justine, it seems vengeance demons would have been irresistibly drawn to
them.
It _would_ be difficult (impossible?) to obtain normal human justice in SD considering that the police
seem to ignore anything remotely supernatural (the Mayor's continuing policies perhaps coupled
with subconscious self-preservation?). Surely, the majority of harm and death (even if not caused
directly by vampires/demons) can be linked to the supernatural on the Hellmouth? And in LA, the
general chaos of a large city (and the dilution of the supernatural in a larger population) seems to
provide some camouflage, so human justice for these crimes would also be impossible.
If vengeance demons are a symbolic court of justice, perhaps they reflect all the failings of human
"justice"?
Ixchel
[>
Poetic Justice? What happened to Anya in 'Hell's Bells' -- Can I be Anne?, 16:26:05
04/20/02 Sat
It is well understood that Anya(nka) tricked and goaded women into wishing harm on others. She
disguised her identity, many, like Cordy, may not have even summoned her or known what she could
do. Unlike a hired killer, she sought out her "jobs". She carried them out for nothing but her own
malevolent pleasure. In her post demon form, she looks back on those days with nostalgia. She
maintains her desire for power and for no consequences. I see no moral difference between Anya and
Anyanka. She was more like an evil person with superpowers than a vampire or other demon.
Nostalgia -- Nostalgia, 16:22:05
04/19/02 Fri
Willow: Must be tough. I mean, here I am, I can do anything I want. I can go to any college in the
country, four or five in Europe if Iwant.
Buffy: Please tell me you're going somewhere with this?
Willow: No. (hands Buffy a letter) I'm not going anywhere.
Buffy: UC Sunnydale?
Willow: I will be matriculating with Class of 2003.
Buffy: Are you serious?
Willow: Say, isn't that where you're going?
Buffy hugs her and they tumble onto the ground.
Buffy: I can't believe it! Are you serious? Ah, wait, what am I saying? You can't.
Willow: What do you mean, I can't?
Buffy: I won't let you.
Willow: Of the two people here, which is the boss of me?
Buffy: There are better schools.
Willow: Sunnydale's not bad. A-And I can design my own curriculum.
Buffy: Okay, well, there are safer schools. There are safer prisons. I can't let you stay because of me.
Willow: Actually, this isn't about you. Although I'm fond, don't get me wrong, of you. The other night,
you know, being captured and all, facing off with Faith. Things just, kind of, got clear. I mean, you've
been fighting evil here for three years, and I've helped some, and now we're supposed to decide what
we want to do with our lives. And I just realized that that's what I want to do. Fight evil, help
people. I mean, I-I think it's worth doing. And I don't think you do it because you have to. It's a good
fight, Buffy, and I want in.
Buffy: I kind of love you.
Willow: And, besides, I have a shot at being a bad ass Wiccan, and what better place to learn?
[>
Re: Nostalgia -- Liam, 05:49:10 04/20/02 Sat
Please don't go on. If you do, I'm going to remember again how good 'Buffy' was before the
badness of season 4.
[> [>
Re: Nostalgia -- Yellowork, 06:06:55 04/20/02 Sat
What was wrong with Season 4? It seemed to have the same couple of turkeys you get cropping up
from time to time year in year out - that is the TV way! OK, things got silly for a couple of weeks
once the team forgot Riley's function was to act, not as a hero, but rather a foolhardy comic fall-guy
along the lines of Wesley the year before. But: Spike! Harmony as a shit vampire! Lesian
metaphors! Anya! Faith! Jonathan! Crazy freaked-out dream sequences! Werewolves on heat!
Does it *get* any better than this?
[> [> [>
Absolutely not! Season 4 was the beginning of the best years of "Buffy," IMO --
Rob, 11:35:42 04/20/02 Sat
[> [> [> [>
Season 4 was terrible. A total lack of good episodes. -- JCC, 18:02:51 04/20/02 Sat
Nobody try to kill me now, but i think season 4 was the worst,without a doubt. Primevil & Restless
were good, but i hated the rest.
[> [> [> [> [>
What about Hush? Fear, Itself? Wild at Heart? Something Blue?... -- Rob, 18:15:02
04/20/02 Sat
This Year's Girl?
Who Are You?
Superstar?
New Moon Rising?
and on and on and on?
The only eps I thought were even slightly sub-par in the fourth season were "Beer Bad" and "Where
the Wild Things Are." Actually, I think on the whole, most fans agreed that the quality of the the eps
reached new heights in the fourth season, but had a problem with the yearlong story arc. I, for one,
adored the yearlong story arc.
But do you really mean that Primeval and Restless were the ONLY good ones in the fourth season,
and that maybe your dislike of the yearlong arc isn't clouding your judgment for the standalone eps?
The fourth season is full of episodes considered classics today.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I agree -- Slain, 23:37:31 04/20/02 Sat
It's worth watching Season 4 again, as the Initative works much better second time around; that,
coupled with the amazing single episodes, makes it a great season.
I didn't like it the first time round either, but that was only because I'm not a Faith fan and I
thought Adam was a little pointless. Second time around, I enjoyed it more. I always liked 'Beer Bad'
and 'Where the Wild Things Are' a lot, myself. The episodes I remember not liking were 'Goodbye
Iowa' and whatever the one where Buffy and Riley keep having sex is called - but second time around
I thought they were great.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The one where Buffy and Riley keep having sex is called . . . -- d'Herblay, 00:54:44
04/21/02 Sun
. . . "Where the Wild Things Are."
Love it or hate it, it's easy to look at the title and think it's a different episode entirely. Perhaps one
with Oz in it . . .
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The one where Buffy and Riley keep having sex is called . . . -- Rahael, 09:58:28
04/21/02 Sun
Paid up member of the Season 4 Fan club as I am, I haven't watched WtWTA more tha twice.
