January 2004 posts
know what the text is in the Buffy intro? -- Ames, 09:04:57
I've always wondered what the text is that flashes by briefly
at the start of the Buffy intro in all seasons. I can see that
there's a few frames of the text "who died" over the
image of an eye, then some German? text upside down in an archaic
font. There's only a few clear words, so I don't think there's
enough to identify it without a hint.
[> Someone no doubt knows for sure -- CW, 12:09:36
For starters there are three texts.
The first is in badly typed German and upside down. It is a fragment
of a larger page and the lines are also only fragments. recognizable
an deinem Mann - to your husband
---einer Schwester -a/your/his sister
this page is repeatedly shown, including once both mirrored and
The second text simply reads "who died" in English.
The third text is also a page fragment in German in the type-font
style called Fraktur which was popular in Germany until the end
of the Nazi regime. (This font style is often a bit taxing to
read.) There is a page number 666 (ooh scary!) and a title at
the top which begins "Monday after..." the first line
of the body is the most interesting and reads in part "..and
make us gods, ..."
The second text is seen only once. The third is repeated a few
times in the opening.
[> [> Isnt' it from a S1 episode? -- Giles, 18:10:29
Cant remember for certian, i will have to get out my dvd, but
it is either from bufys dream thingie in WTTH or from I robot
[> [> [> Re: Isnt' it from a S1 episode? -- Ames,
10:01:11 01/04/04 Sun
Maybe it's from the book Vampyre. Anyone here buy the original
copy from eBay?
[> Legends of Vishnu -- pellenaka, 11:34:19 01/04/04
Very briefly is the book Legends of Vishnu which Giles
had in Out Of Mind, Out Of Sight.
This site has some of the beginning: http://www.mindmovie.de/credits/credits.htm
[> [> Re: Legends of Vishnu -- Ames, 08:55:39
Thanks, great reference. But what does a Christmas letter and
a passage from the Bible have to do with Legends of Vishnu?
I'm always amazed at the high-quality BtVS research which can
be found on the net. Keep it coming!
Spike as Gollum from Lord
of the Rings -- undeadenglishpatient, 10:09:02 01/03/04
I can't help but notice the similarities between Spike and Gollum
from Lord of the Rings. Is anyone else getting that vibe..........even
after his grand sacrifice last season?
Spike like Gollum was tortured by the First with conversations
with himself, like Gollum/Smeagol.
The scoobies called him Smelly - like Frodo and Sam called Gollum.
Spike was captured by the First, Gollum was captured and then
released by Sauron.
Spike leads Buffy to the seal, Gollum leads Frodo and Sam to Cirith
Ungol, and only seems to be changing his ways.
Buffy and friends betray Spike by keeping the enemy closer, leading
him to sacrifice himself in the Hellmouth, Gollum gets betrayed
by Frodo and Sam, but he also betray's them, eventually he bites
off the finger of Frodo, gets the ring and then dances himself
into the Cracks of Doom.
So, now, we have a Spike (Gollum)..........return in LA, at W&H to
be Angel's arc nemesis (or what, I don't know). Now, what would
happen if Gollum returned from the dead? We have already seen
a Gollum like character in Life of the Party - the demon on a
leash....and he bumps into Spike after he removes his leash and
runs away.......before the big brawl goes down. Was this character
a joke on Spike? Was this character prophelictic to what is really
going on with Spike? Is Spike on a leash and connected to someone
else? Does he have 'blue blood' - royal bloodline with a special
power? Is he forever screwed, because he (like Gollum) was/is
dependant on the power of the Ring? Has that power corrupted him
beyond help? Gollum was once a hobbit, much like Frodo himself.......but,
well we know how well that worked out for him, expecially since
he was never able to gain any friends.
Just thought I would put the question out there for some Lord
of the Ring experts.......what do you think?
[> Re: Spike as Gollum from Lord of the Rings -- Maura,
11:44:36 01/03/04 Sat
Great analysis of Spike/Gollum similarities. A lot of folks have
commented that these two characters are analogous, but youÕve
brought up a lot of specific points I havenÕt heard discussed
I agree that Spike (at least on _Buffy_ ) occupies the ÒGollumÓ
position, to speak sort of archetypally. It seems to me that the
key difference is that Spike is not screwed in the way Gollum
is. Gollum is ultimately beyond help. Spike isnÕt. Spike,
with help from others, manages to resurrect his good self and
put it back in charge (at least most of the time).
Okay, hereÕs a weird thought, but IÕm going to say
it anyway. It has often struck me (because this is how my mind
works) that if one were to introduce post-war Frodo, as a viewer,
to _Buffy_, then (if you could get over some cultural difference
issues) he would really like the character of Spike precisely
because Spike is like Gollum, but heÕs sort of a heroic
Gollum, one who manages to triumph--mostly--over his evil self.
And I think Frodo would find that compelling.
[> [> Really, really vague and general Return of the
King spoiler above -- Maura, 11:46:10 01/03/04 Sat
[> [> [> If Spoilers have been around for 50 years,
are they really spoilers? -- Majin Gojira, 13:42:29 01/03/04
[> [> More about: Spike as Gollum from Lord of the Rings
-- undeadenglishpatient, 20:13:14 01/03/04 Sat
You see though, I'm really not sure it's over yet. Spike survived
his Gollumness in Season 7 of BTVS (kinda), but now that he's
on ATS, he may have to re-do it all over again........differently
but the same for another hero - this time Angel.
There was a line in Just Rewards (I think) were Angel had said
about Spike (paraphrasing) "Sometimes, people cannot be saved".
Which, once again reminded me of Gollum. And also, his life seems
to be spared yet again....and for what purpose?
Here is an interesting bit of text from Lord of The Rings about
Gandalf: It's Gollum.
Gandalf: He's been following us for three days.
Frodo: He escaped the dungeons of Barad-dzr?
Gandalf: Escaped. Or set loose.
Gandalf: Now the Ring has brought him here. He will never be rid
of his need for it. He hates and loves the Ring, as he hates and
loves himself. Smeagol's life is a sad story. Yes, Smeagol he
was once called. Before the Ring found him. Before it drove him
Frodo: It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance.
Gandalf: Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that
live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it
to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death and judgement.
Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that
Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before this
is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of the Ring.
Frodo: I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this
Gandalf: So do all that come to see such times, but that is not
for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the
time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this
world, Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find
the Ring. In which case you were also 'meant' to have it. And
that is an encouraging thought. Eh - it's that way.
[> [> [> Both Angel and Spike -- Rose, 13:05:49
If you really think about it, both Spike and Angel - in different
ways - could be compared to Gollum. Neither is really a hero,
and both share similarities to the LOTR character. The similarities
between Spike and Gollum have already been pointed out, but what
about Angel? I can think of one similarity. Both Angel and Gollum
seemed to share a bi-polar personality. Granted, the two sides
of Angel's nature do not conduct conversations with each other.
But I've noticed - especially in many S4 episodes on how Angel
refer to his unsouled self in the third person.
[> [> [> [> Re: Both Angel and Spike -- undeadenglishpatient,
21:09:47 01/04/04 Sun
I suppose any vampire could be Gollum in that way. When a human
gets sired, they get the power. That power is then the beginning
of their new life, a more powerful life (unlife) than they had
[> Re: Spike as Gollum from Lord of the Rings -- RJA,
15:58:47 01/03/04 Sat
Thats the second time in a few weeks that I've seen Spike and
Gollum compared, although the first time was a lot more unfavourably,
with the suggestion that Tolkein had the right ending for the
To be honest I dont know enough about LOTR other than from superficial
readings, so I'm not really sure that the role of Gollum was meant
to be, and exactly how easy it was to give in to the power of
the ring. And on that matter rests how sympathetic a character
Gollum is (because neither in the films or the book did I have
a great deal of sympathy for him, nor Frodo for that matter, whereas
Spike I have).
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by Buffy and the Scoobies betraying
Spike though. It seems to me to really to take away anything interesting
from Spike as a character and to massively reduce the importance
of his actions by suggesting he was an unwitting dupe.
Because surely champions know what they're doing :-)
[> [> Re: Spike as Gollum from Lord of the Rings
-- undeadenglishpatient, 20:30:17 01/03/04 Sat
LOL. I think the show has done quite a bit of fence balancing
when it comes to Spike. While they want to keep him around (and
his fans) they also like to keep him a bit dangerous and unpredictable.
In Sleeper, the scoobies basically had a little pow-wow about
Spike - the dialog danced around the: "keep your friends
close and your enemies closer" (from the Godfather) in regards
to Spike and his condition. It was Buffy's idea, and Xander in
particular wasn't too fond of this idea - too dangerous. At the
end of the day, the question is still there - Was Buffy close
to Spike because she cared for him? OR Was Buffy close to Spike
to keep the enemy closer? If it was number 1, then she was sympathetic,
if number 2 - betrayal. Its all a matter of fence balancing.....no
one can really know for sure.
I am a Spike fan, and do not believe the Gollum compairison is
fair on ME's part, however the parellels are quite obvious even
though it's not an exact one to one ratio. They couldn't very
well do it 'exactly' - if they did, it would have been too much
of someone else's story and a direct copy of LOTR.
I do however, think Gollum is alive and well now on ATS in the
a new form: Spike back from the Hellmouth. He may very well end
up in the same situation as he was on BTVS - as a guide to Angel
in his quest. ME's stance is Angel is the true champion, that
can only mean some type of set back (once again) for Spike by
the end of the season. However, in order for Angel to achieve
his quest, he will need Gollum/Spike's help. After all, Gollum
[> [> [> True Champion? -- Rose, 13:09:58 01/04/04
"Angel is the true champion"
Are you sure about this? Are you saying this because he is the
main character? And to be honest, I find the title "hero"
and "champion" unacceptable. Is it really necessary
to have a champion or hero? And is it really necessary for Angel,
Spike or any other member of the AI gang be one?
[> [> [> [> Re: True Champion? -- Corwin of
Amber, 17:43:36 01/04/04 Sun
I think you ripped that out of context. The entire quote from
UDEP's post is:
ME's stance is Angel is the true champion, that can only mean
some type of set back (once again) for Spike by the end of the
I personally have no reason to disagree with that statement. What's
the use, in the context of the television show, of not having
Angel be the "true champion", on his own show?
>And to be honest, I find the title "hero" and "champion"
Why do you find such a term "unnaceptable"? Thats a
really curious term - do you reject all "heroes" and
"champions", or do you just find it's use unacceptable
in this case?
>And is it really necessary for Angel, Spike or any other member
of the AI gang be one?
A large part of the overall story of Angel involves the Champion
Arc. Is Angel a Champion, does he even want to be one? Doe it
earn him redemption if he is one? Is it worth it, in the end?
If you don't like the term "champion" feel free to use
any other, or invent a nonsense one, because it's really just
a label for an archtype. And yes, it did sound a little silly
in the context of the earlier noir-Angel period, but it does fit
well with the more mythic stories in later seasons.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: True Champion? -- undeadenglishpatient,
21:07:03 01/04/04 Sun
Yes, that is what I meant......at the end of the day, ATS is Angel's
show, and he will be the champion. I think that's pretty obvious.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: True Champion?
-- Claudia, 10:45:07 01/05/04 Mon
The idea of Angel, Spike or anyone else being a "champion"
is ridiculous. I find it odd that so many people feel it is necessary
to find a fictional character, or even someone real, to idolize
and put on a pedestal. This makes me wonder if people find it
easier to idealize someone else (whether real or fictional) rather
than deal with oneself.
To me, both Angel and Spike are characters - with both good and
bad sides. I would be more impressed if they and the other main
characters learn to begin the road to self-realization, instead
of committing some "heroic" act so that others can regard
them as "heroes" and "champions".
[> Gollum? -- Dlgood, 11:40:54 01/04/04 Sun
I must admit that I find the Gollum/Spike characterizations to
be more apt for the S4-5 stretch of BtVS.
Any real analysis is a bit superficial if it depends on mapping
Gollum to Spike rather than the reverse - as Gollum predates Spike
by fifty years. Most notably - to the extent that Gollum has any
love for Frodo or "good", it is dwarfed by his desire
for the ring and his love of himself. To the extent that Gollum
is a savior in RotK, it is largely because he is Evil and Self-interested
- not because he has goodness. A clear comparison to Spike in
S2-5 than to the Spike of S7 or AtS-5.
