December 2003 posts
How
much repenting did Angel actually do before Buffy? -- shambleau,
16:10:04 12/08/03 Mon
Whistler in Becoming said that Angel had spent a hundred years
brooding and repenting, but is that true? He killed people to
get in Darla's good graces in 1900. In the twenties, he didn't
seem to feel all that bad until he tried to eat that dead person
in the diner. He was contemptuous of humans in AYNOHYEB, but was
hardly penitent. He left them to die, after all. He hung out in
Vegas, and knew the Rat Pack, went to Charlton Heston movies and
so on. I don't know how he ended up in the alley, but clearly
he didn't always feel all that bad.
Replies:
[> Re: How much repenting did Angel actually do before Buffy?
-- Dlgood, 16:27:26 12/08/03 Mon
Is this a question, or just a veiled slam on the character?
Why do you think he wanted to be in Darla's good graces in 1900?
Why do you think he distrusted the humans in AYNOHYEB?
Why do you think he wound up in that alley?
[> [> Re: How much repenting did Angel actually do before
Buffy? -- shambleau, 21:33:23 12/08/03 Mon
Umm, thought it was a question, actually. What we learn of Angel
from Whistler doesn't fit with what we see later. But, if it's
a veiled slam to think that things can be a little more complicated
and that Angel might not have spent all his waking hours for a
hundred years actually repenting, then guilty.
Whistler at one point asks Angel why he's eating rats and says
something like "You can get blood in butcher shops and if
you hadn't been skulking around in the shadows, you'd know that."
But, in AYNOHYEB, Angel has blood, presumably human, that he's
gotten from a blood bank, on his dresser. So, how much does Whistler
actually know of Angel's history and how much is he inferring
from seeing his degraded state in the alley? And if he's inferring,
why should we accept that Angel has been repentant for the whole
time since he was given back his soul? It's a legitimate question.
Of course, it also depends on what you mean by repentance. To
me, feeling shitty about yourself doesn't qualify.
As for your first question, I think Angel wished to stop feeling
the pain from his pangs of conscience, granted. He wanted not
to be alone. He wanted things to be simple again, as they'd been
when he was a vampire. He wanted to be needed by Darla. In order
to do that, he was willing to kill, according to Darla, "rapists,
murderers and thieves". So, by Angel's lights, a Chinese
pickpocket might deserve the death penalty so that Angel wouldn't
have to feel bad about himself. Is this repentance?
In AYNOHYEB, Angel wants nothing to do with humans from the beginning.
Partly, of course, he distrusts himself. He'd rather stay away
from them so as not to be tempted to bite them. But he's also
uninterested in their fates way before the hotel residents give
him any reason to distrust them by the attempted lynching. He
was indifferent to the suicide next door, which was one of several
recent deaths in the hotel, he ignored the girl's pleadings for
help until the detective forced his hand. So again, what kind
of repentance for hurting people is it if you're indifferent to
the fates of people you can help? When he tells the demon he can
have everybody in the hotel, he's aware that the demon isn't residing
there for the hell of it. Which means he's aware that their betrayal
of him might not have anything to do with them, that it's probably
a result of the demon preying on their minds. Yet he leaves them
to their fate.
Again, I understand that he's angry and feeling betrayed, but
he never goes back, he never softens on reflection. And apparently,
he wasn't too weighed down by his actions then to stop him from
hanging around Vegas in the sixties and participating in other
various activities.
As for his how he got into the state he was in in the alley, I
don't think that story's been told yet. I think some event precipitated
it we don't know about. I'm also willing to entertain the proposition
that the more he thought about what he'd done, including with
Dsrla and at the Hyperion, the more monstrous he thought he was
and that he finally tipped over into complete despair. So I'm
not saying he wasn't in pain, from time to time. It's just that
the pain was about HIM. Despair can be a kind of selfishness that
actually keeps you from doing anything to change your situation
and I think Angel was selfish - until he took the step to help
Buffy, he was self-enclosed and that's not true repentance, which,
for me, involves attempts to atone.
And since. until he loved Buffy, humans weren't real to him, just
a source of temptation which would make him feel even worse about
himself if he succumbed, I think he looked for distractions. Like
Barry Manilow, (shudder) or Charleton Heston movies (bigger shudder)
or hanging out with Frank and Dino. And if you'd seen him then,
I doubt if you'd have thought that here was a person who was suffering
all the time.
I don't think it's a slam on Angel to see the first hundred years
as a pre-condition for repentance, but not actual repentance.
[> [> [> Hitting bottom -- Ames, 23:10:30 12/08/03
Mon
The first 100 years (actually wasn't it 90 years?) were how long
it took for Angel to hit rock bottom. That's when he ended up
in the alley eating rats. Only then did TPTB send Whistler to
find out if he was ready to start making amends. And they were
smart enough not to send him forth on his own - instead they sent
him to Buffy to provide motivation and moral guidance until he
was firmly on the right path. But did TPTB really not see the
dangers of the curse, or was Whistler not telling the whole truth
in Becoming?
[> [> [> [> Re: Hitting bottom -- Rufus, 05:41:03
12/09/03 Tue
or was Whistler not telling the whole truth in Becoming?
How's this.....Whistler was exaggerating for effect...;)
[> [> [> We saw what made him retreat to the alley
-- Lunasea, 08:51:30 12/09/03 Tue
"Orpheus" was quite clear about what event precipitated
that. 1970's donut shop, feeding off a human being again, maybe
even letting him die so he could. Angelus says, "Twenty years
after that stupid donut shop, and his fingers never smelled of
anything but rat! "I'm so sorry. I give up. I'm gonna live
in a sewer!"
Angel is drinking human blood in AYNOHYEB. We learn both in "City
of" and "The Shroud of Rahmon" that human blood
leaves Angel with a craving. Angel needs non-human blood to help
deal with his addiction. He can get that from rats, blech, which
he doesn't like, or he can move up to pig's blood (especially
with a bit of otter in it for flavoring). It isn't human blood,
which is what he really wants (got to love the scene in "Disharmony"
where Harmony talks about the pleasure of drinking), but it is
better than rat. Eating rat is a form of penance. He isn't even
eating dog.
I would qualify living as the sewers as self-inflicted punishment
especially since Angelus characterizes it as ""I'm so
sorry. I give up. I'm gonna live in a sewer!" There is that
sorry word. It means more than he feels "shitty about yourself."
He is sorry for what he has done. If Angel just wanted to remove
himself from people, he could go live in the wilderness. He could
feed off of animals and never have to see humans. He doesn't.
He lives in the alleys of NYC doing penance, though he doesn't
believe he can earn forgiveness. Penance is typically done with
the idea that do enough and you will be forgiven. Even without
this motivation, he is in the alleys eating rats because he is
so sorry.
As Angel admits, being resouled almost killed him. It took him
a long time to deal with it. The repentance is mixed with dealing
with it on a personal level. I wouldn't say just because he is
trying to figure out how to deal with it, he isn't sorry for what
he did.
"He never goes back"? Sure he does. It takes a while,
but his return to the Hyperion is not caused by a vision. It is
caused by his own desire to fix things. There is no client. It
is something Angel has brought to them. Angel's story takes time
and to judge him on past actions is to ignore the penance he has
been doing.
As for why he didn't help others. That is given in "Consequences."
Angel: (smiles) You and me, Faith, (straightens up) we're a lot
alike. Time was, I thought humans existed just to hurt each other.
(sits next to her) But then I came here. And I found out that
there are other types of people. People who genuinely wanted to
do right. (looks at her) And they make mistakes. And they fall
down. You know, but they keep caring. Keep trying. If you can
trust us, Faith, this can all change. You don't have to disappear
into the darkness.
You can start repenting before you set about helping others. 10
Hail Mary's before you go work at the soup kitchen.
[> [> [> [> Forgot one thing -- Lunasea, 09:06:22
12/09/03 Tue
From "Orpheus" we Angel's motivation for retreating
to the alley:
"Faith, listen to me. You saw me drink. It doesn't get much
lower than that. And I thought I could make up for it by disappearing."
I would say that trying to make up for something that you feel
badly about = repentance. From the 1970s until Whistler found
Angel in 1996, Angel was repenting. Prior to that he was primarily
trying to get a handle on an experience that nearly killed him.
[> [> [> [> Re: We saw what made him retreat to
the alley -- shambleau, 16:51:11 12/10/03 Wed
Forgot about Orpheus, as I seldom rewatch ATS eps after S2. Still,
I was right that what put him in the alley was a more recent event,
which makes me happy, and makes the continuity flow better.
Though why the Hyperion events didn't put him in the alley while
the guy in the diner did still fits with my view of him, as does
your quote from Consequences. (His coming back to the hotel some
forty-eight years after the events took place hardly qualifies
as wanting to "fix things". What remained to fix? Most
of the people there had been finished off by the demon. He didn't
know the girl was still living there, after all. The hotel appeared
to be empty.) He feels bad about HIMSELF. He's a "monster".
He doesn't feel bad about the people he'd harmed as people. He
feels bad because of what it said about him. The events in the
Hyperion are an example of people "existing just to hurt
each other" (and again, him). Part of the point of the curse
is to keep him thinking like that, so that he'l just beat up on
himself forever, causing himself infinite hurt. If he thinks beyond
himself, if he starts looking at people and feeling compassion
for them, starts wanting to help them, he's on his way to redemption.
[> The Rat Pack -- Sara, 20:11:57 12/08/03 Mon
it seemed to me that the Rat Pack reference was one of those things
that's thrown in to be cute/funny but doesn't really work in the
continuity. I felt they established pretty strongly that he was
miserable, and unable to cope with his feelings of guilt which
don't really go along with the whole hanging out with Sinatra
and his pals picture they painted.
[> [> Re: The Rat Pack -- calrodin, 21:28:19 12/08/03
Mon
I suspect for the rat pack reference, Angel was just hanging around
Vegas at the time, probably just some drunk in the corner, occasionally
in the same place at the same time as them. Name dropping them
was just Angel goofing around a bit. As for the alleyway, remember
Orpehus, it was guilt about eating the guy in the diner. And as
for the 1920's, well we know he saved a puppy at least. Maybe
he was atoning for that one he nailed up! Actually about repentance,
I think Angel was paralysed with despair during most of the 20th
century to consider it.
[> [> [> 'Drunk and Surly' -- Ray, 03:03:40
12/10/03 Wed
That's how he described himself. Angel was probably just hanging
around getting invited places.
Writing backwards, watching forwards -- Lunasea,
10:01:39 12/09/03 Tue
The seasons tend to be written designed to get somewhere. Season
6, they wanted to take Willow dark and the season was written
with that in mind. What would it take to make Willow go dark?
Tara was going to die and Willow was going to have a problem with
magick. It was what the season was gearing towards. Season 7,
the Scoobies had to turn on Buffy. The season is written to lead
up to that. It had to be "earned." What would it take
to get the Scoobies to mutiny?
We don't watch the shows knowing the end. We watch a series of
event unfold. We make predictions about those events. We see those
events cause other events and the show doesn't always agree with
us. Does A cause B? That is often a topic of contention on the
boards. The focus is on the logical progression from A to B. Is
there another option from A? That isn't what the writers are thinking
about though. They are thinking about getting to B. Can A lead
to B?
I've written from both directions. A leads to B leads to C and
on and on. It is like writing out a Role Playing Game. It can
be interesting, but my best stories come from the way ME writes.
What would it take to make Angel go dark? What would it take to
make someone turn on a person they love? What does it mean to
be cookie dough? How can Buffy learn something? It really allows
me to explore something. The important thing the writers focus
on is how they want the characters to change. It is easier to
do this backwards, work from that desired change, rather than
just let the situation mold the character. Instead they mold the
situation so they can shape the character.
We watch the show from a similar perspective. We don't know where
the show is heading, but we have ideas where we want to see it
head. At the beginning of the season, we can see it still heading
there and how it could get there. As the season(s) unfold, it
takes us where they want to go and when that diverges from where
we want to, we criticize the show. Those who really watch the
show unfold without placing their own ideas on it are the ones
that have the least criticism of it and enjoy it the most. They
are watching the story itself, not trying to make it go anywhere.
That is how it is meant to be seen.
As long as A CAN lead to B, the story makes sense. People in real
life act "out of character" all the time. Why can't
characters? As long as A can lead to B, it doesn't have to lead
to our desired X. If we hold onto X, then by the time they get
to M and N, we'll be disconnected from the story.
Just wanted to say that.
Replies:
[> Re: Writing backwards, watching forwards -- Rob (raising
hand), 13:02:11 12/09/03 Tue
Those who really watch the show unfold without placing their
own ideas on it are the ones that have the least criticism of
it and enjoy it the most. They are watching the story itself,
not trying to make it go anywhere. That is how it is meant to
be seen.
That's me, right over here! :o)
People in real life act "out of character" all the
time. Why can't characters?
Amen to that!