Though it is worth seeing for the rosebush fortress around Buffy and Riley for it's fairy tale imagery
and resonance. Now if only we hadn't needed to see all that exhaustive and entirely unerotic B/R
scenes! A bit of judicious pruning required! It does have a great Spike moment.
And let me reiterate again how much I like Season Four. I liked Professor Walsh and the Initiative
thing. I liked the whole science/magic conflict. Spike finally became an interesting character (lol,
know I'm being controversial there!). I still liked Xander. Anya was great. We got Tara. And Buffy's
outfits finally being consistently good. No more tight pea green velvet trousers!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Of course, I'm in complete agreement, Season 4-loving buddy! :o) -- Rob, 10:06:09
04/21/02 Sun
Machiavelli vs Cordelia -- Malandanza,
19:03:45 04/19/02 Fri
Sophist: "Willow has certainly done some foolish things. However, my quick impression is that
(a) most did not lead to serious or permanent harm, (b) she has suffered some consequence, and (c)
she has done a lot of very important good deeds.
Xander's misdeeds go back all the way to S2. My biggest problem is that he has gotten away with
misconduct while others haven't. Why he is the teflon man, I don't know. In addition, Xander's good
deeds have grown fewer and farther between since S1.
If we ever do get into this topic, let me suggest that we consider the following: 1. The wrongdoing. 2.
Whether there were any consequences suffered. 3. What good deeds might have balanced out the
wrong."
At Sophist's suggestion, I am making this argument a separate thread. It is issue number three that
I find most troubling -- that good deeds somehow balance out evil. On Sophist's side of the debate,
we have social philosophers Cordelia, Faith and Spike:
CORDELIA:
I don't get it. Buffy's the Slayer, shouldn't she have...
XANDER: A license to kill? (He takes out a cookie. Eats.
CORDELIA:
Well, not for fun, but... I mean she's like this superman. Shouldn't there be different rules for
her?
WILLOW: Sure, in a fascist society.
(From Ted)
****
FAITH:
Buffy. I'm not going to "see" anything... I missed the mark last night. And I'm sorry about the guy,
really. But it happens. (then) Anyway - how many people do you think we've saved by now?
Thousands? And didn't you stop the world from ending? In my book, that puts you and me firmly in
the plus column.
(From Consequences)
****
BUFFY: A girl is dead because of me.
SPIKE: And how many people are alive because of you? How many have you saved? One dead girl
doesn't tip the scale.
(From Dead Things)
On the other side of the argument is Machiavelli's warning that one should never offset punishments
and rewards:
"The services of Horatius had been of the highest importance to Rome, for by his bravery he had
conquered the Curatii; but the crime of killing his sister was atrocious, and the Romans were so
outraged by this murder that he was put upon trial for his life, notwithstanding his recent great
services to the state. Now, in looking at this matter superficially, it may seem like an instance of
popular ingratitude; but a more careful examination, and reflection as to what the laws of a republic
ought to be, will show that the people were to blame rather for the acquittal of Horatious than for
having him tried. And the reason for this is, that no well-ordered republic should ever cancel the
crimes of its citizens by their merits; but having established rewards for good actions and penalties
for evil ones, and having rewarded a citizen for good conduct who afterwards commits a wrong, he
should be chastised for that without regard to his previous merits...For if a citizen who has rendered
some eminent service to the state should add to the reputation and influence which he has thereby
acquired the confident audacity of being able to commit any wrong without fear of punishment, he
will in a little while become so insolent and overbearing as to put an end to all power of the law. But
to preserve a wholesome fear of punishment for evil deeds, it is necessary not to omit rewarding good
ones..."
Getting back to Faith's question, "How many people do you think {Buffy's} saved by now?" Six
Billion? She has saved the world -- apparently -- on multiple occasions. Maybe someone or
something else would have been able to halt the apocalypses had she failed, so maybe her good
karma is only several million lives. Even if we discount all the people that she's saved incidentally
by halting these grand world-destroying schemes and only count the people she's saved personally,
it's still staggering number. If we accept Sophist's suggestion that there is a karmic scoresheet
where the good deeds balance out the bad, Buffy is far enough on the plus side to be able commit any
wrong she chooses and be forgiven on the basis of her past good works. She could, for instance,
decapitate Xander and drink a diet coke out of his skull -- and balance it against the lives she saved
in AYW when she helped Riley destroy the eggs.
What happens when a character is allowed to get away with crimes without any threat of
punishment, save what his own conscience will provide? We get people like Ethan and, to a lesser
extent, Giles and Wesley. Ethan thought he would never be punished, so he reveled in chaos.
Wesley and Giles balance the evil that they do against the greater good. Willow and Xander are
closer to Ethan -- their misdeeds are selfish. Willow pretends to be more like the watchers --
working on the "Ball of Sunshine" spell, for example, to help fight vampires -- yet she waits until
Giles is gone to begin experimenting. In each instance in the past when she has playing with magic,
there has been no punishment. She means well, or she's emotionally distraught. Xander, at least,
got a dressing down from Giles in BBB. The result? He didn't play with magic again for until season
six. Willow, if not encouraged by Giles, has at least had his salutary neglect to help guide her down
her current path. Hardly a slap on the wrist to discourage her.
Look at the reverse -- what happens when characters are punished for their misdeeds? Redemption.
Just look at Faith -- she has saved more people than she killed, yet she is paying for her crimes. And
she's a better person because of her punishment. Buffy punishes herself too much for her crimes
(and often gets punished from without as well -- as she complained about in Innocence -- BUFFY:
And me? What was I supposed to be paying for?), but the consequence of her punishment is that
she is a more virtuous person than either of her friends.