I think the better character to compare is Uriah Heep from
Charles Dickens' David Copperfield a strong influence upon
Tolkien's Smeagol/Gollum. But for that, I'd defer to someone who
knew Dickens better than I.
[> [> Re: Gollum? -- Rufus, 17:53:28 01/04/04
someone who knew Dickens better than I.
Hey, and Hey!!!!! I'm not THAT old....you may want to ask OnM........;):):):):):):):):)
[> Weighing in with a short list -- MsGiles, 04:33:38
Not a shortlist ('Gollum and Spike both made it onto the Conflicted
Second Banana of the Year shortlist for 2003'), but ..
Some thoughts on Gollum and Frodo. I thought, in time-honoured
method, I'd start with a list:
Both are intially good (William and Smeagol), and are then turned
bad (Spike by being vamped, Smeagol by exposure to the Ring).
Both aquire new names to go with their new badness (Spike/Gollum)
The influence of the hero (Buffy/Frodo) counteracts the bad influence
and causes internal conflict in both characters. They then spend
much of the remaining story swinging between good and bad influences,
providing lots of narrative tension
The mercy shown by heroes towards these flawed characters is essential
to the resolution of the story. Buffy spares bad-but-besotted
Spike over and over (to the bemusement of less Spike-friendly
fans), and Frodo spares a dangerously Ring-influenced Gollum over
and over (to the bemusement of the definitely not Gollum-friendly
Each character ends consumed by fire (well, and daylight in Spike's
case, but there's a lot of fire too)
Each end resolves the fate of the world (saves it) where the hero
can't do any more
In Spike's case, good wins, and he meets his end voluntarily,
acknowledging Buffy's thanks, and awarded the Order of the Liz.
They're both unequivocally good by then, and Buffy gets to live
a normal life.
Gollum on the other hand goes bad at the last moment, as does
Frodo. It's Frodo's earlier act of mercy towards Gollum that ensures
the end of the Ring and the world's safety. The badness comes
from the Ring however, and when that goes, Frodo is good. In one
sense, though, Frodo is not saved. Though he remains good, his
time with the Ring continues to haunt and hurt him, and he has
to go with the Elves into the para-death of the far West, leaving
Sam to enjoy the fruits of victory in the Shire.
And the of course there is the hunk factor. Gollum, though nearly
naked throughout the films, will not I think be inspiring the
same quantity of slash fic. At least, I sincerely hope not.
Did Joss have LoTR consciously in mind, when he wrote the end
of S7? I have no knowledge of this. Do any of those more informed
people out there know?.
If he did, then maybe his intention was to make the whole ending
more upbeat, to rewrite Gollum's journey as a hero's assistant's
journey, and to let the hero (Buffy) enjoy her final success (unlike
Frodo). I think the end of LoTR is rather darker than the end
of S7. Like much of LoTR, there's an abiding gloom or elegiac
quality among all the heroics, a sense that the best is past,
the elves are leaving, and the pains suffered by Frodo will never
be completely healed. Is Gollum redeemed by his fall, even though
he doesn't make a deliberate sacrifice? I get the feeling that
it is more Frodo, and hobbit-kind, that is redeemed by it, by
the mercy he showed. Although the Fourth Age will be the age of
Men, in the story we follow, the hobbits rather than the men are
the everypeople, the ones we identify with, while the men (Aragorn,
the Riders, Gondor) are cast in a heroic mold. Smeagol is corrupted
by the Ring, just as Men are (the prime cases of this being the
Nazgul, Kings of Men corrupted utterly by the Nine subsidiary
Rings, and Boromir), but both Bilbo and Frodo are able to resist
long enough to bring the thing to an end.
Gollum is perhaps a way of showing that even the most unappealing
entity may have a place in the scheme of things, and that it is
unwise to play god, and to determine the fates of others before
their place in the story is complete. Gollum is, in the end, a
force for good - he gets the hobbits through Mordor, and destroys
the Ring. He is not good himself, though, in the Ring succeeds
in corrupting him before the end, thereby ensuring its own end.
Maybe this is a result of Tolkien's age and his first WW experiences,
but it gives a very wistful quality to the text. The whole scouring
of the Shire sequence that ends the book (and which I think fails
to work in the film) seems to be about the aftermath of war, the
price paid even when victory if achieved. As well as a dig at
all the developers round Birmingham who had built on the rural
villages that Tolkien knew as a boy.
Come to that, though, maybe even Buffy does not end on a note
of uncomplicated feelgoodness. There's a weariness to Buffy's
smile, as she faces the prospect of a normal life. Much of everything
and everyone she knows, including one or two things she was rather
fond of, have vanished into a chasm. S6 and S7 had a gloom about
them, the shadow of adulthood with its disappointments and complications
falling over the bright optimism of etc etc.
"With rue my heart is laden
For golden hours I've had,
For many a rose-lipped maiden
and many a light-limbed lad.
By brooks too broad for leaping
The light-limbed lads are laid,
The maidens all are sleeping
In fields where roses fade"
[> [> Re: Weighing in with a short list -- undeadenglishpatient,
16:44:57 01/07/04 Wed
Thanks for that, that was what I was looking for and really could
not put into words myself.
There is a parallel going on, without a distinct one on one relationship.
Its there, under the surface.
While I don't know - from Joss's mouth - if its supposed to be
this way, I do know he is a big Lord of the Rings fan. So, one
Another similarity between the two is the obsession, if you will,
for something that is 'glowing'. Spike refered to Buffy as glowing
or shiny, Gollum refers to the ring as glowing, shiny, precious.
Also, a completely shallow observation: while Gollum was unattractively
half naked in the movies, Spike has also been shown more often
than some peoples tastes, to be half clothed as well for quite
a few episodes - either with Buffy or being tortured. Which is
another similarity worth noting.
Thank you for your post, I really enjoyed it!
[> [> [> The other comparison -- Dlgood, 16:46:35
For me is actually not with Gollum/Vampire, but rather with Frodo
& the Ring as compared to Buffy & Dawn in the Gift.