Rob
[> [> Raising my hand with you, Rob.. -- jane, 21:13:08
12/09/03 Tue
I much prefer to follow the story without trying to figure out
where it will end up. Although I have been known to check out
the last page of a book to see if it has an ending I approve of.
My bad.
[> Re: Writing backwards, watching forwards -- Tymen, 13:13:41 12/09/03
Tue
I'm onboard with that. Let the story take me where it will,
I'll follow it there and enjoy the journey all the way through
to to the end.
Tymen
[> On the otherhand -- Cactus Watcher, 16:38:51 12/09/03
Tue
Why bother watching or reading a story that doesn't make your
mind race ahead?
Part of the understanding of fine story telling is the knowledge
that the story won't always go where you expect it to. To that
point I agree with you.
But, to be effective the story has to have A-can-lead-to-B points
like you've said. The question is how far are you willing to let
the story teller drift from internal logic of the story, as you
understand it. Even a four-year-old will interrupt a good bedtime
story if the flow of the story doesn't make sense to them. If
some people aren't happy with some aspect of the story or characterization,
let them be. What is going to work for most people isn't necessarily
going to work for others.
TV is far from a perfect medium. Unlike novelists, TV writers
never know exactly how much story there is going to be. The writers
don't always know when something that seems fine to them (like
Tara's death) will blow up in their faces and may force them to
go another direction. The opposite is true as well. To begin with
Joss had no conception of the character we now know as Angel in
his original ideas for BtVS. Viewers have to be a little indulgent
when it comes to twists in the story. But, on the other hand,
do we really want all TV to be like soap opera where the ratings
dictate the length of every relationship, and the characters often
have no memory of the problems that seemed like life and death
to them a few months before? If nobody ever looked at TV with
a more critical eye, if everyone just let the story wash over
them, that's exactly what we'd get.
[> And thus the dangers of referring to characters as first
initials -- Valheru, 19:50:58 12/09/03 Tue
...or perhaps just the comprehension mistakes of skimming before
reading. So I'm browsing your post thinking, "So Angel leads
to Buffy? Of course! And then Angel leads to Buffy leads to Cordelia.
Is there another option for Angel?" Then I got to the last
paragraph and wondered what the hell kind of slash you're writing,
with Angel not having to lead to the desired Xander, or else by
the time he gets to Merle and Numfar, we'll be disconnected from
the story.
There could be a chance I read it all wrong. ;P
Seriously though, good assesment. I think ME has gotten progressively
scattershot with this method over recent years. In the olden days,
Joss would always have a general plan (subject to change) in mind
before each season, but usually didn't reveal it unless in necessary
excerpts until the very end. He led the writers along almost as
much as the audience; the staff would focus on A to B, with C
on the horizon, a plan to get to D, a vague direction for E, and
a rumor that F existed, all while Joss dished out new letters
when needed and kept Z locked in his head. They first made sure
to tell the story they were telling now, before trying to tell
the stories that they might tell later.
Later seasons sort of fell apart in this regard. Too much was
tied up into getting to Z that some of the steps in between were
skipped or lost. And while you don't always have to explicitly
show B, C, or D, you can lose your audience if you don't at least
imply that they happened on the way from A to E.
It gets even worse if, as you said, the audience has their own
letters in mind. If a writer has a different B, G, T, and W than
the audience, skips the audience-anticipated J and Q, and ends
at X instead of Z, then the whole thing can fall apart. IOW, if
you start losing control of your story, your readers will gladly
take over, then they might not be too happy if you try to take
it back.
It's a tricky thing, the balance between what it planned by the
creator and what is expected by the viewers. If everyone's in
sync, if all the letters line up, and if the road from A to Z
is technically pleasing to all parties, then you have a success.
If not, then expect trouble with a capital T...ro-Clan.
My analysis of 'Destiny' is up -- Masquerade,
13:59:45 12/09/03 Tue
Here.
Keels over with exhaustion
Replies:
[> Ooo! Quotage! Cool... -- Pony, doing a happy dance,
20:40:00 12/09/03 Tue
[> Great work! You must be exhausted, it was such a dense
episode. -- Plin, 07:18:07 12/10/03 Wed
[> [> Well, I'll say this.... -- Masq, 08:27:35
12/10/03 Wed
Anyone who thinks they're cutting back on the show's history to
make things easier for the newbies is crazy!
[> [> [> Re: Well, I'll say this.... -- LittleBit,
13:35:10 12/10/03 Wed
Joss never makes things easy for the regular, committed (or soon-to-be-committed)
viewers. Whyever would he do that for newbies? ;-)
And I personally think Joss is constitutionally incapable of not
embedding a story arc and series arc in his work, no matter how
many times the season is described as "stand-alone."
[> [> [> [> Re: Well, I'll say this.... --
Masq, 14:37:57 12/10/03 Wed
And I personally think Joss is constitutionally incapable of
not embedding a story arc and series arc in his work, no matter
how many times the season is described as "stand-alone."
Yes, but... how will the WB feel about it?
[> Mountain Didn't -- skeeve, 08:59:11 12/10/03 Wed
I noticed that you didn't mention the contents of the Cup.
Presumably that was deliberate.
[> [> Re: Mountain Didn't -- Masq, 10:20:27 12/10/03
Wed
Well if I were going to, I would just say "It was filled
with a soft drink". But there was already enough evidence
with the lack of torment to show it was a fake.
[> [> [> It might have been corn sqeezings --
skeeve, 08:48:34 12/11/03 Thu
[> Just one thing... -- Rob, 11:17:56 12/10/03 Wed
As usual, I loved reading the analysis. But I have one little
issue...
The cup, the new prophecy, and the whole universe-out-of-whack
problem have been a ruse,
From how I read the episode, I thought that the only thing that
wasn't a ruse was the universe being out of whack. I think that
Eve and Lindsey sent Spike the recorporalizer to deliberately
throw the universe out of whack for a short while. The result
was to get Spike and Angel to fight over the cup and the prophecy,
which were fakes. At the end, she says to Lindsey, "You know,
funny thing about throwing the universe out of whack... not as
fun as it sounds. On the plus side, they totally fell for the
cup of torment thing. Just like you thought they would."
I took that to imply that they did indeed throw the universe out
of whack. Otherwise she would have said "They fell for everything."
What she says is that throwing the universe out of whack wasn't
fun, but at least Team Angel fell for the ruse about the cup.
Rob
[> [> It's just the way it's written, I think --
Masq, 11:54:47 12/10/03 Wed
What I meant to imply is that, yes, there's out-of-whackness going
on for sure, but that the reason for it ISN'T the two-vwas situation,
but a spell by Eve and Lindsey. The reason for it is a ruse, not
the out-of-whackness itself.
[> [> [> Addendum -- Masq, 11:58:38 12/10/03
Wed
I mean, if Angel and co had stopped to think about it for two
seconds, they would have realized that the universe already "knows"
who the real VwaS of prophecy is (if indeed there is one at all).
It's the VwaS who has already been fulfilling the events of the
prophecy and who will continue to do so. One vampire is fulfilling
them, the other is doing things that seem to fit the prophecy
but aren't the actual events prophesized. The only place the VwaS
is up for grabs is in human minds and ignorance.
[> [> [> [> Okie...I get it. Thanks for the clarification!
:) -- Rob, 12:41:02 12/10/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> In addition... -- Doug, 15:27:37
12/10/03 Wed
...The opera house and the roads that Angel and Spike were driving
down looked pretty normal. Apart from the white room vanishing
was their any sign of the supposedly out-of-whack universe outside
the building? Were they getting their info from anybody except
Eve? for all we know the LA office could have been the subkject
of a localized spell, and absolutely everything Eve and Sirk said
was all part of the snow job. I mean, with the phones and all
other communications shut off the gangs only source of information
was those 2.
Attention all Souled Vampires:
You have been Conned.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: In addition... -- Masq,
15:45:41 12/10/03 Wed
for all we know the LA office could have been the subkject
of a localized spell
That was the impression I got. Everything else seemed normal,
and W&H went into lock-down mode the moment the trouble started.
If any of them had discovered it was localized to W&H, though,
Eve simply could have said, "The trouble is starting here
because this is where the two VwaS are."
[> [> [> [> [> Re: In addition... -- genivive,
03:50:40 12/11/03 Thu
If Eve is really playing a three way game between Wolferman and
Hart and AI then she is fooling both. She said the senior partners
were very upset and had temporarily set things back in order.
Unless of course, she was lying.
[> [> [> [> [> [> She *said* the Senior Partners
did that -- Doug, 06:38:51 12/11/03 Thu
And with the white room gone the fang gang had no other means
of communication with the SPs; so all they have to go on is Eve's
word.
[> [> [> [> [> [> But if the universe wasn't
*really* out of whack... ('Destiny' spoilers) -- Rob, 09:36:42
12/11/03 Thu
...then why would Lindsay have recorporealized Spike now? It seems
to me that he did it so that the universe would be thrown out
of whack and so that the stakes would be high enough to drive
Spike to kill Angel. I don't know his motives necessarily, but
from how Eve was talking, it seems like this was the expected
outcome. The fact that the rest of the world wasn't crumbling
may have something to do with the same ripple effect with the
blotting out of the sun last season, but with it beginning localized
in the W&H builiding only and then spreading slowly outwards.
Another possibility is that at first only people would be affected,
as at W&H, and we didn't see any people outside of the building
affected during Spike and Angel's trip, so we can't really know.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe they'll give
us more explanation in future eps -- Masq, 16:51:48 12/11/03
Thu
The good thing about my analyses... open to change when there
are more facts.
[> Re: My analysis of 'Destiny' is up -- Buffys#1fan,
13:35:54 12/10/03 Wed
Hi i'm not sure what happened but when i go to the season 5 page,
i can't find the Destiny analysis, it just goes to the Lineage
one which was also great!!
[> [> You're getting an old version -- Masq, 13:42:45
12/10/03 Wed
Probably one "cached", or stored on your harddrive.
Try reloading the page.
Few Questions -- The Sorcerer, 00:45:02
12/10/03 Wed
These are a few musings and nuances which have bothered me over
the years of watching BtVS and AtS. The answers really have no
true answer, rather, I'm just curious as to how your imagination
and reason answer the following.
What in sam hill were the gods of our realm doing while Glory
was trying to rip the fabric seperating dimensions? Sitting on
their bum twittling their fingers?
Mind you, I do not think of our realverse gods as actual sentient
entities as much as I think of them as archetypes and embodiments
of concepts and energies, however, we are to assume that Glory
being a god--the others such as Hera, Kali, and Wesir are alive
and kicking.
I have seen much talk on the nature of Jasmine. I believe I read
one poster stating that Jasmine was one of the Powers That Be.
Ganted, she did say as much in her arc, however, what leads us
to believe that Jasmine was one of the same legion of Powers that
give to Cordelia her visions or take a seemingly benevolent role
in the lives of our heroes? There is no indication, in my opinion,
that Jasmine was of this group of higher power and given the nature
of both the Buffyverse and the Realverse, I don't think it's wise
to exlaim that the Powers That Be are an exclusive group when
it comes to the Higher Powers.
Two Big Bads with conflicting intentions exacting their powers
over the world at the same time: The First Evil and Jasmine. Do
you think Jasmine was even aware of the First's activities? Was
the First even aware of Jasmine's plans? How do you think the
two would have interacted had their plans come to fruitation?
Replies:
[> Gods and Monsters -- manwitch, 08:33:04 12/10/03
Wed
God, even with a capital G, seems to be a rather loosely defined
term in the Buffyverse. When Holden Webster asks Buffy if there
is a God, she says there is nothing definite on that. But she
knows that there WAS a God, named Glory from another dimension,
in which two other hell Gods supposedly still reign.
So perhaps Glory is a God on the level of the Greek Pantheon,
there are a bunch of immortals that perhaps have some special
abilities and they are called Gods. This would include Glory,
Olaf the Troll God, and a host of the folks that Willow is regularly
in communcation with. Osiris, Thespia, etc. etc.
But there seems to be at least the possibility that there is a
GOD, that is above all of them, a single all encompassing divine
creator. Perhaps.
The Powers that Be don't seem to be called Gods. Whistler seemed
to be associated with them, but he was called an immortal demon.
And the Powers that Be seem to use demons or even need demons
to communicate with the world. The presence of the powers that
be is not mediated through mortals, which seems wierd.
Plus, how exactly did Angel get back from his hundreds of years
of torture in the Acathla dimension? If the Powers that Be brought
him back, then their authority is transdimensional. It was not
clear to me that Glory was the exact same power in our dimension
that she was in her own. But perhaps she was. Perhaps the level
of diminishment was due solely to the magiks upon her, rather
than where she was per se. If the First Evil brought Angel back,
then it too has transdimensional power. In which case, its puzzling
that it would show so much concern for the slayer and the people
of this one tiny and insignificant dimension, when there's lots
of evil torture dimension it can play in or lots of heavenly dimensions
it can spoil if that is more its thing.