[>
Re: chaos -- leslie, 19:28:01 04/19/02
Fri
"Ethan thought he would never be punished, so he reveled in chaos."
A smallish point, but I think you are misreading Ethan here. He is a bone fide Chaos magician, as
far as I can tell--a magical tradition that worships Chaos as a generative and creative force. Its
principles, as I understand them (*I* am not a Chaos magician!) are based on the idea of breaking
down boundaries in order to create something new in accordance with the will of the magician--a
recapitulation of the creation of the world from the primal Chaos in Greek myth. Of course, you could
argue that this is blasphemous, in that it puts the magician in the position of God (or a god). But it
isn't simply being naughty with no expectation of consequences--it's saying "This world is too rigid--
I'm gonna shake things up and the hell with the consequences!" Close, in many ways, to the figure
and function of the Trickster.
[> [>
Ummm... -- Eric, 22:26:24 04/19/02 Fri
I think you got your lines crossed. Ethan is not a Chaos Magician in the occult sense we have in our
world. Yes, your description of a chaos magician is applicable to some extent. Ethan creates chaos
pretty much for the hell of it and pretty much for his own enjoyment, except for mercenary jobs like
in Band Candy. Attempting to be a "coyote" is not in his plan. Chaos magicians in our world do not
normally do such things. Their magick is a system of HOW to achieve a magickal effect, not a
philosophy of use. I'll add that chaos lives within the heart of any organized undertaking and order
within every chaotic event. If there is a Divine Plan, then every chaotic thing exists only because we
perceive it to be so. If there ain't, then the order/chaos we create is pretty much subjective. Either
way, Ethan's an idiot.
[>
Superhero Ethics -"License to Kill" -- Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman,
19:43:02 04/19/02 Fri
I don't think this relates to a real life situation, because there are no superheroes in real life, but I
believe Cordelia is right.
Again review the statement:
CORDELIA:
I don't get it. Buffy's the Slayer, shouldn't she have...
XANDER: A license to kill? (He takes out a cookie. Eats.)
CORDELIA:
Well, not for fun, but... I mean she's like this superman. Shouldn't there be different rules for
her?
Cordelia states that she shouldn't kill for fun. For if she does then she is no longer a superhero (more
like a supervillian).
But since she does have special powers, different rules should apply. First, because she has special
powers, she is put in situations the average person can't understand. There is no "jury of her peers"
who could take into account extenuating circumstances.
Second, since she does have special and unique powers that could serve humanity, there does need to
be a consideration of the harm she could do versus the good.
If Buffy is in jail, that puts the world in greater risk. Therefore unless she is a danger to the
community (going out every night "killing for fun") it would be in society's best interests to give her
some leeway.
What is important is can Buffy do good. If so, it would be wasting an important asset to keep her
locked in jail.
Again, I don't see how this could relate to a real world situation. No one person is that important, or
has that unique and powerful skill to warrant such consideration. But in the world of Super Heroes,
yes, there should be different rules for them.
[> [>
Cordelia shoulda been staked... -- Eric, 22:44:01 04/19/02 Fri
Or so I thought in seasons 1 - 2. I HATED those types of girls in high school. I'm glad she got
marginally more human - or less human from what I've read about AtS. Here she's still in her
stakable form. If superheros cannot be held morally accountable for their transgressions by society,
then they'll shortly become supervillains. In short, I agree with Machiavelli. Yes, honestly sloppy
targeting ("collateral damage" annoys me) should be judged in light of the struggle's nature. Sure its
convenient and utilitarian to let Buffy and Faith run amok occasionally after multiple world savings.
But to allow the superhero to treat human lives so lightly allows them to distance themselves from
the human race. This will eventually do more damage to them than mere prison. It may be that the
Watcher's Council owes its paternal view of the Slayers to this principal. I think the best example is
Faith, who by acknowledging her crimes was allowed to achieve some peace.
[> [>
Re: Superhero Ethics -"License to Kill" -- Buffyboy, 15:50:35 04/20/02
Sat
There is a real historical example of the type of morality advocated by Cordelia and actually Willow’s
response is to the point. This example is the Nazi interpretation of Nietzsche. However
wrongheaded this may be as an interpretation of Nietzsche, this ideology asserted that the
Supermen, those of superior strength, courage, intelligence, artistry, etc. should live by a different
moral code than the
“others,” the masses, the Jews, the Communists, etc. These supermen need not be overly concerned
by how they treat these “others” for they were superior in every important respect and could become
increasingly so if not held back by the morality of these weaker classes and groups.
Without some kind of a quasi-Kantan notion of an inviolable dignity due to each and every
individual it is far to easy to excuse moral wrong done against an innocent person in the name of an
alleged superior race, state security, profit maximization or protecting the world against vampires
and demons.
[> [> [>
Re: Superhero Ethics -"License to Kill" -- Keyster, 16:35:00 04/20/02
Sat
The only real life example I could think of is operation paperclip and the way we took some Nazi
scientists into the US after the war. It was a very necessary thing for us to do, but we did have to
overlook their past.
If a Slayer killed a innocent or two (not for fun) it would be unreasonable to lock her up since by
locking her up you would prevent her from saving the world (lots).
ARTIST: Tom Lehrer
TITLE: Wernher Von Braun
Gather round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun
A man whose allegiance
Is ruled by expedience
Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown
"Ha, Nazi schmazi," says Wernher von Braun
Don't say that he's hypocritical
Say rather that he's apolitical
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun
Some have harsh words for this man of renown
But some think our attitude
Should be one of gratitude
Like the widows and cripples in old London town
Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun
You too may be a big hero
Once you've learned to count backwards to zero
"In German oder English I know how to count down
Und I'm learning Chinese," says Wernher von Braun
[> [> [> [>
Re: Superhero Ethics -"License to Kill" -- parakeet, 03:31:30 04/21/02
Sun
Necessary, because...? Genius, even scientific genius, can thrive without kissing the feet of
monsters, and to suppose that the only way to have gotten where you are (even assuming that that's
a good thing) was the way chosen is absurd.