Frodo should have been able to sacrifice the ring to save Middle
Earth. He wasn't. Instead, Gollum bites his finger off and tumbles
into the fire. Though Frodo is still a hero, and though the world
was saved, Frodo still lives out the rest of his days knowing
that he was unable to do what was asked of him - to give up that
which was most precious to him.
Buffy, should have been able to sacrifice Dawn in order to save
the world. She wasn't, and indeed confirms that she will let the
world end if she cannot save Dawn. Buffy is granted a "Gift"
and allowed to die in Dawn's place. The world is saved, and Buffy
is still a hero, but like Frodo, Buffy was unable to do what was
asked of her - give up that which was most precious to her.
[> [> Re: Weighing in with a short list -- Claudia,
11:05:57 01/08/04 Thu
Have you considered a similar list between Gollum and Angel?
[> [> [> Re: Weighing in with a short list --
undeadenglishpatient, 11:47:36 01/08/04 Thu
Not yet, but that would be interesting as well.
OT: Song of Ice and Fire,
Book 4 -- dub ;o), 21:21:57 01/03/04 Sat
I've just realized that Amazon.com is pre-selling George R.R.
Martin's 4th book in the series, A Feast for Crows, with
an anticipated release date of April 27, 2004.
If you haven't read the first three books in this series yet,
that gives you a few months to do so. For those of us who have,
believe me, this is a very big deal. Seems like we've been
waiting forever for this book, and it's much more worthy of the
wait than the next in Robert Jordan's interminable Wheel of
Time series (IMNSHO)! Ice&Fire is, hands down,
the best fantasy series since Guy Gavriel Kay's Fionavar Tapestry.
[> Re: OT: Song of Ice and Fire, Book 4 -- Ames, 09:59:44
Just to second that, it's one of the best fantasy series ever.
But we're already at book 4, and we're still waiting to get to
the core of the plot! I hope GRRM gets to it in this book, or
I'll start to feel he's dragging it out.
(also vague non-spoilery comment on the last book: I still can't
see how he justified what happened at the wedding - it was culturally
way out of character)
The Minor Fall, The Major
Life, The Chromatic Rejection of Tonality (Angel Odyssey 5.8)
-- Tchaikovsky, 05:25:16 01/04/04 Sun
Happy 2004 everybody. And goodness, this is the anniversary posting
of the Angel Odyssey, or the nearest I'm going to get to it, falling
as it does four days after I wrote about 200 words on City
Of.... Those were the days, I hear you cry. Meanwhile, Season
One never really convinced me except for occasional flashes of
Minear brilliance. Season Two blew me away. Season Three maintained
the heady standard, and Season Four, the turgid supernatural soap
opera, bludgeoned its way through sheer force of character into
my heart. I finished the year feeling a little pensive about the
power of Season Five, however. It had had the best standalone
episode since Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been, in The
Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco, (proving that quality can
mean quantity in titles: hence see mine above). But 'Lineage',
which I enjoyed, did not deliver the palpable forward kick of
so many seventh episodes in the Whedonverse, and I was left floundering
in a puzzle as to whether the series was actually going anywhere,
or just chewing the end of its executive biro wondering when it
could clock off for the day.
Cue the greatest episode since at least Soulless...
5.8 - 'Destiny'
Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, this is the best episode
this Season, and I should quickly mention that I think the writing
is consistently so superb in this episode that David Fury deserves
a huge amount of credit. That Stephen DeKnight is a wonderful
writer of course goes without saying.
I've been thinking a lot about brotherhood recently. It's partly
come from peorsonal thoughts and partly from some marvellous external
stimulus. This Christmas I went with my brother to see a Libertines
concert in the Forum in London, a fantastic experience made all
the richer by the shared company. On New Year's Day, I took my
little half-brother, now nine, to see The Return of the King.
I suspect it may have made him complacent about the brilliance
of cinema, but rather that than indifferent. These people are,
aside from glorious independent individuals, vessels in whom I
can encapsulate my hopes for the future, my joys and anxieties,
believing that the thread which fades over the horizon may tease
itself out for fifty years. And that is an extraordinary, almost
free gift. A good relationship with siblings is not a given, but
it is something relatively easy to maintain when you are in constant
contact with someone who has necessarily shared many formative
And yet there are powers, material objects, ideas, that can tear
brothers apart. This is what makes Cain and Abel, used as source
material for both Jeffrey Archer and John Steinbeck, a universal,
fascinating story. And as I sat in the darkened theatre and the
curtains drew back on The Return of the King, we were plunged,
rather than into war or Isengard's fortresses or the forests of
Fangorn, into an apparently idyllic rurality by the Anduin. Smeagol
and Deagol, brothers and Hobbits, fishing quietly in all the greens
and yellows of carelessness. In cinematic terms, this is extremely
bad news when one knows that the result is the grey sallowness
of Gollum, not so much butter spread too thinly over bread as
butter spread over a whole loaf.
Smeagol's act of killing his brother in this paradise, this Eden-like
quiet, had heavy echoes for me of Cain and Abel. In this story,
it is on the surface level Smeagol's love for a material thing,
seductive yet simple that makes him kill Deagol. As always, residing
under the surface like the monster carp, is the theme of power,
of possession of not the ring, but the person with the ring. We
don't learn a lot about Smeagol and Deagol's relationship in either
book or film, but we are left with the short hand of that very
strong relationship corrupted, possibly the defining image of
the ring's Evil, making seemingly irrelevant people commit an
act that they otherwsie would never have dreamed of.
And so what of brothers. In the teaser of 'Destiny', we see the
setting up of a brother's relationship between Angelus and William.
William is the willing little brother, somewhat in awe of his
mentor, and yet he is a brother nevertheless. Angelus allows him
to believe that he is of the same generation; that he is another
man who can share with him the confusing female wiles of Darla
and Drusilla. There's a deformity in their brotherhood: the deformed
grotesque of human brotherhood, the mockery - but for the moment
there is the belief that some of the parallel qualities still
exist, that of shared experience, of loyalty, even of consideration.
The music that plays over the flashback in London is really excellent:
Rob Kral has delievered some of his best scoring this Season.