The Powers that Be don't seem to be definitevly recognized as
Gods. The First Evil doesn't seem to have been a God so much as
a presence. There seem to be all kinds of Higher Powers, even
the slayer and Vampires and demons are a form of higher power.
It seems that The Powers that Be are exclusive to the degree that
they are a particular subset of Higher Powers but do not include
all of them, nor do they seem to be definitively equated with
the creator God that Buffy still doubts even after being in Heaven.
The Higher Powers, whatever they are, do seem to be transdimensional
and indifferent. Only this would explain why they do not intervene
to save the world on the repeated times that it is threatened.
Of course, we are assuming they have sat on their divine asses
and done nothing. But perhaps Buffy is herself an intervention.
Perhaps Xander finding Buffy and giving her CPR was an intervention.
Perhaps Spike wanting Drusilla back was an intervention. Perhaps
sending Faith to the Mayor so that they could both feel love and
become the kind of Monster that can be redeemed was an intervention.
Maybe the divine ass looks as divine as it does because it is
constantly up running around and helping out in ways that we think
are our own doing. Maybe we ourselves are the divine intervention.
And clearly the intimation of the snowy day in sunnydale is that
Jesus came out of retirement in his little house in South Park
to perform one more little miracle.
The upshot is, its all very mysterious and we don't seem to know
or understand.
I have recently been musing myself on Vampire biology, specifically
trying to understand Angel's fever from Graduation Day. It raises
all sorts of questions.
[> [> Re: Gods and Monsters -- Kris, 18:13:05
12/10/03 Wed
I'd be interested in your thoughts on vampire biology... it's
just those sorts of questions that often make me remind myself
that it's "television" so I don't get angry... I'd love
to hear what you have to say....
[> The Gods and Monsters -- Majin Gojira, 08:59:25
12/11/03 Thu
One of the Primary influences on the Buffyverse is H.P. Lovecraft's
Cthulhu Mythos.
For those that don't know, the Cthulhu Mythos is a Collection
of Stories are a group of horror stories focusing on strange,
madnes-enducing creatures from the stars that are both alien,
demon and gods. These creatures are timeless, Immortal and powerful--and
don't give a flying **** about humanity. Humans are to ants as
they are to us. Indeed, one of the Great Old Ones (as oppose to
Elder Gods--which are the embodiment of the three universal principles:
Life, Death and Time) is mentioned directly when Glory first appears
-- "Dagon".
But I digress.
When Glory was released the "Gods" of our realm could
generally care less about what was happening. Some might even
chear her on.
The others might even be ALSEEP (as is Cthulhu)
The Powers that Be relied on Buffy to effect stopping Glory, because
they NEVER want to get their hand's dirty (Jasmine being the exception).
Of course, she could be lying about her nature--she'd be right
about the Power's general uncarring nature.
[> Re: Few Questions -- skeeve, 09:00:40 12/11/03
Thu
This one was looking forward to the meeting of Jasmine and Caleb.
Doing the dance of disappointment.
My recollection is that we only have Jasmine's word that she was
a PTB.
As for Glory and other gods, I'm still not clear on what defines
a god.
Fred's accent -- Vegeta, 09:28:49 12/10/03
Wed
I happened to catch a couple of old episodes of AtS recently on
TNT (end of S2 and That Old Gang Of Mine) and was wondering about
something. When did Fred lose her country bumpkin sounding accent?
I watched the majority of season 4 and all of season 5 so far
and really haven't noticed an accent. Anyone else notice this?
Vegeta
Replies:
[> Re: Fred's accent -- Arethusa, 10:44:06 12/10/03
Wed
Obligatory PC comment: a southern or Texan accent (which are quite
different) is not synonomous with "bumpkin," which means
"an awkward and unsophisticated rustic."*
Fred's accent is less Texan than it used to be, which is not uncommon
when people live for several years in a new region. People often
modify the accents they grew up with when they move to a new place.
Angel lost his Irish accent years ago, Wesley sounds less English
than he used to, Gunn's speech is more formal than it once was,
and Lorne's is less like his relatives in Pylea. Cordelia's accent
didn't change at all, since she just moved from a small California
town to a large California city.
*Merriam Webster On-Line. Texas saw a huge infusion of Northerners
in the Eighties when manufacturing jobs started disappearing,
and a few were so rude and arrogant to the Southerners that it
is still a sore spot. Someone once told me that the stupidest
Northerner was smarter than the smartest Southerner, which instantly
disproved her theory, but it still rankled. And I'm not even Southern.
[> [> Re: Fred's accent -- Vegeta, 13:20:03 12/10/03
Wed
Jeez... My apologies for generalizing and requiring a speech from
you. Thanks so much for enlightning me, for I am apparently just
a bigoted simpleton. If not for you I would have walked through
life offending all those with a southern or Texan accent. Thank
you so much for pointing out my hapless ignorance... I am forever
indebted to your absolute humorlessness.
Thanks for the lesson in cultural biasness. I would truely be
lost in this world if not for you Arethusa.
Thank you very, very much again. I always appreciate being enlightened
by PC Nazi's!
LIGHTEN UP!!!
[> [> [> No thanks required at all! -- Arethusa,
13:24:11 12/10/03 Wed
While I do not always feel obligated to correct thoughtless insults,
it was a pleasure to do so in this instance.
[> [> [> [> Re: No thanks required at all!
-- Vegeta, 14:20:53 12/10/03 Wed
"While I do not always feel obligated to correct thoughtless
insults, it was a pleasure to do so in this instance" - Arethusa
Just what I'd expect from an elitist. Seems you have problems
taking your own sarcastic medicine. Typical...
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks -- Arethusa, 18:25:16
12/10/03 Wed
Vegeta, your first post insulted people with Texas accents, calling
them " country bumpkin sounding." When I pointed that
out, you responded with an angry and sarcastic post. The first
use of sarcasm, by the way, was yours.
I then made a second post, which was sarcastic, again pointing
out that you were being insulting.
You replied with another insult, calling me elitist and saying
I could be sarcastic, but couldn't take sarcasm, although I was
only sarcastic in response to your sarcasm. You then said "Typical,"
which I assume means elitists can dish it out but not take it.
(Actually, it is elitist to call people with regional accents
country bumpkins.)
Please remember that there is a real person behind this fake name,
whom you've insulted several times and whose feeling are capable
of being hurt.
Thanks.
[> [> [> If you have an accent like that, though
-- mamcu, 13:38:50 12/10/03 Wed
You'd be amazed at how clear it is that people stereotype you
as uneducated, unexperienced, and generally dumb.
Now, on the other hand, a lot of educated Southerners don't sound
like Fred in the early seasons (Heartthrob, e.g. is really unpleasant).
We've all commented before on the general ineptness of the accents
both Southern and British on both BtVS and AtS. No surprise that
early Fred seems to come from the same place as that dreadful
Potential and Caleb--hmm, maybe that's a Hell accent, not Southern
at all.
[> [> [> Accent from Hell -- mamcu, 13:40:42
12/10/03 Wed
If you had a Southern accent (as I do), though, you'd be amazed
at how clear it is that people stereotype you as uneducated, unexperienced,
and generally dumb.
Now, on the other hand, a lot of educated Southerners don't sound
like Fred in the early seasons (Heartthrob, e.g., is really unpleasant).
We've all commented before on the general ineptness of the accents
both Southern and British on both BtVS and AtS. No surprise that
early Fred seems to come from the same place as that dreadful
Potential and Caleb--hmm, maybe that's a Hell accent, not Southern
at all.
[> [> [> [> Re: Accent from Hell -- Vegeta,
14:28:36 12/10/03 Wed
I am suprised Fred didn't acquire a Pylean accent... kidding.
That's an interesting point. Although, I actually liked Caleb's
accent. Was Fred's origin ever divulged, or was she just a L.A.
college student who was sucked into Pylea?
Where are her real parents, relatives, ...ect? Maybe I missed
a few too many early S3 episodes, but I never heard any of this
info. Anyone out there enlightened?
It still wouldn't explain how she has almost zero accent now.
I mean she only hung out with like five people since Pylea and
one of them has an English accent. Maybe ME didn't care for Amy
Acker's accent and dropped the whole thing.
[> [> [> [> [> All explained in S3 'Fredless'.
Plenty of recaps around. -- KdS, 15:04:17 12/10/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks, KdS --
Vegeta, 15:44:54 12/10/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> 'Fredless' rerun on TNT
tomorrow -- mamcu, 17:43:20 12/10/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> Amy Acker and Fred -- Jaelvis,
16:40:53 12/10/03 Wed
However, Amy Acker and her character Fred are both from Texas.
So I would think her accent would be pretty accurate. Maybe as
Amy has been in LA she has lost her accent and this would also
apply to Fred.
[> [> [> [> [> [> It is pretty accurate.
-- Arethusa, 16:54:19 12/10/03 Wed
Acker's from Dallas and Fred's from San Antonio.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Amy Acker and Fred
-- Cleanthes,
18:43:41 12/10/03 Wed
Amy Acker's Texas accent was indeed accurate.
I've seen ignorant elitist Northern bumpkins criticize Roma Downey's
accent on 7th Heaven as inaccurate, too. (Acker's from
Texas, Downey's from Ireland)
In fact, I'd say that criticism of accents generally bats about
.150 on internet fora. That is, one could almost say that only
accurate accents get criticized.
I lived in Texas and paid very little in taxes for quite good
public services. It was the only state where I sent my kids to
public school. I've also lived in northern states with high taxes
and crappy schools. Who exactly is smarter?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not an ignorant Northern
bumpkin! -- mamcu, 09:32:13 12/11/03 Thu
But I hope you didn't mean me! I was not talking just about Amy
Acker but was referring to the other southern accents (again,
Caleb and the dead Potential come to mind, but there have been
others) that didn't sound like anything I've heard in my 50+ years
in SC (born and raised by many-generation parents; last Northern
ancestor was a carpetbagger).
I'm assuming you folks are from Texas, because the fact that an
actor is born and raised with a dialect doesn't mean that she
or he uses the authentic one in performance. Andie McDowell is
from around here, but I never heard anyone speak the way she does
in film. In fact, I have never heard a media accent that sounded
like my part of the South. Maybe I'm confusing Hell and Texas
( and that may be because I've been prejudiced by a famous Texas
son, currently heard too much--but that leads to a REAL thread
hijack). Or maybe this part of the South is linguistic terra incognita.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not an
ignorant Northern bumpkin! -- celticross, 10:57:19 12/11/03
Thu
As a resident of Tennessee, I would like to take this moment to
say that Caleb and That One Potential's accents hurt me. Deeply.
As a native Texan, I'd have to say that, yeah, Amy Acker sounds
(and sounded) like some of my relatives.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not
an ignorant Northern bumpkin! -- Penthesilea (coming out of
lurking), 12:18:20 12/11/03 Thu
I can't comment on the accuracy of Amy Acker's accent, being Canadian,
but I read somewhere that she originally auditioned for Fred with
her neutral accent, but Joss liked her natural Texan so much that
she switched at the start of Season 3. I guess she's just slowly
working her way back to "generic American."
But besides that, as an actor, I can offer an explanation as to
why actors muck up their own accents. It all comes down to making
yourself understood. Especially for television, the audience is
very broad, encompassing the whole of North America, Australia,
Britain, and other English-speaking countries. If the actor is
speaking in an accent that is too unfamiliar, it takes a while
for the audience to adjust, and you lose a good chunk of the dialogue,
which would be a shame with Joss' razor-sharp writing. Basically,
you don't want the audience to be distracted by "what's that
word again?" So you fudge the accent a bit; I can remember
coaching a German actor playing a German character with a German
accent on Canadian pronunciations just so that she would be understood
properly. Of course, this can lead to problems, like audience
distraction of the "my God, what is that horrid accent?"
variety. It's a fine line.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And
if you ever heard Strom Thurmond talk -- mamcu, 17:48:37
12/11/03 Thu
You'll see why Penthesilea is so correct about my native tongue
being incomprehensible--good choice, Andie and all.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Not an ignorant Northern bumpkin! -- Darby, 06:48:13 12/12/03
Fri
On one of the Angel DVD commentaries it was mentioned that
some of Glenn Quinn's spot-on Irish accent needed to be either
modified onset or looped afterward because it was difficult (and,
as you say, distracting) to make out a word or two.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I forget the epidoes, but the example I heard... -- KdS,
02:02:59 12/13/03 Sat
Was that a line "There's been a death" had to be rerecorded
because it sounded to Americans like "debt".
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Oops, episodes -- KdS, 02:04:03 12/13/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Not an ignorant Northern bumpkin! -- CW, 06:48:19
12/13/03 Sat
I wish they'd been a little more careful about making sure the
'general American' speaking actors were more understandable on
Buffy. Between JossSpeak and mumbling it was usually difficult
to understand something on average of about once an episode. (No
wonder you frequently hear of people with perfectly good hearing,
who would watch with the closed captioning turned on. I often
do it watching the DVD's) Even decades ago the hallmark of a California
accent was a certain amount of what is called 'lip laziness.'