It can be painfully easy to think that you need to sacrifice morality for the greater good. The
situation is complicated even further when one is faced with a situation where an
amoral/immoral/evil person has contributed something of true worth to society.
A man kills his neighbor after a heated argument about politics. The murderer is a doctor of
exceptional skill; he has saved many people from an untimely death and will, if allowed to continue
his profession, save many more. Should he be put away? If you accept the "greater good trumps
limited evil" argument, then he should be set free and allowed to continue his work. However,
society must have standards, one of which must be that it is not okay to kill people. Other doctors of
exceptional skill are out there to rise to the occasion.
So there's only one Slayer, but there are many champions (see Angel). Goodness isn't a finite
commodity, nor is evil, nor the gray in which most of us spend our lives. To suppose that we must
accept a monster (or accept that a champion may become one) is a slap in the face of humanity.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Superhero Ethics -"License to Kill" -- Keyster, 09:24:24 04/21/02
Sun
"A man kills his neighbor after a heated argument about politics. The murderer is a doctor of
exceptional skill; he has saved many people from an untimely death and will, if allowed to continue
his profession, save many more. Should he be put away? If you accept the "greater good trumps
limited evil" argument, then he should be set free and allowed to continue his work. "
Perhaps not "set free" but he should be allowed to continue his work. He could be monitored and his
movements restricted.
[>
The hardest part -- Sophist, 20:39:33 04/19/02 Fri
of responding was deciding whether I wanted Machiavelli or Spike as my moral tutor. Hmm.
Machiavelli or Spike? Spike or Machiavelli? Tempting as they both were, I decided, in honor of
Horatius, that there must be a tertium quid.
I did not intend my original post to suggest that good deeds could excuse bad ones. In general,
I believe in consequences for bad behavior (I'm especially fond of those for other people; I find it
surprisingly easy to forgive myself). What I meant was that we all make mistakes; that in assessing
someone's overall contribution, we need to weigh the good with the bad; and that suffering for bad
deeds cleans the slate.
Nor does every bad deed require punishment. Life is to short to punish every transgression.
Some we just forget and some we forgive. Oz, for example, decided to forgive Willow for her betrayal.
That ends the inquiry between them as far as I'm concerned.
As for poor Horatio, I prefer to see him in the words of Macaulay's poem:
But the Consul's brow was sad,
And the Consul's speech was low,
And darkly looked he at the wall,
And darkly at the foe.
'Their van will be upon us
Before the bridge goes down;
And if they once may win the bridge,
What hope to save the town?'
Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the Gate:
'To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his Gods...?
Hew down the bridge Sir Consul,
With all the speed ye may;
I with 2 to help me,
Will hold the foe in play.'
Kinda how I see Buffy.
[> [>
Crime and Punishment vs. Buffy -- Slain, 23:56:16 04/19/02 Fri
Dostoyvevsky's 'Crime and Punishment' is based around this exact same idea - that it is possible to
be deluded into thinking there are certain people to whom society's rules don't apply, people who can
kill and do as they wish because they're destined for greatness. Raskolnikoff, the murderer, uses this
idea to justify his killing of innocents, comparing himself to Napoleon.
In this way, he reminds me of both Faith and Spike. Like Raskolnikoff, Faith eventually repents and
makes amends. Spike, however, does not seem to me to have the capacity for this. As a vampire, he
really is outside of society's rules, with no guilt or conscience. However, while Raskolnikoff
and Faith felt the need to think of themselves as great, and either doing good or advancing society,
Spike doesn't feel this need. Spike has the assurance that he's better than almost all humans (Buffy
being the exception), without feeling any need to glorify himself.
To take it further, you could see Buffy as Sonia to Spike's Raskolnikoff; in the book, Sonia is a girl
who believes Raskolnikoff has good in him, and that no one is excempt from society's rules. The
difference being, I think, that Spike is outside of society. If you think of Angel as Sonia and Faith as
Raskolnikoff it makes more sense - Angel tries to redeem Faith, and is successful.
[>
Machiavelli, Livy, and Anya. -- Sophist, 16:45:28 04/20/02 Sat
When I read your original post, I assumed that Machiavelli's reference was to Horatius Cocles, who
stood at the bridge. My bad. Machiavelli was actually commenting on Publius Horatius (Livy 1.24-
1.27).
Publius Horatius saved Rome by winning a 3 v. 3 combat with soldiers from Alba. As he returned in
triumph from the combat, his sister met him at the gate of Rome. She had been betrothed to one of
Publius's opponents and broke down in tears when she realized her betrothed was dead. This so
enraged Publius Horatius that he killed her on the spot.
More interesting than my error, or the story itself, is that Machiavelli not only misrepresented the
story to make his moral point, but he contradicted himself in telling it.
The passage you quoted was from Discourses Ch. XXIV. However, in Ch. XXII Machiavelli
says of this same incident that Publius Horatius "was judicially tried for this crime, and after a long
discussion was acquitted, not so much on account of his own merit as on account of the prayers of
his father." In other words, the moral lesson Machiavelli drew in Ch. XXIV doesn't match his
own description of the outcome 2 chapters earlier.
Making this even more interesting is that Machiavelli managed to be wrong both times.
Summarizing Livy, Publius was tried and convicted. Tullus, the King, urged him to appeal
and he did so. Publius's father made 3 arguments on appeal: that Publius was right to kill his sister;
that he, as a father, would be bereft if Publius was executed; and that Publius had performed a great
deed for Rome and did not deserve so dishonorable a punishment. The appeal was granted,
which Livy attributes to the father's moving appeal and the young man's courage in the face of the
impending death sentence.