Meanwhile, back in the present day, a plot twist that I had always
assumed would be the denouement of some future episode is dealt
casually to us before the opening credits. The flash of light,
so unexpected, sudden and inexplicable, like a thunderbolt but
without the bravado, makes Spike corporeal. And barely ater the
audience have greapsed the enormity of the change, Spike is already
indulging in the physical, mendacious pleasures of corporeality-
drinking, making love and preparing for a little of the old ultra-violence.
Careless throwaway lines are used magnificently in this episode,
and Spike's sentiment that Angel's refreshemnt is 'bloody ambrosia'
is a marvellous pun, made better by the lack of the italics where
the characters stop a moment to acknowledge, or the underlining
of a smirk. It is his mode of living, without which he would become
a living skeleton.
We are left with the three plot-strands of the episode, opposing,
intertwining, cancelling and, for once, all showing some thematic
and character resonance simultaneously while having a gigantic,
blood-curdling (if that's the phrase) fight. Plot The First: The
cup of Perpetual Torment. Plot The Second: The unrestrained anger
of the workers with the psychotic eyes. Plot The Third: The flashback
with Drusilla. The wickerwork of the basket is as intricate as
anything in ages, and I found it totally exhilirating. I treat
them in reverse order.
3) The nineteenth century story hinges on a betrayal of the teaser's
set-up. While William believed Angelus was a brother in arms,
he was not expecting limbs to be those of his sire, Drusilla.
In between, the two of them comes gestures of anarchy, of possession.
Angelus, freed from the religious tyranny where Thy Kingdom
come, thy will be done, In earth as it is in Heaven pleads
God's dominion over all things, like a careless father with a
heavy rod, sees vampirism to an extent as hedonism. There is no
belonging, no desiring, merely the fulfillment of pleasure. He
remembers his former self, this Liam, so clearly however, that
he insists on calling William Willy. Playing with the sexual connotations
of the name of course, (and heightening the betrayal in the process),
but how much does the Londoner's latter two syllables still rile
the heart of the most fearsome vampire in Europe? This is why
he denies the Liam in William, fearing it, still denying its power
over him 127 years after Darla explained that his Father had not
lost merely because he was dead.
Spike believes that Drusilla is his destiny. There is still, despite
the siring, the poet within him. Of course, it would reside within
him for centuries, until creating this Season's most memorable
line to date: 'It's in the poetry'. Yet this destiny is merely
a whore with whom Angelus can play. A creature who he created
with the explicit intention of corrupting innoncence, forestalling
sanctity and devotion, imbuing merely meaninglessness into a girl
whose intuitive narrative ruled her. When Spike sees that his
destiny has been torn away from him, he is angry and confused,
but he also takes time to learn a little from Angelus' explanation,
to become more like what he is due to Angelus' advice. And this
is to become crucial later. Of course, this tearing away by Angel
of Spike's destiny is foreshadowed gently as the opposite of what
will happen in the present day, that now Spike will drink from
the cup of Angel's future, and quench his destiny. This is the
minor fall, and it seems at one stage to come to pass.
2) Away from this compelling relationship storyline, we have a
sub-plot which is unusual in its subtlely. Gunn and Eve are paralleled,
particularly interestingly in the scene where Gunn, responding
to Eve's pleas of ignorance claims that he 'is just a mild-mannered
attorney'. The implicit rejection of this sobriquet hints at two
things: both his tenure back on the street in his youth, a fact
that was slowly being forgotten amidst the corporation in Season
Five, and that he believes he himself has a dedtiny within the
company: to explain the conduit. And yet, for now, the conduit,
the white room, the cat, is disappeared, and the anarchy of Angelus
ensues. Now no-one trusts anyone: or understands their motives.
The joke about the man obsessed with toner hints at what we later
see in the stories of Harmony and Gunn. There extraordinary anger
is abnormal, but what they are actually saying has personal truth
to them, like Wesley in Billy. Harmony doesn't want to
be treated like a possession by Spike, (a sly back-reference to
Drusilla's own freewheelin' attitude one hundred years earlier,
but also a reaffirmation of her character's belief), while Gunn
is genuinely suspicious of Eve, both as a threat of Evil and as
a competitor to himself. It is Gunn's over-arching ambition, his
worry about how his colleagues may be more powerful than him,
that is the underlying danger that the anger expresses. He dismisses
Fred, conferring that unreal innocence on her when he offers to
explain what a 'nooner' is, but feels much more threatened by
In this episode, we see a facet of Eve played by Sarah Thompson
that Lilah could not have been used for, and the episode is strengthened
because of it. In response to Gunn's anger she seems wounded,
and a little disorientated if not altogether lost. We start to
feel a little bit of empathy with her, a belief that her false
confidence is precisely that, feigned for the gang by whom she
is intimidated. But then in one of the 'Gah!'-iest moments since
The Trial, we see the twist at the end where it turns out
that she has been causing the chaos, and doing so with, who would
have guessed, Lindsey. This coupled with Angel and Spike's history
in this episode powerfully denies any affirmation that the writers
are rejecting the past. They have portioned off plot-lines, but
the backstory is still utterly crucial.
-Before we leave the subject of Eve, I should file my one objection,
which is that if she says 'kids' any more, I'm going to throttle
something. Three times in one scene is at least twice too often.
-Lorne plays a cursory role in this episode, but of course his
head's hurting again, just as at the beginning of Season Four.
A sure sign of brewing danger.
1) Another fascinating cursory note to this episode is the casually
tossed in reference: 'We're closing Pandora's box'. The dangerous
attributes that fly away into the ether are all Angelus' trickery,
artistry and sheer calculated anger. But just before the end of
the episode, Pandora's box is indeed closed, with Hope still left
inside, when the Cup turns out to be an elaborate Eve-organised
Before this, we have the prolonged fight scene between Spike and
Angel, which, due to the snatches and longer sections of dialogue
propel it into on eof the greatest mixed action sequences in the
show's history. At one stage, it looks like the end of the story
is to be about the re-affirmation of Angel's power. After all,
it is his own show, and to be beaten in a fight by the supporting
character just seems wrong. And yet this outcome, 'the major lift'
we might call it, is also rejected. And so what are we left with?
Two compelling characters in parallel, at loggerheads, learning
form each other, raging at each other, winning each other's respect
and derision. And it's magnificent writing and direction. Just
a few of the synapses my brain triggered are touched on below:
'This town ain't big enough for the both of you'. The comment
by Eve sets up a very Western style of fight scene for later on.