But, rarely do you ever see actors mumble through lines on TV,
except on Buffy. I remember AH was difficult to understand saying
the simple line, "Why is the snake afraid of Dawn?"
the exact moment in Shadow when the gang realizes there must be
something wrong with Buffy's sister. Emma Caufield was often the
guilty party.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not an
ignorant Northern bumpkin! -- Cleanthes,
15:20:52 12/11/03 Thu
I really try to not directly insult anyone present.
The ignorant bumpkin (from New York City, iirc) that I meant to
insult in my previous post was someone who posted on a usenet
group some years ago that Roma Downey's Irish accent was "fake".
My point being that this subject is one that brings out not always
the brightest and best in people's judgments.
Even bad accents reflect the actor's view of how the folks there
(wherever "there" is) sound. The locals will usually
hate it because even if the actor is 85% right, the wrong sounds
will grate.
Roma Downey, from Derry, does not sound like Dublin Irish nor
does she sound stage Irish (Nick Brendon's Irish accent is this,
as, to a degree, is DB's Liam accent)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not
an ignorant Northern bumpkin! -- mamcu (knew you didn't mean
me), 17:51:05 12/11/03 Thu
And every locality really has many variants on the "local"
accent. Can't please everyone!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Not an ignorant Northern bumpkin! -- jane, 21:23:00 12/11/03
Thu
Accents are interesting things. I am fascinated by the nuances
of the English language, and how pronunciation is influenced by
geography. I remember a PBS programme on the history of English,
with Robert MacNeil, a few years ago. It was so interesting to
find connections between the way English is spoken in places like
the Appalachians, Ireland, and Newfoundland etc. Being Canadian,
I usually assume that I don't have an accent! I know that I do,
but it always surprises me to have someone point it out.
I remember being in a hostel in Greece, talking to a couple of
fellow travellers. One was Scandanavian. I understood her English
easily. The other I couldn't understand at all. I asked her where
she learned her English, and she said "England! I'm from
Newcastle!" Oops.
[> [> [> Re: Fred's accent -- oshunwunmi,
14:07:03 12/10/03 Wed
Hello wonderful atbos posters
Being an Angel obsessive I've lurked for a while, and gone through
heaps of the archives ever since I discovered TCH's Angel Odyssey
about 2 months ago - 1st post here, hence the epithet above while
answering such a very atypical post -
About accents: have noticed some people think Juliet Landau's
is innacurate, which it really isn't; I thought the actress was
British or at least grew up here; on the other hand, James Marster's
is a very curious hybrid, false cockney by way of Oop North somewhere
through California - my daughter saw an interview with ASH recently
and said "Mum, he talks just like Spike!"...
Has any one else noted what a good job VC did with Connor the
teenager's accent though, imitating not only Keith S's accent
but intonation and drawl throughout most of S4, til his voice
and intonation began to subtley Californiaze in the last episodes?
And so naturalistically. I was quite shocked when I heard him
in an interview because the actor doesn't speak like that at all.
Hope I've got this posting malarky down right. Here goes
[> [> [> [> Welcome oshunwunmi -- CW, 14:36:40
12/10/03 Wed
According to Juliet.5U.com Juliet Landau was born in L.A. and
went to London when very young with her parents (presumably when
they went to star in the Space 1999 series) and returned to the
US when she was about 18. I doubt her Drusilla accent is one she
ever used in England, but rather a mix of things she remembers
from there.
[> [> [> [> Welcome, oshunwunmi! -- Masquerade,
15:42:09 12/10/03 Wed
Has any one else noted what a good job VC did with Connor the
teenager's accent though, imitating not only Keith S's accent
but intonation and drawl throughout most of S4, til his voice
and intonation began to subtley Californiaze in the last episodes?
And so naturalistically. I was quite shocked when I heard him
in an interview because the actor doesn't speak like that at all.
Interesting bit of Connor/VK trivia I didn't notice, but will
have to go back and listen for. Thanks!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Welcome, oshunwunmi!
-- oshunwunmi, 17:14:44 12/10/03 Wed
thanks for the welcome, and it's you that does the board? Thanks
for that as well, much admiration.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Board and site -- Masq,
18:53:52 12/10/03 Wed
Thanks!
[> [> [> [> Re: Fred's accent -- DEN, 10:18:52
12/12/03 Fri
Some of the large-cast British series like "Cracker"
and "Prime Suspect" feature a spectrum of local and
regional accents that at times make me wish for subtitles! No
disrespect at all intended to Brits. Are American regional accents
as hard to follow for you on transatlantic transplants?
As for southern accents and their image--I know a fair number
of young academicians born in the south who hire voice coaches
to help them get rid of an accent they believe is a handicap on
the job market
[> [> [> [> [> I had occasional difficulties
on 'Firefly' -- KdS, 02:01:51 12/13/03 Sat
Especially with the characters who had, to me, strong accents
like Jayne and Early.
The sorting hat sorts M.E. -- Masq, 10:57:16
12/10/03 Wed
From the Bronze Beta:
http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~hsiao/media/tv/buffy/bronze/20031209.html
Drew Goddard says:
(Wed Dec 10 00:35:09 2003)
Okay, so since we know you've all been sitting around wondering
what House each member of the writing staff would be in if he/she
were to attend Hogwarts, we went ahead and compiled that data.
Just for you, our beloved fans:
Joss - Gryffindor
Jeff - Gryffindor
Fury - Hufflepuff
Ben - Ravenclaw
Liz - Ravenclaw
Sarah - Ravenclaw
Steve - Slytherin
Drew - Slytherin
At first, the Sorting Hat thought Steve might belong in Hufflepuff,
but ultimately it decided on Slytherin for him. And apparently
I've got Malfoy lineage in me or something, because I didn't even
get to sit down before I heard "Slytherin." Which is
fine with me - Gryffindor are a bunch of shinefaced wizards' pets.
I hope they rot.
Replies:
[> ROTFLOL!!!!! That's just... priceless! -- LittleBit,
13:43:24 12/10/03 Wed
[> What does shinefaced mean? -- skeeve, 09:02:45
12/11/03 Thu
Some Assembly Required (minor spoiler for Destiny)
-- Cactus Watcher, 19:42:34 12/10/03 Wed
Other than a fair number of great lines (Call me Jenny. Ms Calender
is my father - I'm an old fashioned girl... - and others) and
Buffy's assurance that Mexican is the desirable meal for a first
date, this ep can pretty well be summed up as Bride of Frankenstein
with American football. Sure there is a little back and forth
about whether Angel is jealous of Xander. But, that's a little
ironic after what we've seen in Destiny.
So rather than go deeper into a basically shallow ep, how about
a discussion of the social structure of high schools, since it's
a major theme throughout the first three years of Buffy?
I went to a slightly skewed high school in the suburbs of a midwestern
city, and I'm not claiming that what I went through was typical
of everywhere. But, this is the structure we had:
The Cordelia group - Since we had no seriously rich folks in our
area, the kids were mostly the children of overly indulgent parents.
The guys were mostly the clean cut football players. The girls
were easily spotted as frequently overdressing for school and
wearing the hairdos of fashionable women twenty years their senior.
These folks ran the student government and were elected to the
king/queen things at all the dances.
The Willow group - Being a science-heavy high school it was a
fair sized group with its own pecking order. I belonged to the
'elite' of this group, the exclusive engineer's club. Lower down
the pecking order was the biology club which only required its
members to have taken or be taking Biology I. Still lower was
the math club which anyone could join. Of course there were plenty
of overlapping memberships. We weren't snobbish with one another,
but if you were in the engineer's club everyone knew it. If you
were in the math club no one cared. On the topic of the episode,
our high school did not have it's own science fair, because those
of us in the engineer's club were supposed to stomp through the
metropolitan-wide science fair grabbing all the scholarships we
wanted. Other students at our school were welcome to enter, but
we had the use of any school facilities we wanted, and
the help of several faculty members. Anyone who knew how to use
a slide rule before high school was a sure bet for the Willow
group. These days kids have probably never seen a slide rule.
The Freddie or Lit group - (Freddie Iverson being the yearbook
guy in Earshot) We had a small group of kids who didn't care for
science, but were exceptionally good at the verbal. In the mid
1960's their attempts at being Bohemian, were supposed to be amusing
rather than a statement of principles. Protests over this and
that were also arranged, but never matieralized (A far cry from
what most of us who went to college would do a few years later).
The Xander/Buffy group - Yep, Buffy belongs in the same group.
These were the vast majority of kids who were nothing special,
good or bad, in school. But, some of them were quite special outside.
We had a guy who liked photography, who only was seen when the
yearbook adviser sent him around to take pictures. We had a guy
who was a competitive roller skate figure skater. And yes, we
had some total social outcasts, who other than the fact they were
roundly unpopular were fairly normal. One sad fellow frequently
came to school drunk. One guy never combed his hair (which moderately
long for those days)in four years and couldn't figure out why
people made fun of him.
The Marcie group - We had several guys and girls who for all anyone
could tell were invisible. For whatever reason these kids were
so introverted that they had a hard time saying anything to the
teachers in class or to their classmates outside of class. Few
were as brave as Marcie who actually tried to make some contact.
The Sheila group - (Sheila being the other girl in Snyder's office
at the beginning of School Hard) These were the hoodlums or 'hoods'
as they were usually know. The guys were either criminals or would-be
criminals and spent their time terrorizing their fellow students.
The girls were the ones who could not hope for dates from anyone
but the guy hoods. The guys could usually be identified by their
perpetual sneers at everyone and everything. Most of them wore
duck-tail haircuts, but so did a fair number of the dumber guys
in the Xander group. The girls could be identified by their horrendous
choices of hairstyle and makeup, kind of a statement to the world,
"We're cheap, honest!" Many of the guys were the not-so
clean cut members of the football team. In the dearly departed
days before massive drug problems in schools the hoods fought
each other with fists and black eyes and fat lips were frequently
seen in the Sheila group.
So how did everyone get along? The general faculty proclaimed
it's preference for the Cordelia group as the "leaders of
tomorrow,' but frankly they didn't show it. Where as we in the
Willow group and those in the innocuous Freddie group were largely
trusted, the Cordelia group was actually treated with a noticeable
amount of suspicion. The classes I had which were largely made
up of Cordelia types were the ones that seemed to get all the
stern lectures on responsibility. While the head of the Freddie
group was blackballed by teachers from joining the National Honor
Society, the prinicpal liked him, and the kid eventually became
a high school principal! Those of us in the Willow group had no
problem with the Xander/Buffy group. They had more discipline
problems, but not with abusing their fellow students. The Marcie
group was hard to break up even if you tried. I remember one day
in gym class a couple normals and I tried to bring a male Marcie
into the conversation. After hearing a few of his really scary
views on the topic, we decided to let the guy go back and live
in his own little world. Fortunately, with dropouts, the further
we went in school the weaker the Sheila group got. Also with the
looming certainty of the military draft for them in those days,
the guys in the Sheila group generally mellowed toward both fellow
students and faculty as graduation approached.
How did we do after school? Well, it's a mixed bag as you'd expect,
so I'll just give a few examples. A shocking number of the Cordelia
group guys became banking exexcutives. The one member of the class
later convicted of murder was from the Cordelia group. One of
the girls from our engineer's club graduated from four-year-college
in two years. Several of the guys in the Willow group became college
professors. One of the Willow group, me, bummed around and retired
early. A girl from the Freddie group taught one of my nephews
third grade. A guy from the Freddie group was the president of
my university senior class. Most of the future high school teachers
were from the Xander/Buffy group. All of the guys from the class
who died in Vietnam were also from the Xander/Buffy group. The
Marcie group as expected disappeared. The only guy I know about
from the Sheila group eventually came to own his own home-repair/construction
business. For some reason, I wouldn't recommend hiring him, now.
Replies:
[> School Social class -- Giles
with the help of Nickhawk, 23:07:56 12/10/03 Wed
I Really like your post. In my highschool, besides these social
groups which are all there, there was a big division between the
Percy group (Jocks you know, the annoying guys who push you around)
and The Larry group (my group obviously, which consisted of the
gay kids and our allies. We normally hung out together and stayed
close by). While most of theother groups got along in my school,
with occasional skirmishes within the ranks of the Cordy group,
and the normal angryness in general highschool life, these groups
could never pass each other in the hall without starting a fight,
and while we had some Larry sized members of our group ( who were
always the kindest, the sweet giants ya know) mostly our group
were like Tara, you knowshy and not very outgoing. it is rather
obvious who lost most of the fights. but from these groups I see
strange things happening happening. ( just a quick note: Since
i have only been out of highschool 1 year, i suspect much of this
will change so dont hold me down to it in the future) In the case
of the percy group, Those who did not go to college on football
scholarshipsmostly joined family businesses, like construction
and the like, while the larry groupa is doing good for the most
part, big in the activist column, moast of them have pretty good
jobs, and are much happier now that they are out of highschool,
and in the "gay" community. even those without the best
jobs are much happier, and we all try and keep in touch.