Undercutting Machiavelli's moral lesson -- and particularly his aristocratic disdain for the Roman
people -- was the fact that the Horatii did not escape punishment. They were ordered to
perform certain ceremonies to expiate the crime, which ceremonies became traditional in that family.
A stone tomb was built for the sister (very unusual in patriarchal Rome) and Publius was ordered to
humiliate himself at the site of the tomb.
The actual moral lessons from this story are much more subtle than that drawn by Machiavelli. For
one thing, there was a punishment. For another, the past services may have affected the nature of
the punishment. I think it fair to add that Livy does not mention that Publius became an habitual
wrong-doer as a result of escaping so lightly.
All of this may have some relevance to the thread about Anya, as well as to this one.
And I still like the image of Horatius at the bridge.
[> [>
Re: Machiavelli, Livy, and Macaulay. -- Malandanza, 18:40:19 04/20/02 Sat
"More interesting than my error, or the story itself, is that Machiavelli not only misrepresented
the story to make his moral point, but he contradicted himself in telling it.
"The passage you quoted was from Discourses Ch. XXIV. However, in Ch. XXII Machiavelli says of
this same incident that Publius Horatius "was judicially tried for this crime, and after a long
discussion was acquitted, not so much on account of his own merit as on account of the prayers of his
father." In other words, the moral lesson Machiavelli drew in Ch. XXIV doesn't match his own
description of the outcome 2 chapters earlier."
Actually, I don't see the conflict. When Machiavelli suggested that the people might appear to be
showing ingratitude, he meant ingratitude for putting Publius Horatius on trial. Furthermore, the
father's third point, "that Publius had performed a great deed for Rome and did not deserve so
dishonorable a punishment" is, in fact, just what Machiavelli was cautioning against. He wanted
people rewarded according to their merits, but punished for their crimes. He didn't want one to
offset the other. Publius Horatius escaped capital punishment because he had performed a great
deed for Rome.
As for Macaulay, he was a fan of Machiavelli's:
"After this [discussion of how Machiavelli has come to be seen], it may seem ridiculous to say that we
are acquainted with few writings which exhibit so much elevation of sentiment, so pure and warm a
zeal for the public good, or so just a view of the duties and rights of citizens, as those of Machiavelli.
Yet it is so."
So don't feel too bad about choosing Machiavelli as your moral guide -- you're in good company.
[> [> [>
I can't even be hard on Machiavelli?! -- Sophist, 20:19:54 04/20/02 Sat
In Ch. XXIV he says Publius was tried and acquitted due to his past services to the state. In Ch.
XXII he says that he was acquitted due to his father's plea and not so much on his own merit.
I read that as saying it was "not so much" his battle against the Albans as his father's grief.
I promise to give Niccolo a break if you do the same for Willow. Xander remains fair game. We'll both
defend Buffy.
[> [> [> [>
Re: I can't even be hard on Machiavelli?! -- Malandanza, 21:18:37 04/20/02 Sat
"I promise to give Niccolo a break if you do the same for Willow. Xander remains fair game. We'll
both defend Buffy."
Machiavelli is a bit like the Inquisition: everyone thinks they know all about him, but the truth is
somewhat different from the myths that have grown up around him. Probably the Machiavelli quote
that gets bandied about most often is "It is better to be feared than loved" -- out of context, of course.
From this one quote, they imagine Machiavelli suggesting to an aspiring prince unconscionable
cruelties for the sake of keeping the population docile.
"From this arises the question whether it is better to be feared than loved. The reply is, that one
ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to
be feared than loved, if one of the two has to be found wanting...Still, a prince should make himself
feared in such a way that if he does not gain love, he at any rate avoids hatred; for fear and the
absence of hatred may well go together, and will always be attained by one who abstains from
interfering with the property of his citizens and subjects or with their women. And when he is
obliged to take the life of any one, let him do so when there is proper justification and manifest
reason for it; but above all he must abstain from taking the property of others, for men forget more
easily the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony." The Prince XVII
Elsewhere, he says, "The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people, for although you may
have fortresses they will not save you if you are hated by the people." XX
In Book Three of The Discourses, XIX, Machiavelli also addresses the subject of fear and
love, from the standpoint of a republic and concludes that governing by love is better when the
people are your peers, and by fear when they are your subjects. In all cases, he strongly cautions
against incurring the hatred of the people.
In short, you should give poor Niccolo a break on his own merits, not because of some diabolical
agreement with me that I'm sure you'll regret (as is the case with all such diabolical agreements). As
for Willow, I'd love to be merciful, but it would only encourage her bad behavior, for, as Machiavelli
says, one must "take care not to misuse this mercifulness." (XVII, The Prince)
I'm impressed that you either have a copy of The Discourses or found one on-line -- I
searched for an e-text long ago and had given up, then found a copy in a used book store.
[> [> [> [> [>
My old college text has The Prince and the Discourses packaged together. Convenient,
huh? -- Sophist, 14:53:17 04/21/02 Sun
Classic Movie of the Week - April 19th 2002
- with Guest Host *** Rob *** (Yay!) -- OnM, 20:32:55 04/19/02 Fri
*******
CMotW BtVS Spring Hiatus Take Four:
Once and again, dear 24-frameophiles, please summon forth an ardent round of cyber-applause for
this
week’s Classic Movie of the Week Guest Host, the effusive, creative and talented
ATPo
regular Rob!
(Which I will graciously say even though he absconded with my idea to create a website
dedicated
to ‘The Philosophy of Fungus’ and thought he could get away with it by ever-so-slyly changing
the
name to ‘The Philosophy of Lint’. I don’t care if it is the best damn site about Lint Philosophy
that
I’ve ever seen, there is such a thing as intellectual property and... and... oh, never
mind.)