The two fear-instilling characters, almost too big for the screen
at times, almost too big for one show named Angel, battle.
The absent brother. The long period of exposition tailed by Spike's
leaving strongly resembled Edmund leaving in The Lion, The
Witch and The Wardrobe; he learns what he needs to know and
then leaves to embrace his destiny in a way that the others in
the family could not have counted on. It also enables me in apparent
seriousness to suggest that Eve is Mrs Beaver. OK, let's move
'It explains a lot'. Harmony's ironic retort to Spike's explanation
about his mother, and the way in which he has turned Drusilla
and Buffy into kinds of mothers for himself. Harmony is not so
stupid as to not notice this, but it is not Spike's parents that
are the important players in this episode. Or at least, only parents
in terms of sires.
'Right, so what's in it for me?' Spike, succoured as always by
celebrity, (cf 'Restless') puzzles through the advantages of being
the famous vampire. It is not fully made clear to us whether his
motivation is in the end a rejection of Angelus' influence in
his life, a simple malicious scuppering of Angel's ambition, a
genuine belief in the good that he can do, or something else.
Spike appears to act out of self-interest, but what's going on
behind the facade? Do we sense the reluctant Hero, the supposed
cad, once again hiding valiant intentions behind selifshness.
The desire for a soul. Spike has done something that Angelus never
sought, in asking for a soul. He has saved the world, and painted
the stripes on his leopard instead of them being enchanted gypsies
handcuffs: [re-read this sentence: does this make any sense? How
many mixed metaphors are permissible? Oh well] He also believes
that Angelus 'made him a monster', an epilogue on his thanks to
Buffy in the Gift with him a monster treated as a man. This shifting
of the blame is interesting. How much can we blame the tormentor,
the master vampire who can brush Darla's absence aside by bedding
Drusilla, for making out of the impressionable William the Spike
of the Boxer Rebellion? And how much, despite having no soul to
orientate him, is it entirely his own actions which have led him
to this point? Free will and determinism strikes again, with Spike's
explanation seeming a little too much like an excuse for his atrocities
for my taste.
And so finally, Spike takes the Cup, and it's a fake. We don't
get the minor fall for Angel, but neither the major life. We get
the chromatic rejection of tonality. It's not about who is destined
to do something, it's about what they can do. Spike claims that
Angel has chosen Evil already at Wolfram and Hart. And despite
Angel's confusion and lack of focus, that is still over-simplistic:
he is trying to do good from within, with extra resources. It
should not be about his destiny.
Finally, he still puzzles through how Spike beat him, how William
stepped out of the shadow of his grandsire's former name to overpower
him. Spike wanted the destiny more. The question is, why should
Angel seek destiny at all? Is it up to him to become human? Is
he doing good merely because it's the right thing to do, and how
do conviction and doubt and brotherhood fit into all this. At
the end of the episode, Cain and Abel, Smeagol and Deagol, me
and my nine year old brother have fought, and both are still alive.
Now we have to work out how we fit in to family, in to work, and
into the world. And that's called life.
[> Re: The Minor Fall, The Major Life, The Chromatic Rejection
of Tonality (Angel Odyssey 5.8) -- CW, 06:50:11 01/04/04
I'm not sure I can agree with you about Destiny being the best
episode this year. It seemed to me it was dominated by an overly
long fist fight, which we knew was bound to happen from the first
action Spike tried to make on reappearing. As soon as Spike materialized,
they were 'destined' to fight. Is what happened between Spike
and Angel in the late 19th century so surprising? Hardly. We knew
from what happened with his mother that Spike, the vampire, was
created with a good deal of William's idealism. We knew Dru created
him largely as a plaything. If Dru and Angel had been humans,
we might still be upset if not surprised by their callous behavior.
But, since they are vampires we can only empathize with the pathetic
Spike who still didn't quite get what being a vampire was all
The fact that Angel lost isn't terribly surprising either. If
he wins, the story line is over isn't it? As long as there is
the chance of a rematch then Angel is still in the running. If
you say that Spike has always been closer to being human than
Angel/Angelus, then I think you've learned something about why
Spike defeated Angel this time rather than just saying, as Angel
did, "He wanted it more." Angel wallowing in his own
depression over it doesn't really answer the question "Why?"
And I don't think he can 'win' until what he is fighting for means
more to him.
Personally, I wasn't fooled by Eve's 'Who? Sweet little me act?'
It's interesting that since ep one this year people have been
griping about Eve rather than accepting her as part of the W&H scenery.
Even though she isn't strictly working for W&H, Eve certainly
has the right spirit for the job. That she turned out to be working
for the superambitious Lyndsay is more funny than anything else.
Destiny is a good episode (they've all been reasonably, good this
year), but it's not what I'd call a great one.
[> [> Well, fair enough -- Tchaikovsky, 02:00:41
I'm always a sucker for plot-lines which involve a trick on the
audience, because I always get too involved to figure them out
until they spring upon me.
I think what made it the best episode for me was not the plot
of the episode, (which is indeed fairly predictable and not utterly
shocking, particularly if you know the Eve thing from the start),
but the manner of the execution of the plot-line. The dialogue,
the way that the small lines big up the bigger themes, the way
the main three plot-lines interact.