[> [> Re: School Social class -- CW, 07:24:15
12/11/03 Thu
Yes, I thought of Percy when I was writing my post, as well. Although
I kind of think of him as being a borderline thug, I decided not
to make it the Percy/Sheila group, because he mostly seems like
someone who puts down others more for abstract social status,
like Cordy, rather than the hoods who did it purely for raw power.
At my school that was a kind of guy the spoiled Cordelia girls
loved.
Being openly gay wasn't an option back when I was in high school,
and no doubt a number of people I knew were silently suffering
because of it. Ours was one of those high schools with exactly
one black kid. He was so thoroughly adopted by the Xanders of
the football team (second-teamers, naturally) that I don't know
of any overt problems he had. But, I wasn't trying to live in
his shoes.
[> [> [> One of The better parts of school right now
-- Giles, 09:40:01 12/11/03 Thu
Is that they dont descriminate as much as they used to, with the
help of groups like gay straight alliances. My highschool was
mainlyCaucasian, with alot of asians also. We had about 5 black
people. But the Larry/Tara/Willow/Kennidy Group had to stick together
in my school. Did they introduce us to any other asshole jocks?
the only other one i can remember are the swimmers from go fish,
but their names totally elude me (I try and block that episode
out as much as possible)
[> Wel thats very interesting -- RJA, 17:00:22 12/11/03
Thu
I'm English, and I have seen it often said by English BtVS fans
that they enjoyed the show more in the later seasons when it took
itself out of the highschool mode, because we dont have something
that really can compare.
And reading your post on the tribal system inherent in Ameican
High Schools it really does seem to be the case. Maybe my school
was an exception, but there were absolutely no groupings on the
basis of what you said. There were the more popular people, and
there were some who were friendless, but it was devoid of any
tribes in many ways. Nothing could be defined easily, in that
the academics could be the sporting heroes who could be the rock
stars who could be the dopers and so on.
Maybe its a uniform thing - did your school have uniforms, and
am I correct in thinking most American schools dont? Because my
school all had uniforms, and that in itself reduces any possibility
of grouping based on looks or clothing. Which in itself stops
different identities within the school forming.
Then again, even in the upper two years when there was no uniform,
there was no strict demarcation of sects. There were definite
groups, but they werent based on anything other than the friends
made in the preceding 4 years.
All very interesting.
[> [> Re: Well thats very interesting -- Ann, 18:37:04
12/11/03 Thu
Canadian High School perspective circa 1976-80. There were the
jocks that excelled in sports. They were divided into two groups
: those that had academic capacity and those that didn't but tended
to enjoy the drug experience way to much. These two groups mingled
at parties and with the cheerleaders who also were divided into
these subsets. The cheerleaders were chosen one year by vote of
the football team. You can only guess which girls were chosen.
There was an academic group but these too were in two subsets.
One of which was only academic (the nerds) and those that were
drug users which also were part of the atheletic group.
There were the complete "losers" which had no academic
or atheletic standing. These kids were often the overweight, the
poorer, and those that may have had learning disablilities.
Any gay kids just hid out. One teacher was fired because of rumors
that he was gay but there were many male teachers who dated female
students. Nothing was done about that but to send a gift to the
wedding. That happened several times.
The umbrella of class distinction was also apparent. Our school
was a private catholic one with uniforms. But in Ontario half
of all kids attended catholic schools. It was not like in the
american system with private schools. The uniforms did not reduce
any groupings because the kids with money had the better jewelry,
shoes, coats, hairstyles and cars. Money certainly made it easier
for the kids who were in any of the above groups. Rich jocks got
the girls, rich druggies got more drugs. Rich girls could pay
to look better. One time a drunk jock broke into the school, wrecked
stuff but nothing was done because he was the captain of the football
team. Status was mostly confered by atheletic capacity and money.
Most people (Willow/Zander/Buffy types) just kept out of the way
of these others. By Grade 13, those whose academic capacity was
not great were weeded out. Grade 13 was a precollege year and
not mandatory.
As you can guess I hated high school. Part of the reason Buffy
resonates is that high school is shown in its true light best
I think in "The Pack".
[> [> [> I guess Nick and I dont realize how much
GLBTQA people had to hide out in the 70's/80's -- Giles,
20:30:58 12/11/03 Thu
Afteer reading these post we realize we are much luckier then
we thought we were.
[> [> [> [> Re: I guess Nick and I dont realize
how much GLBTQA people had to hide out in the 70's/80's --
phoenix, 03:12:20 12/12/03 Fri
It's true. I was in school in the UK in the 80's and early 90's,
and in serious hiding, though obviously not hiding that well as
I was still the target for homophobic abuse anyway. I remeber
the fuss caused when a close friend of mine decided to do her
sociology projet on society's attitudes to homosexuality, this
was in '89, she got dragged into the guidence teacher's office
and asked if there was anything she wanted to tell them. Because
of section 28, a government act which was in part designed to
prevent the "promotion of homosexuality, and pretend families"
(whatever the hell that means)by local authorities, including
schools, teachers, even the sympathetic ones were put in a position
where if they said anything positive about being gay, or allowed
class discussion of the suject, they could end up in trouble,
so understandably the staff did everthing they could to persuade
her out of it. They failed. My fifteen year old friend stuck to
her guns, endured the harrassment, taunts and abuse and completed
her project. I wish I could have been that brave at the time.
I remember another incident where one girl accused another of
being a dyke during a home economics class, and became so enraged
she actually attacked her with a knife!
We didn't have the kind of power structure that seems to exist
in American schools either, we had popular and unpopular, oh,
and gangs--I clearly remember a group of girls that were refered
to as the Mafia, I think you can fill in the blanks on that one.
If I had to say which group I belonged to in school it would definitely
be the Tara group ie. painfully shy and mainly alone, though with
some underlying Faith tendencies,and yes I know it's a weird combination.
A decade on life is pretty good and most of the people who bullied
me seem to have dropped off the map, but, as JW managed to show
so wonderfully with Buffy, high school is hell and we never quite
forget that.
[> [> [> [> [> Poor Thing! I agree -- Giles
(With NickHawk behind my shoulder), 08:19:52 12/12/03 Fri
that JW did a wonderful job depecting highschool. I always thought
highschool was hell, and there are very few people whom i know
that had a good highschool exeperience. My group was more buffy
like then faith, and more outgoing then Tara was. If we saw somebody
being called a fag or dyke or whatever we tried to stand up for
them, unfortunately we didnt have the chosen one in our ranks
but i assure you it would of helped us out a few times.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Poor Thing! I agree
-- phoenix, 11:02:58 12/12/03 Fri
I think my "stand up and be counted" sociology project
friend was definitely a Buffy, in the sense of being ordinary
and quite extraordinary at the same time. She seemed to see the
world kinda differently from the rest of us in an impossible to
define way,and she had the courage of her convictions, supported
the underdog and was willing to challenge and sometimes break
the rules if she thought they were wrong. I hadn't quite realised
until now that that's who Buffy reminds me of. Hmmm.
[> [> [> Buffy vs. hight school -- skeeve, 13:12:23
12/12/03 Fri
Once upon a time I read an article that said that Buffy depicted
high school not as adults remembered it, but as it really was.
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy vs. hight school -- Ann,
18:08:22 12/12/03 Fri
I would agree with that. High school is lived very much in the
moment. With all of the power that has. Youth is like that. The
years have synthesized my memories to be much more palatable.
You can't live with that sharp pain forever. The years have mellowed
it and I have moved on. But I knew even then, that it was for
only those years that I would have to endure it. And mine was
not even the worst as I was pretty invisible. Talk about a coping
mechanism. University was a much better time.
What would be an interesting fan-fic or future TV series would
be Buffy et al looking back from 40 years old or more. I wonder
how they would remember those seven years? And all of the other
questions. Would Willow's hair still be red? Would Oz still have
hair? Would Zander ever ever get married? What will Buffy's final
baked cookie look and be like? Who had kids? The things we will
never know. Sigh.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy vs. hight school
-- skeeve, 08:41:54 12/17/03 Wed
An interesting question is whether the Slayers will age.
Will they suddenly drop dead when they turn 35?
Will Oz age?
Assuming everyone is still alive,
Willow marries Oz or Xander and
Buffy marries Xander or the then-human Angel.
[> [> [> [> As someone who was going through Highschool
at the same time as Buffy was on... -- Doug, 15:43:34 12/13/03
Sat
...I have to say that the article in question was incorrect. I
mean, all things considered, Snyder was pretty tame a far as bad
principals go; he only brought in the police to terrorize the
students once for crying out loud. More to the point, with the
exception of the scoobies (who to a limited extent crossed the
stereotyped boundaries of the traditional highschool drama) most
of the interactions at Sunnydale high were of the the classic
model of nerds, jocks, geeks, "at risk youth", etc.
that are prevalent in the usual high school dramas, and in the
literature that school boards put out.
In my experience of High chool (and I was born in 1983, so my
perspective does not include the changing realities of high school
before my entry into one) these categories usually get chucked
out by students, teachers, and any faculty member worth their
salt pretty fast. One of the most intelligent young women I have
ever known, straight A student in all the sciences, took LSD and
smoked marijuana. Some of the "jocks" shared biology
or world religions courses with me (and I took phys ed in grades
9, 10, and 12). And I hung out with a group of SF&F "geeks",
half of us were over six feet in height and most of us knew at
least one martial art. (funny how being bullied was never a problem
for me, my buddies, or any of the 5'5 individuals who we in turn
hung out with)
In any case, the point that I'm trying to make is that while Joss's
work is most likely more accurate to reality than the average
highschool drama I object to the notion that it is a totally accurate
representation of a modern highschool. Maybe this was how hichschool
was a couple of decades back; but in a modern setting it just
doesn't reflect the diversity of social interactions, or the sheer
hideous level of power that a bad principal can wield against
his or her charges.
[> [> [> [> [> As someone who was also going
through Highschool at the same time as Buffy was on... --
Abby, 08:00:51 12/15/03 Mon
Well I was in an English school, with a uniform, at the time of
Buffy, but unlike Doug I can say that the stereotypes exist for
a reason in 'High School' media presentations.
For my school experience 98-2001 There not only existed specific
groups and factions but all of these operate within a power structure-
you could be in different groups but of equal status. So the animosity
was between the levels rather than automatically between the groups.
The 'perfect' Cordy types are at the top of the hierarchy, for
my school these were very 'normal' people who played on the sports
teams and got just-above-average grades. Fairly good-looking and
pretty wealthy, they would only date in their stratosphere. The
defining feauture was their normality, that is, they were not
too much of anything- too clever, to exceptional, too individual,
too beautiful. They were liked by teachers and ran things like
student government, and were very sweet to you if you were of
equal status but they directed vast amounts of bitchiness and
spite to anyone below them in the power level.
Just below these in terms of power were the mini-skater kids.
This was after the whole skater/ nu-metal culture thing took off
in teenagers in the UK. Before then their level was much lower-
despised by the Cordy's on par with the Geeky kids, but since
the Cordy's of my year suddenly wanted to date the Skater guys
of the year above, the two groups blended at a lot of parties
and you could be considered fairly popular through your associations
with the older students. Many old Cordys suddenly put on flared
trousers and Carhartt bags and were 'alternative'- ie spending
lunchtimes smoking weed in the woods.
In the middle, but decisively below the two groups above, were
the actually normal kids who were far nicer people than the Cordy's
but with no real defining feature: no sport or connections to
popular people. They weren't trend setters in music or fashion
and socialised exclusively in their own sector and with people
from other schools. Generally left alone by all, but vulnerable
to attack if they pissed anyone off.
Then there are the townies. They had power equal to Cordy's, but
not popularity in any way at all. I guess the American trnaslation
of 'townie' is a tough criminal in the making. You didn't mess
with them because they would bully and beat you. Identified by
bleached hair, fake gold hoop poercings and cheap cider in their
bags.
Below that were Geeks/Nerds. They formed a self contained subsection
and barely related to the outside world, and thats why I rank
them higher than the misfit loners, because while all the other
groups ridiculed them, they had friends within that group. Found
in the library writing a computer program to solve the maths homework
(because it was too easy). Mixed ability lessons meant they got
a hard time from everyone since they couldn't hide their intelligence.
And lowest of all were the complete misfits who all groups got
to feel superior by picking on. They didn't have the sense to
band together for solidarity but stayed as isolated targets, sitting
in the corner alone.
Uniform? Made little real difference since the social divisions
were established. I suppose it would have emphasised thing even
more without one, but there were enough social things and non-uniform
days that your placement could be determined. I was a 'normal'
who didn't really fit in there because I was too individual....I
dated a guy from the year above Skater set and so got subsumed
into our classes skater sect, which made life a lot easier since
most people viewed me as a nerd due to my grades. The superficiality
was very obvious when I became off-limits for Cordy ridicule due
to my boyfriend and older friends-by-proxy. But I was bullied
consistently ages 10-16, the only thing changing was by the end
I didn't care less.