This is a great film. Enjoy!
~~~~~~~
I am a writer. As such, I love to write stories that truly speak to people. For the time that someone
is
reading one of my stories, I want him or her to be fully captivated, and to truly care about the
imaginary
people and places that populate them. A great luxury of being a writer, also, is that I’m allowed
an
exorbitant amount of rewrites. If I didn’t use the right word or sentence structure here, with the click
of a
few simple buttons, I can make the offending passage disappear, and replace it with a new one.
Again and
again and again. A great luxury of being a reader is the ability to put down and pick up the story
whenever
one likes. The reader can re-read a passage that didn’t seem clear the first time around, and
sometimes
even read with the TV or radio squawking on in the background.
This is a very different situation from how storytelling first developed: orally. At first glance, the
ancient
art of oral storytelling would seem to be antithetical to film, a visual medium, by nature. As a
moviegoing
audience, we no longer have time to sit around the campfire, and be captivated by a single man or
woman,
weaving a tale and creating great, unfathomable worlds through nothing but words. Rarely in a film
does
the camera just stop and allow a character to tell a story, at least not without displaying it as a
flashback,
by having actors reenact the details of the narrator’s words. The rarity of these moments is what
makes
director Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King so special to me. This film contains a scene
where
Robin Williams, lying naked on his back in Central Park, looks up into the stars and tells an
Arthurian
legend to Jeff Bridges. Throughout the entire story, almost no cuts are made. For the most part, it is
one
prolonged shot, with no fancy camerawork or dream sequences. And yet, despite that, as an
audience
member, I, for one, became so captivated by the story that I did not realize, until the end of the
narrative,
just how long it had been since there had been any movement on screen, besides the moving of
Robin
William’s lips and the rise and fall of his chest.
In truth, the lesson learned by the end of The Fisher King is not much different than that of
The
Wizard of Oz or Dumbo. The four flawed characters who make up this story, all on a
search
for redemption, discover that their salvation lies within themselves, in their own backyards. The
‘Holy
Grail’ that Williams’ character, Parry, searches for and Bridges’ character, Jack, eventually finds,
turns out
to be nothing more than a trophy award a rich man won as a boy. Still, it has the power to heal,
simply
because the characters believe in it so strongly. The ‘Holy Grail’ thus becomes a visual symbol for
an
internal process for which it was not truly needed, yet it was the quest for the Grail that
genuinely
and profoundly changes all of the characters. Had it not been for this search, would they have ever
found
themselves? The movie seems to imply that the answer is no. Real or not, the Grail does
awaken
Parry out of a literal coma, and real or not, it awakens Jack out of the emotional coma he has been in
for
almost his entire life.
I don’t want to leave the impression that I am making this film sound too didactic, for it is nothing of
the
sort. While it does share a moral familiar to many modern and ancient myths, the answers at the
end are
reached with much greater difficulty, and a much higher risk than with those other stories. Further,
this
movie actually goes so far as to imply that sometimes one must succumb to madness to truly find
oneself.
In today’s modern society, there is no room for magic. Science and technology can explain away
the
unexplainable, and computers can do just about anything, short of getting you dressed in the
morning. It is
much easier to classify someone as crazy, because that is, in its own strange way, ‘scientific’, than
to
accept them for what they really are, particularly if he or she claims to have supernatural powers, or
to be
on a ‘holy quest’.
Considering this, it’s now an easy leap into parallels to this theme present in Buffy.
As Buffy said recently, in the brilliant episode, Normal Again:
What’s more real? A sick girl in an institution, or some type of supergirl, chosen to fight demons
and
save the world? That's ridiculous.
Similarly, what makes more sense in The Fisher King? That Parry is a professor of
medieval
literature who lost his mind after his wife was shot to death in front of him, and became a homeless
man, or
that he is a knight of Arthur’s round table, on a search for the Holy Grail? When faced with the
choice,
Buffy finally chooses her mythic, fantastical and dangerous life, over the (by comparison) safe and
warm
environment of the asylum. Whether she was actually choosing insanity is an issue that can be
argued
either way. The importance, however, is not whether Sunnydale truly is an hallucination or not-- a
question
that it doesn’t seem will ever be answered-- but that Sunnydale is real to Buffy. The doctor in
the
asylum tried to convince Buffy that her friends were her true enemies, and were keeping her locked
in her
delusion. Parry’s so-called insanity also has a roadblock that stays him from ‘getting well’: an evil,
red
knight riding a red horse, who appears to vanquish him every time he comes close to discovering the
truth
about his delusions.
But are they really delusions?
As I said before, the Holy Grail, when it is finally captured, truly does save both Parry and Jack.
Therefore,
I ask, as with Buffy, does it really matter? Further, in order to reclaim the Holy Grail, Jack
himself
must become crazy. He dresses in the homeless rags/homemade ‘knightly’ armor that Parry had
made for
himself. It is a strange and hilarious little get up, and-- like magic-- when Jack wears it, he becomes
The
Fisher King, and begins to take on Parry’s attributes.
Jack had had a horrible life. He was a radio shock jock, a la Howard Stern, who lost his job when his
rants
inspired a man to enter a restaurant and gun down the customers. One of them was Parry’s wife.
Therefore, throughout the film, Jack feels simultaneously drawn to and repelled by Parry. Once he
puts on
Parry’s garb, however, he is finally able to complete Parry’s quest for him. He becomes the good man
he’s
always had the potential to be, and saves Parry’s life in the process. By letting himself become a
little mad,
for a short while, he finds his own redemption.
Another character’s life that is forever changed by Parry is Lydia, a shy, reserved woman who
becomes the
object of his affection. No one has ever paid Lydia any real attention, and so she has spent her life up
to
this point as someone always sad and alone, never willing to ‘rock the boat’, or even stand up for
herself.