[> Just lovely! Hope to comment more later -- Pony,
06:55:13 01/04/04 Sun
[> Interesting - a ramble on storytelling, brothers, quests
(Spoilers Amadeus, RotK, Destiny...) -- s'kat, 10:09:35
This is not so much a direct response to your interesting post,
tch as a ramble on things your post triggered in my brain. Somewhat
loosely structured I'm afraid and filled with mistakes. ;-)
**Spoilers for the films League of Extraordinary Gentleman, Bend
it Like Beckham, Amadeus, Return of The King, and the ATS episode
Destiny below! Also a bit on the television miniseries DreamKeeper
which was on Sunday Dec 28th and Monday the 29th.**
Over the holidays, I watched a couple of interesting flicks that
dealt with rivalry, siblings and friends. The better ones were
the old film AMADEUS by Peter Schaffer and the new film Return
of The King by Peter Jackson. Bend it Like Beckham - the little
British import was another one. (The final one was League of Extraordinary
Gentlemen - which I heartily do *not* recommend. Bad movie - I'm
not completely sure about this, but I think in trying to turn
it into a starring vehicle for himself, Connery lost Alan Moore's
intent in telling the story. Instead of a story about a bunch
of self-centered schmeils being heroic (a la Firefly)-it turned
into a tale of a father and son, everyone else taking a back seat
to it, which would have been fine - if Connery built the characters
up a bit more and didn't rely on cliche. Oh Well. Read the Alan
Moore Comic instead. Trust me.) I also watched a documentary about
Rod Serling. I mention Serling because his writing on Twilight
Zone - a fantasy/sci-fi anthology series that delves into the
murkiness of human nature reminds me a great deal of Mutant Enemy's
writing. Through complex, murky characters - Serling explores
the darker side of the human psyche. So does ME. At any rate the
Serling documentary along with a mini-series on Native American
legends (DreamKeeper - surprisingly good by the way), got me thinking,
we focus so much on the characters sometimes or rather I do, that
I overlook the writer's purpose for telling the story. Or for
that matter why we continue to tell each other stories. Sometimes
variations on the same one, over and over and over again. Dreamkeeper
- is the story of a storyteller, a native american storyteller
who passes the torch to his reluctant grandson, yep - it's a coming
of age/father-son tale wrapped inside a quest. During the mini-series,
the audience is treated to numerous legends from at least ten
different American Indian Tribes - Lakota, Cherokee, Pawnee, Crow,
BlackFeet, Kiowa, Chicota, and each tale deals with issues of
redemption, second-chance, family relationships, and wholeness.
Why do you suppose so many people have told a variation of the
Cain and Able tale? Or the story of Adam and Eve? Or the redemption
myth of Jesus - which appears in Egyptian mythology with the tale
of Osiris, as well as other tales.
In more contemporary times - we see the redemption myths in noir
film - specifically classics such as Casablanca and Force of Evil.
The Lord of The Rings is a combination of redemption mythos, Cain
and Able, and eye for an eye. Yet at it's heart is a story of
becoming whole, emerging from the darkness - some characters succeed
(Frodo (barely and only through the assistance of Sam), Sam, Gandalf,
Faramir, Aragorn) and some characters fail tragically (Gollum
(who may have already been far too gone to be saved - he is a
bit like Angel - actually, a split personality, part demon, part
man, but unlike Angel - the demon side has twisted him, he has
as Angel warned Lilah in Sleep Tight, worn the game face or Gollum
side far too long and can't shake it off), The Steward, Solomon).
So was the Twilight Zone -
it also dealt with redemption and second chances. Serling liked
two types of characters - the ones who were worthy of a second-chance
or redemption and those who weren't. Mutant Enemy's Angel The
Series, while very different from LoR and Twilight Zone - deals
with similar characters and themes just in a slightly different
What's wonderful about ME's larger than life characters: Spike
and Angel is they are so murky, so prickily, so ambiguous. They
both want to be redeemed, yet neither is sure such a thing is
possible. Both want to blame someone else for the monster they
became, Angel blames his father, the demon inside him, circumstance
- Spike blames Angelus, circumstance, and possibly the man he
once was. Both want an easy answer - the cup of perpetual torment,
the shanshue, going out in a blaze of glory - provided by a higher
being who will guide them. And both, are so distracted by their
envy for what they think the other has, they fail to see their
own potential in the midst of it. This reminds me a little of
the story Peter Schaffer tells in Amadeus - about a man who has
the gift to appreciate and understand great music as well as the
influence to further the careers of great musicians, even mentor
them - yet is sooo distracted and caught up in his envy of those
musicians gifts that he seeks to destroy the musicians instead.
As a result he never realizes his own potential. Likewise - Angel
is distracted by Spike, by his envy of what Spike has accomplished
and he hasn't, forgetting all the things he has done, which are
not better nor worse than Spike's accomplishments, just different.
Spike similarily is distracted by Angel, by his envy of what he
perceives Angel has and is doing, placing far too much emphasis
on the contest and less on what he can accomplish by Angel's side.
It is no accident, I think, that Stephen Deknight and David Fury
also wrote the episode Awakenings - the twin to Destiney. Both
episodes deal with false quests. Quests that echo Indiana Jones
quests or legendary quests. Also quests that involve two members
of the same family. The first - in Awakenings is a dream, where
Angel sets off on a quest with Connor, Wes and Cordelia to find
a sword that will kill the Beast and bring back the sun - the
end result of said quest is Angel in reality loses his soul, he
achieves that moment of pure happiness - and out pops the soul.
The second quest-in Destiny, is where Angel and Spike compete
for the cup of perpetual torment - the end result of this quest
is less certain or momentuous. They think it will result in one
becoming human - one becoming chosen. Yet it is a fraud. And makes
both feel like foolish school boys, stumbling back to home base,
somewhat embarrassed, they tail between their legs. Both quests
are fake. Both Angel believes in.
And Both do not end the way Angel expects. Quests...in so many
stories we have quests, and every quest has competing parties.
Bend it Like Beckham - a small film about soccer players (football
if in Britian) - is about two girls on a quest to get a soccer
scholarship and play in US. They start as friends, end up briefly
as rivals - when they get involved with the same guy, make a truce
and finally renew their friendship when both get the scholarship.
LoR is about a quest to destroy a ring of power - throughout the
journey, people fight the protagonist over the ring, the protagonist
fights himself over the ring. The quest ends when the parties
choose each other over the ring. (Yes, it's far more convoluted
than that - I'm simplifying things.) The book - DA Vinici Code
- a bestseller in the States - is about a quest for the Holy Grail
(which uhm is not what you think it is...)in that, parties fight
over the information, in the end when the protagonist finds it,
she realizes the quest was not about obtaining the Grail, so much
as finding herself -and her family. It's a quest for wholeness,
completeness. Angel and his team, including Spike, are also on
a quest of sorts...but not for what they think, for what, oddly
enough lies beneath their very noses. The funny thing about these
false quests - is what the people are searching for, they already
have. It's been with them all along. It's a bit like Dorothy's
epiphany in Wizard of Oz, another story about a quest - what's
important was here on my small farm all along. But she has to
go far away from it to find it, because sometimes it's the "process"
of seeking the answer that is important, not so much the finding
I'm wondering if that may be what Deknight and Fury are trying
to convey through their ironic and somewhat amusing retellings
of quests. Spike and Angel learn more about themselves and each
other in their battle than they would learn if they just ran in
the church and drank the cup, regardless of what it contained.