[> [> Re: Wel thats very interesting -- CW, 06:18:29
12/12/03 Fri
Uniforms used to be only found in private schools here, most notably
those run by the Catholic Church. But, even that wasn't the rule
everywhere. The closest Catholic high schools to my school didn't
have uniforms, but some of the elementary schools that fed into
them did. A few tax supported elementary schools have adopted
them especially in schools where there has been the combination
of a high-level of discipline problems mixed with highly varied
economic backgrounds of the students.
When Buffy is having a hard time getting back into school at the
beginning of season three, the one thing that revolts her the
most about the possibility of having to go to a private girl's
school, even more than having no boys in her school, is the idea
of having to wear a uniform. Many high school kids here, particularly
one's like Buffy (who after all was a snooty-group member in her
first high school) see the ablity to choose their own clothing
as one of the few real freedoms they have in a world in which
they have precious little power over their own lives.
How much difference do uniforms actually make? In scholarly studies
it's been proven over and over that change gets more desired results
than the status quo does. So if you establish a school uniform
in schools where there have been none, there will be a noticeable
drop in bad behavior. If you throw out uniforms where they have
been manditory for a long time, there will be a noticeable drop
in bad behavior. Unfortunately, since it's a matter of novelty
and morale the results soon fade and things go back to their old
levels.
[> [> [> Re: Wel thats very interesting -- skeeve,
13:15:38 12/12/03 Fri
So the thing to do is to change every year.
[> [> [> [> That will not happen though because
-- Giles (again
with Nickhawk who refuses to post on his own), 14:30:41
12/12/03 Fri
Because of many reasons. First you have to look at the cost of
school uniforms. They cost lots to implement, and tax payers and
not going to be happy if it is only every other year, people do
not like change for the most part. Not to mention how many school
baord meetings it would take to plan the change from uniforms
to non uniforms and vice versa, also most schools right now keep
their clothing policys pretty much the same every year, if they
had to rewrite it then it would be chaos, not to mention when
they do not have school uniforms they know whatFashion trends
that they do not want in school, And it changes quite frequently,
they would be totally lost. Also the schools themselfs do not
enjoy change. Not to mention that the general parent would flip
out over something like this.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: That will not happen though
because -- LittleBit, 14:45:36 12/12/03 Fri
Not to mention that as soon as things would begin to have a pattern...
uniform-no uniform-uniform-no uniform... that in itself becomes
static, and change would require that the pattern be broken.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I never thought Of it that
way -- Giles
& Nickhawk, 18:58:39 12/12/03 Fri
you are completely right of course. What we need is it to be random
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That will not happen
though because -- skeeve, 07:46:54 12/18/03 Thu
Each school just needs a dress code for even-numbered years and
another for odd-numbered years.
If the uniform-requiring code always requires the same kind of
uniform, then the expense shouldn't be too awful.
The pattern shouldn't have much effect on students who don't hang
around the same school for more than six years.
The teachers might be affected though.
Perhaps in non-leap years divisible by four, the students would
be allowed to wear whatever, if anything, they wanted.
Of course the above discussion is moot if the change is not the
actual cause of the improvement.
If the cause is the discussion leading up to the change, then
no automatic method of selecting dress codes will help.
[> Re: Some Assembly Required -- Jay, 17:54:39 12/12/03
Fri
I attended a small high school (200 students in grades 9-12) in
a small town in the middle of America in the mid to late 80's.
And despite being a small school, we definitely had the cliques
you described. I was mostly in the Xander/Buffy group, but could
navigate all the other groups, except the Marcie's, more easily
than almost anyone. But I had known 30 of the 60 kids in my own
class since first grade and 15 of the remaining since sixth grade.
This tends to blend the groups more than they usually would. I've
talked to people who went to even smaller schools, (yes they are
out there), and they had even less experience with the cliques.
I had two best friends in high school, one was a Willow and the
other was a Sheila. Well, a Sheila lite. Personally, I made my
way (probably accidently) onto the math team a couple times and
was in the band. I hated the concert stuff, but loved marching
and pep band activities. I was in percussion and we had the run
of the outfit. I still can't believe what we got away with. Being
a farm boy, I didn't have time for too many other extracurricular
activities. I tried a couple sports early on, but when my boss
(dad) would start yelling at me for taking off early for a game,
I ended up ditching the sport(s). That, and the coaches thought
that coaching was yelling. I thought that if I wanted to be yelled
at, I can go home and get yelled at by someone really good at
it. I was labeled: "uncoachable". I'm not sure when
we stopped having gym class, but we were usually split between
a male and female teacher for the boys and girls to be in different
groups. Despite being the man I was in the 10th grade at 120 pounds
(I've grown some since), it was the female teacher who kept trying
to get me to go out for sports. And I could get away with a lot
with my English teachers (all female).
As for the gay kids, I moved a long way away not very long after
graduation, and haven't kept in touch with hardly anyone. But
I could go through a yearbook and pick out a handful that wouldn't
surprise me if they were gay. But no one was out then. No one.
It was more socially acceptable to be accused of animal husbandry
than being gay. Cause fucking sheep is at least funny. Go Tigers!
[> [> Re: Have a Great Summer..or Never Change --
Ronia, 23:54:42 12/12/03 Fri
Thanks for pointing out the militant isolationism of the Marcie
clique. My experience of high school cliques seems to have been
a bit different from those described [eh, it was Iowa, Rileyville..what
can ya do? [shrugs]. People seemed mostly to separate into positions
on the spectrum of domination. People who fell easily into their
strengths in any category, academic, social, athletic, enter quality
here...rose to leadership positions of that particular point on
the spectrum. People who did not have an interest or could not
compete with the acting alpha found other interests or other positions.
I have this feeling, that even if Buffy had been completely free
of weird slayer vibes, she and Cordelia would never have been
friends, and oddly enough the same holds true for Willow. I also
suspect that on more than a few occasions, this has caused tension
in the Buffy/Willow relationship. What is this you ask? I Am Not
Your Sidekick! So how did Buffy and Willow develope a close friendship
while Buffy and Cordelia did not? Is it just because Willow is
nice and Cordelia is not? Well, no..I think that Willow and Buffy
complement each other, rather than compete with each other. Willow
will never be the Slayer, Buffy will never have the intellectual
muscle that Willow exudes. Sure, every so often it will leak out
that Buffy considers herself in a position of authority over Willow,
and usually Willow will concede the point provided that the grounds
are strictly in Slayer territory..however, she will reject and
object to having her autonomy tossed aside in favor of Buffy Has
a Plan Which Does Not Include You when she feels the ground is
neutral. As an example..probably the clearest, most direct example
I can think of [at 2 am] occurs in S4 Fear Itself...something's
up, and Buffy *orders* her friends to leave so *she* can handle
things...they were not on patrol, they were at a party. Something
has gone badly wrong and seems to be of an occult nature..Willow
says the magic words..*I am not your sidekick for those who had
forgotten [winks]* I personally expected the next sentence to
be "I am a witch, this is an occult occurence, you get out,
I'll call you if I need something punched" Contrast this
with Xander..who does make nice with Cordelia btw... Xander is
undeniably not a dominant figure, ever. Well, ok there have been
a few times, but they were unusual and about Xander learning to
extend his boundaries. Generally speaking, unless the script called
for it [all hail the mighty script]Xander is a follower. Unless
he has good reason not to [after all, he's human, not an automaton]
he will follow anyone who tells him to..Buffy, Anya, Cordelia,
Willow to some extent, he tries to follow Oz who isn't having
any, and Giles who isn't having any either, but does give him
a cookie from time to time. No point wasting time on Riley who
is a professional subordinate although he likes and approves of
him very much. Riley is Xander with a suit. I myself tend to be
unwillingly dominant. This puts me in a position of learning early
and often, that you must know at any given moment where you fall
in any social setting. Why? Is it because I'm looking to stroke
my ego with some minions and I'd like to know where they can be
found?[perhaps with some mimosa in a bubble bath? oh don't I wish]
Did you ever stop to think about just exactly why there are safety
in numbers as far as cliques go? I'll never know for certain,
but I suspect that it is not the numbers that count but who is
counted in the numbers...in other words..more sheep is a buffet
to the wolf, you need the natural enemy of the wolf, something
dominant among the sheep with enough teeth [or pounds]to convince
the wolf to move along. So the reason to be aware of your position?
Some people will seek you out to defend them, others will attack
just to try you out, some will attack to attempt to take your
place [a la Harmony]. The funny thing about this primal instinct..no
matter how foolish it is, it never quite goes away. Look around
you, it doesn't take long to see who is considered an authority
figure even in an area where there technically or "officially"
aren't any. The "Jock" who picked on the "Math
Geeks" may as well stand at the front of the room and pick
his/her nose when out of his/her element. Oh, but the elusive
Marcie figure..who can know them? I certainly couldn't..As far
as I was aware these people were just not transmitting a vibe
at all..I suspect Joss was correct in his assement..they ALL Went
To Work For The CIA. They have no odor, hair color, eye color
or gender. They got good grades, but not remarkably so..they had
a date for Prom [I think..but I could just have been programmed
to *think* I remember seeing them there] They certainly weren't
outcasts, they had the tightest clique going as far as I can tell.
I think maybe..that Marcie began to disappear when she was dissatisfied
with what she was..and not appreciative of her own unique set
of abilities. Remember, Cordelia didn't pick on her until she
butted into a conversation that did not include her. She also
didn't follow up on it the way she would have with Xander or Willow.
She probably signed her yearbook. The idea of a self dissappearing
when rejected by the self itself is very Joss..and amazingly not
something I remember seeing here yet!! Is it possible I have come
up with a topic not previously or at least recently discussed?!
Oh happy day! Please dig in with forks and knives and lets have
a look at the topic that Ronia built. [smiles to all, enjoy]
Can I just say - Just Rewards rocks! -- Pony,
07:55:14 12/11/03 Thu
First time viewing the episode since the week that it originally
aired, and it really grew in my already fairly high estimation.
Any awkward bits that I had perceived the first go around seemed
unnoticeable. Just an all round great episode.
Replies:
[> Re: Can I just say - Just Rewards rocks! -- Jaelvis,
12:21:29 12/11/03 Thu
I agree. I thought it was much better than the first time I saw
it. I think that in retrospect, things are seen in a different
light. I think this seems to happen each year when the season
first starts. You have to get back into the groove of things because
everything seems a little off. At least this has been my experience.
Since AtS changed settings and character this year, the changes
were more drastic and not knowing which direction things were
going, it is sometimes hard to know what to think of this or that.
But in looking back with the knowledge of 8 episodes, everything
seemed to fit in and not seem out of the ordinary. For instance,
Spike's behavior seems just like Spike but on the first viewing,
he seemed a little forced.
Central Metaphor in 'Chosen' -- Darby, 09:17:34
12/11/03 Thu
Something cjl said down in the Shanshu thread , about the
central metaphor in Buffy being the theme of Growing Up, made
me look at the final episode.
I considered myself grown up. Old, even. I assume that most of
the Powers-That-Be-ME do, as well. But I've taught adolescents
for years, and now have one in the house - a close approximation
to Hell on Earth, I suspect, and a fairly constant reminder of
what that period of life feels like.
And They Are Not - Like - Us.
I'm beginning to believe that there is a developmental stage during
the teen years that makes it impossible for individuals to truly
believe that their parents or authority figures ever experienced
what they are experiencing. But it goes deeper than that. I feel
that the one critical part of my psyche that has changed over
that part of my lifetime also is critically linked with one of
the central rules of the Slayer.
I've gained perspective. I no longer feel that there is But One
Darby in All the World with my weights and responsibilities and
emotions. But I once did, and it was not pleasant. That lack of
overview, even that lack of human connection can lead to some
overwhelming feelings and lots of bad choices, especially as it
interacts with the natural human tendency to think, "that
bad thing won't happen to me." It makes us rash, and lowers
our empathy for others as well (see Earshot). Until we
see that we aren't really as unique as we absolutely believed
- even the oddest of us have a lot of psychic (maybe psychotic)
twins in the world.
I feel that this metaphor fits the central theme better than Rewriting
the Rules. It's not that both images aren't there, but rules-changing
as an entry to adulthood is way more idealized, less universal
than gaining some perspective.
Replies:
[> Re: Central Metaphor in 'Chosen' -- Arethusa, 09:55:48
12/11/03 Thu
This is very interesting. When we realize we are no longer the
locus of the world, we also realize that we are not as alone as
we thought. Others have gone through the same ordeals, the same
rites of passage, so we are able to feel a greater connection
to the rest of humanity. As we start to see and emphesize with
the points of view of others, we gain a more mature outlook and
lose a little of that sense of isolation.
One of my students revealed, in a parent-teacher conference, that
she seemed to think I sat around at night thinking about her and
of ways to make her life harder. I told her that in my home life,
once I finished grading papers and writing lesson plans I didn't
spare school a second thought. In her mind she only saw me in
relation to herself, not as an independent individual.