Much in the manner of Marcie Ross, the ‘Invisible Girl’ from Buffy, few people acknowledge
her
existence, even pushing her aside as they enter a revolving door. Lydia, in Parry’s fantasy, is cast as
his
paramour, his damsel in distress. For the first time in her life, someone is showing a genuine
interest in her,
and initially it scares her to death. She pushes Parry away, assuming he intends to make some sort
of
elaborate joke at her expense. Finally, however, she does let her guard down, and gives him a kiss. It
is the
happiest moment of her life. After she leaves him for the night, however, this kiss sends Parry into
the
worst psychotic episode he has had yet. Feeling as if he is betraying his late wife, he is beset upon by
the
red knight, as two young thugs (in the real world) beat him into a coma. During the months
that her
newfound love spends dead to the world, she visits him everyday and brings him food. Nursing her
poor,
wounded knight cures her of her shyness. The wallflower from the beginning of the story becomes
a
strong, self-assured woman.
The Fisher King’s idea that, at times, a brief descent into madness may be the best cure for
a
wrecked life may seem somewhat controversial, but to fully appreciate this film, one must accept
madness
as symbolic, as Buffy’s is in Normal Again. Parry’s insanity takes the form of fairy tale and
myth,
something that people are encouraged to leave behind and forget as they grow into adulthood,
when
science and reason replace fantasy. (Another good literary example would be from the story
Charlotte’s
Web, where Fern loses the ability to understand what the animals are saying to each other when
she
gets older and starts being attracted to boys)
Parry is not afraid, however, to fully believe in the sort of magical ideas that adult society frowns
upon.
Early in the film, Jack drunkenly derides a Pinocchio toy. Magic does not exist, he seems to
be
saying, and you’ll never become a real boy. But that is exactly what eventually happens to
Jack,
when he himself becomes as whimsical and childlike as Parry.
In the end, a balance is reached between childhood fantasy and adulthood. Parry and Jack are both
able to
retain a view of the world that is, for most respects, childlike, and yet remain adults. In fact, a belief
that
fantasy is possible in the real world is, ironically, what ends up keeping Parry sane. Whether the
Holy Grail
is the Holy Grail or a Prize Cup doesn’t matter if it accomplishes the same goal. Can a Prize Cup
awaken
someone from a coma, after all?
So, what are we to learn from this?
We learn that Don Quixote does not have to succumb to his madness. That fantasy does not have
to kill
the adult mind. That perhaps we would all be better off if we could return to a time when hearing a
bedtime
story was the most exciting thing in the world.
Among the film’s many magical moments, one stands out for me. As Parry stands in the middle of
Grand
Central Station, watching Lydia, all of a sudden, classical music starts up. All of the masses of
people
crowding the area stop what they are doing, grab their nearest partner, regardless of age, sex, or
race, and
begin to dance with them, elegantly and sublimely. The only non-participants are Lydia,
completely
oblivious, who walks through the crowd of people, ignoring everything around her, and Parry,
who
watches her. A moment later, Parry’s fantasy is over. Everyone walks through Grand Central
Station, as
usual. But for that one brief moment, the world seemed like a perfect place, in the eyes of Parry.
The ‘simplest’ person is always the one who can tell ‘the truth’, because of his unclouded view of
the
world. Unclouded by hatred, bias, or any other things that could blindside a person. Parry, although
a fool,
sees people for what they really are-- his heightened fantasies of the world reveal simple
truths.
In the Fisher King legend, a king spends his whole life searching for the Grail. At one point,
he sees
a vision of it in fire, reaches his hand in, and is badly burned. He spends the rest of his life bitter
and
disappointed, constantly searching for the Grail, and constantly being disappointed. At the end of the
story,
he is an old, sick man. A fool wanders into the castle, and the king asks for a glass of water. The fool
picks
a glass up sitting beside the king, and fills it with water. The king drinks and is healed-- it is the
Holy
Grail.
And the King asks, How can this be? How could you so easily find what all my knights and wisest
men
could not?
And the fool answers, I don’t know. I only knew that you were thirsty.
Who is the Fisher King of The Fisher King? At the start, Jack is the wounded king, saved
by
Parry’s fool. During the last third of the film, Parry is literally wounded, and Jack becomes the fool.
Lydia
is also a wounded king of sorts, saved by Parry’s fool. Anne, Jack’s girlfriend, is wounded,
figuratively as
well. So, we’re all the wounded king and the fool, rolled into one. Not such a bad moral, when you
think
about it.
E. Pluribus Guestibus, (and part-time Grail-seeker),
Rob
*******
Foolish technical fishing:
The Fisher King is available on DVD. The film was released in 1991, and has a running time
of 2
hours and 17 minutes. Screenwriting credit goes to Richard LaGravenese. Cinematography was by
Roger
Pratt, with film editing by Lesley Walker. Production design was by Mel Bourne, with art direction
by P.
Michael Johnston and set decoration by Cindy Carr. Costume design was by Beatrix Aruna
Pasztor.
Original music was by George Fenton. The soundtrack mix was standard Dolby surround for the
original
theatrical release.