The sense of isolation from society Buffy, Willow and Xander feel
due to their vampire slaying activities is, I think, meant to
correspond to the sense of isolation adolescents feel while suspended
between childhood and adulthood. There has been a lot of Frankenstein
imagery, from Some Assembly Required to Adam, that emphesizes
the sense of isolation that comes from feeling different from
everyone around us.
[> [> Loneliness, abnormality and estrangement --
Rahael, 10:30:30 12/11/03 Thu
I was in fact just posting about this very thing in the Cordy
thread (in reply to Skeeve - "All things counter, original,
spare and strange).
I like the points you and Darby make, and I'd agree with Darby
that it does make more sense of Chosen. Indeed, whole thing in
S7 of 'disconnection'. A while back, I posted that perhaps the
great theme of S7, what the advancing, unavoidable threat was
- it's time. Time which brings death, which brings ending. And
Slayers are created by death, deal out death, it is their gift.
I was struck by waht Darby said because it fits so well with my
pet theory. Time advances, and Sunnydale (signifying Buffy's teenage
world view) is destroyed, allowing her to travel away.
But the only thing I'd say was, does loneliness really end once
adolescence is over? Certainly, I never feel the angst that i
used to, nor the alienation.But I am always conscious of the fact
that in many ways, we can indeed still be alone. I just deal better
with it, I just deal with it by trying to reach out, not turn
away. My ability to find solace (friendship, companionship, wonderful
literature, music etc) has become stronger.
There's this wonderful quote from Joss that Ponygirl brought to
my attention a while back:
"I lived my life feeling alone. That's just the way of it.
I always did. As soon as I was old enough to have a feeling about
it, I felt like I was alone. No matter how much I loved my family
- and I actually got along better with my family than I think
most people do - but I just always felt separate from everybody,
and was terribly lonely all the time. I wasn't living a life that
was particularly different from anybody else's, a pariah - it
wasn't like I didn't have friends, but I just... we all of us
are alone in our own minds, and I was very much aware of that
from the very beginning of my life. Loneliness and aloneness -
which are different things - are very much, I would say, of the
three main things I focus on in my work.
...I wanted to be a part of a group. But I felt like Luke Cage
in the Fantastic Four, you know - no matter what. That's just
always been the way. You know, very often you'll be in a group
and you'll discover that every single person in it feels like
they're the one on the perimeter. "
[> [> [> Re: Loneliness, abnormality and estrangement
-- Darby, 11:22:26 12/11/03 Thu
I wonder if it isn't a necessary part of humanity that each individual
never loses sight of what sets them apart from those around them
- even while finding the breadth of what connects them to the
group.
We all have darkness that we hide from others, fearing that if
they really knew what went on deep in our minds, they would reject
us. I don't think you can be conscious and not have those thoughts
that make you feel guilty just for thinking, and that you would
hate for others to know about (another strength, played for laughs,
in Earshot). It may be a critical part of helping us repress
those urges. And BtVS was getting to be a lot about repression
in the last season, so that may connect as well.
[> [> [> [> Oh yes -- Rahael, 16:34:30 12/11/03
Thu
Season 6 & 7. Buffy crying in Tara's lap, asking her not to forgive.
All the separations. Tara leaving Willow. Spike hurting Buffy.
Dawn lying and stealing. Xander abandoning Anya.
And then all the disconnection in S7.
So much to think about here. I'll have more to say later!
PS, it's great to see you posting!
[> [> [> Yes, it never completely goes away, does
it? -- Arethusa, 11:23:51 12/11/03 Thu
We were brought into this world alone, and alone we will leave
it, someone once said (more or less). I don't think that ever
goes away, and I think it is one of the main solaces of religion-a
sense of not being alone. Jasmine exploits this need and fear,
but she also genuinely wants to alleviate it, which gives her
death some poignancy. Was she lonely too?
One of the consequences of becoming a vampire for Angel was becoming
outside of time. The passing of the seasons and the cycles of
life and death don't have the same meaning for Angel as a vampire.
Therefore he does not have the same connection to humanity that
Liam had without even knowing it. A vampire is frozen in time,
perpetually immature, disconnected, alone. It's not becoming the
vampire, moving outside the "natural" order of things,
that creates the monster, it's losing this connection to humanity.
Before they even became vampires Angel and Darla rejected their
worlds, keeping themselves apart from their societies. Angel and
Darla shunned their communities, operating in the fringes where
selfish desires and the need to control others, based on a fear
of not belonging (?), ended up controlling them.
In a way, death is everyone's gift. The cycles of birth and death
create a sense of immortality, without the drawbacks of literal
immortality. We realize the value of life because we know it will
end all too soon, a gift the vampires also lack. We only step
outside the natural order of things when we lose hold of our human
connections. Buffy's gift was her ability to keep those human
connections, to be able to accept death, which means accepting
change and growing up. She was able to tell her connection to
the future, Dawn, to live despite death, to be strong enough to
love what we will one day lose.
I hope this makes some sense, in its rambling way. :)
[> [> [> [> 'I believe in the night' -- Rahael,
16:43:00 12/11/03 Thu
That was all perfectly, and eloquently articulated. (One thing
though - 'order' is such a loaded word. It suggests harmony and
preciseness and stability. It always seems to me that life is
full of disorder. THe order we impose are our narratives, be they
of life and death, the idea of being able to achieve immortality
through art, etc)
And I have something to offer in return, but not words that are
mine. A poem posted in a friends journal yesterday that seems
very apposite:
You, darkness, of whom I am born-
I love you more than the flame
that limits the world
to the circle it illumines
and excludes all the rest.
But the dark embraces everything:
shapes and shadows, creatures and me,
people, nations-just as they are.
It lets me imagine
a great presence stirring beside me.
I believe in the night.
Rainer Maria Rilke (English translation of course)
[> [> [> Loneliness vs. aloneness -- Pony, 11:42:59
12/11/03 Thu
Perhaps what Buffy dealt with in Chosen was her aloneness. Alone
is what she was as the Slayer. It's what the First Slayer insisted
on in Restless. Buffy rejected it then but over the years seemed
to come to believe in her essential aloneness. With Chosen she
ended aloneness as part of her definition of herself.
Loneliness is a different matter, a bit more personal in a way.
[> [> [> [> Re: Loneliness vs. aloneness --
CW, 12:45:34 12/11/03 Thu
I just threw out a long direct response to Darby, because it was
getting terribly preachy. But, basically it dealt with something
similar to your concept of being lonely and aloness. The times
in my life when I've felt the most depressed were in fact those
times when I felt exposed to the whole uncaring world and had
no solitude. But, I got over it when found people with similar
interests. I had no more time to myself to think things out in
peace than before, but willing listeners became a good substitute
for internal debate. I was never lonely in those cases, but I
certainly felt alone.
And Darby, the reverse of what you've said is true. We're all
born with only the knowledge of ourselves. What teens go through
is the gradual realization that older people have gone through
similar crisies. What bothers them is that older people seem to
have universally forgotten what it was like. Teens will
happily argue that we don't live in the world they're growing
up in (Thank God, we don't!) But it's the inability to experience
those teenage worries and miseries any more, and our dogged instance
on giving long term good advice instead of instant fixes that
drives teens crazy. Teens must go through the process of learning
their parents are not omniscent gods, which is why they all go
through the period of thinking their parents are uncaring idiots.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Loneliness vs. aloneness
-- Darby, 12:57:25 12/11/03 Thu
I remember that period as being one when I didn't really believe
that my peers were going through the same things that I was -
I revelled in the misery of my uniqueness, you might say. It was
easier to erect the walls with adults, and it was easier to talk
about things with folks my own age, but I didn't really feel that
they understood, and I think now that I wasn't convinced that
I understood what they were going through. Or maybe I just didn't
care that much.
It's funny, I don't disagree with what you're saying about that
period of life, but I see your spin on it as itself being a product
of the perspective you've gained rather than the in-process rationale.
On the other hand, we may have knowledge of ourselves from early
on, but we have no real clue how it fits with the internal lives
of other humans (from what I've read, it's developmental difficulties
in this area that are the main source of autism - sorry, weird
mind-wander), and I think we sort out the surface - some of the
logic, some of the easier emotions - to navigate our social environment
long before we start to come to grips with the entirety of our
own minds, especially in comparison to others'.
Somewhere along the way, I think my train of thought got switched
onto a side rail...I'll stop now...
[> [> [> [> [> age and loss -- auroramama,
17:17:10 12/11/03 Thu
People who have been through crises sometimes need to believe
it can't happen to them again. Perhaps adults need to believe
that their teenage perspective on the world was simply wrong,
and the one they have now is objectively more accurate. Having
told themselves they're well out of the operatics of adolescence,
they seem unsympathetic to younger people because they can't afford
to be too sympathetic to their own younger selves.
Look at Giles, an older and wiser person who can cope with almost
any crisis gracefully, except a crisis that brings to life his
younger self. He's almost always respectful of Buffy, even when
she makes mistakes, but he doesn't afford Xander the same respect,
and I think it's in part because he sees his goofiest younger
self in Xander and can't be nice about it. I think he could have
done better with Willow, too. As long as she was "the best
of us", he could love her and criticise her, but when she
discovered how powerful she was and became intoxicated with it,
he couldn't find a way to reach her, even though he had been there
himself, or because he had been there himself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: age and loss --
CW, 05:06:33 12/12/03 Fri
Taking your ideas further - Giles problem is that he really feels
like Buffy is like his own child, the child he wishes he had.
Xander and Willow are the kids next door. He cares about them,
but in a much different way.
Also when she has finally grown up, Giles role as Buffy's surrogate
father is pretty much over. He definitely spent the best years
of his life training the best 'daughter' a man could have, and
now his emotional claim on her has changed. Gaining in the adult
Buffy a friend and valued colleague, clearly is neither making
up for losing her as a daughter nor losing his position as father-figure.
[> [> [> [> Good point -- Rahael, 16:52:01
12/11/03 Thu
[> [> This entire thread is truly wonderful and oddly
comforting.Thank you for it. -- s'kat, 20:59:28 12/11/03
Thu
[> Re: Central Metaphor in 'Chosen' -- Ann, 12:12:30
12/11/03 Thu
There is a lot of interesting work going on right now trying to
understand adolescent behaviour. I remembered reading something
about this a while back. See: http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=219
It has a good summation of some of the newest research. Their
behaviors really do reflect their brain development and now MRI's
can watch. You are right when you say they are different than
us. They are.
Cordelia's roles psychologically on Ats in regards
to Angel (anima? shadow? spoilers only to Home) -- shadowkat,
09:48:08 12/11/03 Thu
Lunasea said "I was trying to figure out how Cordy's arc
fit Angel's for season 2. I was going to ask if you had any ideas
regarding this yesterday. When we dissect Angel, we get Wes as
mind and masculine consciousness. It was fitting for Wesley to
be kicked out of the group as Angel's grief makes him irrational.
We get Fred as his battered heart and anima. We get Gunn as his
commitment to the mission. We get Lorne as his ability to read
others. It is fitting for Fred and Gunn to have a relationship
season 3 and to lose it season 4.
Then there is Cordy. Season 1 & 2 she was heart and anima. She
lost this role to Fred season 3. Season 4, as Jasmine she becomes
the anti-soul. Not a demon soul or evil, but a negation of the
moral compass. But what is Cordy really season 3? Femme fatale,
girl friday and all the noir terms are interesting, but psychologically
speaking, what is Cordy season 3? I think she is his shadow self.
I would be glad if you would share your thoughts on this."
Thank you, Lunasea.
Here's My thoughts - which I'm putting here because it's a bit
long and I didn't want it to get lost in the thread below.
Cordelia and her roles on ATS, (specifically in contrast to Angel,
the central character)
Been thinking about this off and on most of the morning (12 midnight
- 11;30am, with random fits of sleep in between which leads me
to believe I should stop going online to kick my insomnia. )
What is Cordelia's function? Is she Angel's anima? Shadow Self?
(Firs off? This is a Dicey topic for me to attempt, since my grasp
of Jungian psychology is a tad shaky so first a disclaimer:
I'm hesitant to pigeon hole a regular character, because as much
as Angel the Series, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer is essentially
about the lead character and structurally plotted around that
character, the writers have done an amazing job of providing the
supporting characters with distinct personalities and emotional
arcs which not only reflect and parallel the major characters
arc but can also exist completely outside of it. This is good
storytelling - because what it does is force the writer to develop
every element of the story, not just the central one. Only good
writers can pull it off. Amateur writers tend to fall into the
trap of only developing the supporting characters enough to reflect
the major one - so that these characters become either stock characters
or allegories that do not exist outside of the lead's story or
head, as a result the story becomes not much more than a psychological
allegory. (I think that's the right phrase, my syntax has been
off lately.)
I'm also hesitant to use psychological terms to define character
relationships because I feel that my understanding of these terms
is rather limited. For instance I often find myself confusing
the terms shadow self and anima. While the shadow can be the opposite
gender of the lead character, it is usually the same gender, while
the anima/animus is the opposite. Caroline is much better at doing
this sort of analysis than I am. ;-) End Disclaimer.)
With that in mind? My gut tells me that the writers have used
Cordelia at different points in the story to either reflect Angel's
struggle with the anima or his internal struggle with his shadow.
I also think Cordy in ATS performs a similar function to Willow
in BTVS - in a TV series it's a tad risky to make the central
character go completely dark. But you can make a supporting character
go dark - the supporting character is a little more expendable
than the lead. (Although not quite as expendable as I think the
writers hoped. In both Btvs S6 and ATS S4, the writers discovered
turning Willow and Cordy completely dark had some negative ramifications
- ie. dip in ratings, loss of audience...so you do have to be
careful with this sort of thing. I seriously doubt they'll attempt
it again or that WB/Fox will let them.)
Cordy as anima - the anima is described as the male's inner
female, the feminine aspect of the subconscious. She can either
act as a guide, supportive and wise, or be destructive and poisonous.
In stories she takes the form of good mother/Madonna or femme
fatale/enchantress/whore. In ATS - they split her into Cordelia
and Lilah. Cordelia with the visions acts as Angel's guide-post,
his touch stone. She also will state aloud the things that Angel
can't say himself, often calling him on his shit.
At the end of The Somnambulist, Cordy finds Angel sitting
on a rooftop. He tells her that nothing appears to have changed
since he was a child, things don't appear to have gotten any better.
Cordy tells him he's wrong, they have changed more or less. And
he's not the same man he used to be. He's not Angelus any more.
She also states - and this is important: "We all have
dark aspects to ourselves, everyone does. Shit that we have to
suppress". (not her exact words but the gist). This statement
echoes Doyle's speeches to Angel in City of...to Hero.
While Doyle was certainly not an "anima" per se, I think
in some ways - Cordy took over Doyle's function in the story.
The question is what was this function psychologically speaking?
Anima? Shadow? I'm not sure we can place a label on it. I know
Wes was brought in to take over the role Cordelia used to have
prior to Doyle's death - comic relief and research person. Can
Wes be described as a shadow self? Probably, but again, ME has
done such a good job of developing the character that he tends
to slip from the category. I think the character of Lindsey, may
be a better candidate for the role of shadow - at least in seasons
1-2. Holtz takes over in Season 3. And Connor in Season 4. Each
of these characters, besides their own separate arcs, represent
a side of Angel (or Liam) he can't deal with - Lindsey - the ambitious
man who desires power, yet also struggles with a conscience, Holtz
- the man filled with vengeance who inadvertently destroys his
family over and over again seeking to exact it, Connor - the child
hunting approval and family. (Of course these characters are also
very well developed and like to slip out of the categories I attempt
to put them in.)
But back to Cordy - dropping the psychological terminology for
a moment, I think she has been used as a means of reflecting what
is going on inside Angel psychologically. A sort of mirror, if
you will. And I think she's always filled that purpose as early
as episode 1, ATS.
Season 1:
City of - Angel meets Cordy at a party. Doyle is suggesting
Angel mingle. Angel doesn't want to mingle, he wants to sink into
a hole. He's just left his true love. He's lonely. He's dealing
with the fact that he's recently tasted human blood and desperately
craves it. But Doyle insists that he interact. Cordelia similarly
has left Sunnydale, she's lost a love, she's trying a new life,
and she's trying to mingle. Cordy wants to be an actress. Angel
feels as if that's all he's doing "acting". Their interaction
and arcs in this episode prove to an interesting parallel - a
somewhat mirror of each other. Both are into image. Both care
a great deal about their looks - which was already established
on BTVS. Both also yearn for connection, yet find it awkward to
achieve in the big city environment.
Room with A View - in this episode Cordelia discusses with
Angel the fact that she's being punished. She tells him that she
knows she deserves it b/c of how mean she was in high school and
this is her pay back, but she wants it to stop, just for a little
while. Can she just have this one thing? This speech reflects
what happens with Angel in IWRY and In The Dark.
The fact that he knows he's being punished, but desperately wishes
for a reprieve. The writers can't really let Angel give voice
to this feeling - but they can allow Cordelia to. Her words echo
Angel's own feelings on the issue. The writers do it again in
Pylea - where both Angel and Cordelia felt a reprieve - Cordy
got to be Princess, Angel got his moment - literally - in the
sun. They also repeat the imagery in That Vision Thing - where
Cordy once again wonders aloud why the Powers are punishing her.
She is in a way giving voice to all the suppressed feelings inside
Angel. The toll the visions take upon Cordelia in this episode
- may represent the feelings that Angel feels about Buffy, a topic
Cordy and Angel discuss in the previous episode, what he feels
about himself, and his own role. Also representations of his guilt.
It's interesting that the physical manifestation of the visions
is caused by a psychic hired by Lilah (Cordelia's evil doppleganger)
who did it to free a misogynist who has the power to inflict misogyny
on other men from the flames. (Billy Ats S3) All of which may
in effect represent - Angel's struggle with his anima - his inability
to accept her, seeing her maybe as demon that craves blood or
maybe a representation of the woman he could not save - Darla.
It may also represent Angel's fury at Darla and himself for sleeping
with her and discarding her. The hatred of the anima - can manifest
in men as misogyny...I think. The fact that Angel is the only
man not affected by Billy, may in part be a metaphor for Billy/Lilah/Cordy's
representation of Angel's own internal struggle with his anima,
which in turn is reflected by his own unresolved feelings for
Darla and Buffy. By the time we reach Billy - Angel has struggled
with Buffy's death and rebirth and the fact he can't help her
as well as sleeping with Darla and his inability to save Darla.
Angel may be suppressing at this point some righteous anger at
Darla, Buffy and himself - regarding how he's dealt with the two
most important women in his life and what they've demanded of
him in return - these feelings may metaphorically speaking, be
represented in the story by Billy, who coincidentally appears
right before Darla's re-appearance and shortly after his off-screen
reunion with Buffy.
In To Shanshu in LA - Cordelia is overwhelmed by the pain
and suffering of the world, it nearly drives her insane - this
reminded me a lot of a scene in Darla, where we see Angel
overwhelmed by the pain and suffering he caused when he gets his
soul back, which also nearly drives him insane. In this episode,
Angel finds out about a prophecy, which could wipe all that away.
Allow him to start again without carrying the weight of past sins.
Another way of interpreting the episode, an anima pov, is that
Angel is trying to suppress the part of him that cares - so Cordelia
goes nuts. In Season 2 - note Cordelia is the person who forgives
Angel last - when he returns from his beige period. He wins back
her love by buying clothes - but this also can be seen as a mirror
- and reflection of Angel's relationship with his anima - Cordelia
retreats to image as a means of covering pain and guilt? (not
sure, I was never overly fond of Disharmony).
Disharmony - Cordy is the one who befriends and trusts
Harmony. She also tells Angel, that if he can change, why can't
someone else. Angel insists the soul makes the difference. But
Cordelia questions that. This may reflect Angel's own struggle
with it. Angel tells Cordy that Harm will turn on her. Cordy retorts
- like you did? Another mirror reflection. It's almost as if Cordy
is constantly holding up a mirror to Angel (which is odd since
Angel can't cast a reflection) and showing him the facets of his
personality he would rather ignore.
In Season 4 - Apocalypse Nowish - Awakenings - it's Cordelia
who forces Angel to look at Angelus. She informs him that she
knows everything he did as Angelus. Not only knows, but felt what
he felt at the time he did the acts. She tells him how much he
enjoyed it. (An echo by the way of what Angel tells Cordy in Somnambulist
S1). She also tells him that Angelus is smarter than him.
While this works plot wise - it also tells us something interesting
about Angel and Angel's insecurities. Part of Angel, believes
his evil alter ego is smarter, cleverer, and quicker than him.
That the demon is better than the man. He's always worried over
this. (From as far back as Amends , which some believe
was the pilot for ATS) He keeps mentioning it's the man who informs
the demon who needs to be killed. This reflects Angel's own self-hatred.
Cordelia's confession that she can't love Angel b/c of who he
was...reflects Angel's own deepest darkest fears. No one can
love me - when they see the real me - which is a heartless beast.
What's interesting and incredibly ironic is that it is in essence
Cordelia who convinces Angel to free Angelus and allow Angelus
to take over for a while. It is Cordelia who takes possession
of Angel's soul (another interesting metaphor that I'll return
to) and who frees Angelus from the cage. (Awakenings - Orpheus)
The dark anima freeing the negative aspect of the subconscious
- in fairy tales we often have the male hero being seduced or
led by a wicked female into wrongdoing. Up until now, Lilah did
this with Angel, and unsuccessfully, I might add. It's not until
Cordelia takes Lilah's role that the seduction works. Why? Because
Cordelia better reflects Angel's deepest fears and desires. She
understands them because she harbors some of those same desires
herself - she serves as a reflection of him.
Through Cordelia and Jasmine in S4, we experience Angel's dark
side. Angel has always had a bit of a "god complex"
or better put, "father complex". He desperately wants
to control his world. We see this in Angelus - in S2 BTVS, when
he first teams up with Spike and Dru to unleash the Judge, (Innocence)
then again attempts to suck the world into hell through Acathla.
(Becoming) In S2 ATS - Angel similarly attempts to control his
environment by going after and manipulating Wolfram and Hart.
(Reunion- Epithany) But he always pulls back. Cordelia on the
other hand - goes all the way, interferes, takes over - and Jasmine?
Literally tries to mold the world to her liking. Both reflect
Angel's own internal desires - the desire to be wiped clean, to
wipe the suffering of the world clean, the craving to devour others,
and the hubris to believe he should be the judge. These are representations
of his own darkness, the parts of Angel he suppresses. The parts
he despises in himself. In Home, he ironically gives in
- for the best of intentions - to save that part of himself, which
he keeps losing. Connor. The child.
I think if you track back through the episodes, you'll see other
examples of how Cordelia mirrors both Angel's tragic flaws and
positive aspects. (Is this the role of shadow or anima? Not sure.)
In the Pylea arc - Cordy is by turns heroic and self-absorbed.
We often have her and Angel doing the opposite of each other.
Cordy ends up in Pylea to save Fred, she encounters Fred early
on - and instead of saving Fred is saved by her. Becomes the Princess
because of her "otherness" or "special gift"
but the Princess bit has a lethal price. She must mate with Groo
and give him her gift, then be killed. Angel comes to Pylea, is
celebrated as a hero, encounters Fred, gives up being the hero
to save Fred.
He fears losing his "soul" when he mates. Angel's price
is becoming a monster if he accesses his gift - the vampire strength,
while Cordy becomes a Princess when she access her gift - the
visions. Both rely on their own humanity to save the day, not
their special gifts. Angel's humanity keeps him from letting the
beast take over. Cordy's humanity gives her the strength to defeat
the priests and go back to her world.
Visions/Soul
Cordy will lose her visions if she sleeps with Groo without a
potion. Angel will lose his soul if he sleeps with someone and
has perfect happiness. Note it's not just anyone Cordy/Angel could
lose their special gift to - it's someone specific and under specific
circumstances. Cordy can only lose it to Groos. Angel can only
lose his if he connects with someone, truly has a moment of bliss.
Neither wishes to lose this gift, even if both gifts cause them
pain and anguish. Cordy's visions hook her to others pain, without
them she feels less. Angel's soul hooks him to others pain. Cordy's
visions make her unique, a champion. Angel's soul makes him unique,
a champion. Cordy's visions are both a gift and a curse - she
feels as if she is constantly being punished. Angel's soul is
both a gift and a curse - he feels as if he is constantly being
punished. Holtz says Angel's soul makes him vulnerable - gives
Holtz a means of hurting him. Cordelia's visions give Skip a means
of manipulating her. The difference? When Angel loses his soul
he becomes a monster. When Cordy loses her visions? She is just
human. Cordy's visions result in her becoming a monster, a demon
eventually. Angel's soul makes him less of a monster and may result
in him becoming a man eventually. The contrast - may be a way
of commenting on the pain and struggle of dealing with a moral
compass, of the desire to do good, while at the same time struggling
with such pesky things like hubris and vanity along the way.
The Sleeping Anima
Cordy's coma - Cordelia becomes unconscious when Angel gives in
to his own desires. In the Jasmine arc - Angel is seduced by the
release from pain Jasmine offers - it's not until Fred shoots
Angel with a bullet covered by Jasmine's blood that he wakes,
like the prince from the enchantress' spell. But, note that Cordy
is still in a coma when Angel decides to take W&H up on their
offer. Cordy is out of the picture. Angel is in the belly of the
beast. I'm curious if Angel would have done what he did in Home,
if Cordy had not been in a coma. Cordelia's absence...has resulted
in Angel being forced to deal with the man/demon dichotomy in
himself. If we see Cordy as a shadow - we could say he's been
forced to incorporate it. If she's the anima - perhaps he's been
forced to deal with that negative aspect