Cast overview:
Jeff Bridges .... Jack Lucas
Robin Williams .... Parry
Adam Bryant .... Radio Engineer
Mercedes Ruehl .... Anne Napolitano
Paul J. Lombardi .... Radio Engineer
David Hyde Pierce .... Lou Rosen (as David Pierce)
Amanda Plummer .... Lydia Sinclair
Ted Ross .... Limo Bum
Lara Harris .... Sondra
Warren Olney .... TV Anchorman
Frazer Smith .... News Reporter
Kathy Najimy .... Crazed Video Customer
Harry Shearer .... Sitcom Actor Ben Starr
Melinda Culea .... Sitcom Wife
James Remini .... Bum at Hotel
Mark Bowden .... Doorman
John Ottavino .... Father at Hotel
Brian Michaels .... Little Boy
Jayce Bartok .... First Punk
Dan Futterman .... Second Punk
Chris Howell .... Red Knight
Michael Jeter .... Homeless Cabaret Singer
Richard LaGravenese .... Strait Jacket Yuppie
Lisa Blades .... Parry's Wife
Christian Clemenson .... Edwin
Carlos Carrasco .... Doctor
John de Lancie .... TV Executive
Tom Waits .... Disabled Veteran
*******
Miscellaneous:
I was going to put something clever here regarding the ‘Zimmerman Blues’, but it didn’t work, so I’m
not.
Sorry!
*******
The Question of the Week:
Early on in his review, Rob mentions the relative ease with which a modern writer can recompose
his or
her thoughts with the aid of modern technology, such as the ubiquitous word-processor. Not every
writer
uses these tools, however, and some even openly avoid them.
Speaking strictly for myself, if I didn’t have a word processor, I wouldn’t write. Indeed, if I had to use
a
pen or pencil, I wouldn’t make it past a few paragraphs, because my hand literally cramps up,
followed
very quickly by my brain. Maybe-- if I truly felt I had to-- I could make do with a typewriter, but
since the
physical process of placing thoughts into a tangible (and sharable) form is something I see as
an
impediment, I always seek to minimize that restriction.
Zo, das Q:
Would you still write if you didn’t have a word processor/ A typewriter/ A pen or pencil and
paper?
Where do you personally draw the line as to when the physical effort required to write overcomes
the
intellectual/emotional need to communicate with others?
*******
Next week’s guest host in this or any alternate universe - Dichotomy! (and as always,
Yay!)
Meanwhile, send your virtual pats-on-the-back to Rob by postin’ if you got it in ya, and take
care!
-- OnM
*******
[>
Re: Classic Movie of the Week - April 19th 2002 - with Guest Host *** Rob *** (Yay!) --
Eric, 22:10:03 04/19/02 Fri
Ahh, The Fisher King, also known to me as the Last Time I Enjoyed Watching Robin Williams In a
Film (until Death to Smoochy, but I digress). This movie rocked. Terry Gilliam is one of the most
under rated directors. He did Brazil (over rated, I think), The Adventures of Baron von Muncheuson
(under rated), Five Monkeys (not the best, but very good) and the whimsical Time Bandits. All his
flicks are dream themed (I hope he gets selected to do Neil Gaiman's Sandman). Brazil was the
dream of the insane (I think), Muncheuson was the dream of an old man, Monkeys was the dream of
apocalypse and Bandits the dream of a young boy. The Fisher King was the dream of
redemption/healing. William's character Parry NEEDS the healing in the worst way. Rob is too
polite to mention that Parry was quite happily married and his wife's death was quite graphic.
Williams plays his character perfectly as a medieval scholar turned questing knight (who goes on
bended knee to thank God for the opportunity to aid the distressed) and pathetic wretch fleeing from
a perilous apparition, the red knight. There is none of that maudlin jokeyness crap in William's
performance at all. Jeff Bridges' character Jack NEEDS redemption as a shock jock scumbag. His
character is the typical 80's materialist. The fact that he does radio instead of Wall Street is only a
minor detail. I should add that Mercedes Ruel plays his neglected girlfriend Anne perfectly. I'll
close by ditto-ing Rob's comment that Gilliam's transitions between reality and fantasy are among
the most flawless and mesmorizing I've ever seen.
[> [>
Yay, another "Death to Smoochy" fan!!! :o) -- Rob, 22:24:36 04/19/02 Fri
[> [> [>
Re: Yay, another "Death to Smoochy" fan!!! :o) -- ponygirl, 08:51:44 04/20/02
Sat
I looooved Death to Smoochy! Though unfortunately I went to a matinee with a lot of people who
obviously hadn't read the reviews or checked the ratings and brought their very young children. No
one walked out but needless to say my friend and I were the only ones laughing.
Great review, Rob! I remember reading an interview years ago with Richard LaGravenese about
what a great experience he had making the Fisher King, how he was encouraged to go the set every
day and give input, incredibly rare for a Hollywood screenwriter. In fact the scene that's your fave
and mine, the Grand Central Station dance was actually just an offhand remark he made about how
it would be nice if everyone was dancing, Terry Gilliam then took the idea and ran with it. The
creative process is a weird and wacky thing.
[> [> [> [>
I LOVE Death to Smootchie, but my friends say I overanalyzed... -- AngelVSAngelus,
14:00:34 04/20/02 Sat
They see an oddly dark comedy, I see an awesome allegory involving the Idealist, the Cynic, the
Corporate World, Good and Evil. When I told them I found Smootchie's decision to not let the actions
of others change who he is and alter his idealism profound and inspiring, they gave me a REALLY
odd look...
[> [> [> [> [>
You can never overanalyze! -- Rob, 15:33:00 04/20/02 Sat
"Death to Smoochy" was smashed by the critics, and was pretty much ignored by most of the
moviegoing public, which, I, for one, think is a crying shame. Not only is it Robin Williams' best film
in years (arguably his best since "The Fisher King"), but it is a great dark satire, with brilliant, killer
direction, and an all-around great cast.
And I'm right with you on the whole allegory thing...Yes, it was a light movie, but there were some
serious undertones to it. Although it presented its ideas in a cartoonish (and very dark at times) way,
it was definitely the mix of satire and allegory that I think makes it so great.
Heil Smoochy! (insert evil wink here)
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I wish there were some way I could reach Danny Devito... -- AngelVSAngelus, 15:46:28
04/20/02 Sat
And commend