But what do we learn?
I think - you say it very well above:
"At the end of the episode, Cain and Abel, Smeagol and Deagol,
me and my nine year old brother have fought, and both are still
alive. Now we have to work out how we fit in to family, in to
work, and into the world. And that's called life."
Somewhere along the line we have to stop competing with our brother
long enough to work with him, to love him, and to live. To appreciate
our brother for who he is, outside of who we are. Spike says something
very interesting to Angel, which I think may be important to remember
- "You don't know me at all - I'm not a reflection of you."
(Not exact, more a paraphrasing). Until we see our brothers as
individuals with problems, desires, needs, outside of us - we
can't really appreciate them or forgive them or realize their
potential or ours.
Hope that made a lick of sense, tch. It's been a while since I've
done a post on a board and I feel a tad rusty.
(Also methinks I have a tendency to throw everything in my head
into my analysis, whether it belongs there or not...LOL!)
[> [> Tchaikovsky and Skat- Wonderful New Year posts
-- Ann, 18:40:46 01/05/04 Mon
"to find a sword that will kill the Beast and bring back
Exactly, but trade the word "sun" for "son"
and I think we will have a winner. Angel needs to kill the beast
within, and I don't mean Angelus. When he does this, he will be
preparted to bring back his son Connor. I think you captured his
true quest brilliantly. I think the loss of the sun to the Beast
was a forehadowing of his most real loss of Connor. I can only
hope that the killing of the Beast is a foreshadowing of Connor's
return to him in person and in soul. (I am unspoiled in this regard).
I don't think Angel will ever be whole again, with or without
Angelus, without Connor. I also think Spike is the person to help
him with this quest. This "brother's" grail, search
and find, can only be done together.
I think that Tchaikovsky's post was a beautiful start to the New
Year. Imagine if Angel and Spike in their souled forms could find
what you describe. The beauty of the bond. The beauty of the future
perhaps as a family of sorts, the father and the son. Spike. The
Uncle. Okay it falls apart here but you see what I mean. No subtext
intended. They could find true meaning and truly drink from the
cup. It is not out of their grasp.
[> That reminds me... -- Rob, 11:10:55 01/04/04 Sun
TCH, have you read The Child That Books Built by Francis
Spufford? I did a review of it in a recent entry on my LJ, and
I think you would enjoy it immensely. It's part memoir, part literary
analysis, and part child psychology book, as the author retraces
his childhood reading experiences from the ages of six to eighteen,
and attempts to examine how reading influenced his life and how
his life influenced his reading choices. The name of the first
chapter, which I'm sure you would appreciate, is "Confessions
of a Fiction Eater." I only thought of recommending this
book to you now because there is a rather extensive, very interesting
analysis of The Chronicles of Narnia, in (I believe) the
third chapter, one that touches on a great deal of the issues
you and I discussed in the Narnia subthread of the The Screwtape
Letters Book Melee, including my particular discomfort with
The Last Battle and some of the more overtly religious
sections of the book (his main beefs are mostly with the final
book, and with the Aslan-ripping-off-Eustace's-dragon-skin section
of Dawn Treader). I think you'd probably find the reading
experience quite enriching, also as it speaks particularly well
to people who have been avid readers from a very young age, as
I'm sure you were, and I know I was!
[> [> Thank you- noting -- Tchaikovsky, 02:02:25
I'm now only 160 pages away from finally finishing the Proust,
(or, in other words, 3287 pages through!) and have therefore built
a considerable backlogue. Some Kundera, the Garcia Martquez autobiography,
and a cricket autobiography. But I shall aim to read it at some
point in the future.
[> [> [> Re: Thank you- noting -- Rob, 08:18:05
or, in other words, 3287 pages through!
Wow...Absolutely stunned here! I haven't ever read as many pages
of a literary work, either book or series, in a row before like
that. Right now, I have a considerable backlog myself. I'm in
the middle of Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides and re-reading
The Hobbit, after which I plan on going on to re-reading
The Lord of the Rings. I decided this all in the last few
days, but I have a pile of at least 20 books that I've accumulated
over the past year that I haven't read yet. I buy them much faster
than I can read them.
[> Re: The Minor Fall, The Major Life, The Chromatic Rejection
of Tonality (Angel Odyssey 5.8) -- Arethusa, 20:19:24 01/04/04
A creature who he created with the explicit intention of corrupting
innoncence, forestalling sanctity and devotion, imbuing merely
meaninglessness into a girl whose intuitive narrative ruled her.
I wonder if one of the reasons Angelus "killed" Dru
is because she could see what he really was. Everything he hid
deep inside-the monster behind a handsome mask and weak bad sheep
behind the monster-could be seen and perhaps exposed by her special
insight. After her mind was shattered, Angelus said he loved it
when she became overtaken by her visions, but maybe he felt differently
when he was vulnerable to them.
And how much, despite having no soul to orientate him, is it
entirely his own actions which have led him to this point? Free
will and determinism strikes again, with Spike's explanation seeming
a little too much like an excuse for his atrocities for my taste.
Spike seldom has one reason or one motive for doing anything.
Maybe he wanted to both twist a knife in Angel's well-developed
sense of guilt and excuse his past atrocities, although we have
seen souled Spike refuse to apologize or deny responsibility for
his actions as a vampire several times.
How do the dead puzzle out how to live? Like everyone else? Spike
said, "Life is just this-it's living." Now matter how
different we are, how alienated we feel, the only way to feel
alive is to live. To just do, think, feel. It truly is Spike's
destiny to be human, because he never stopped acting like one.
Just as it's Angel's destiny to be human, because life keeps intruding
on his brooding despite himself. One embraces life, one retreats
from it, but both both crave bonds of affection, even from each
other, despite themselves. The unexamined life and the unlived
life-two ways of rejecting the mess and pain of being human. But
they are both learning, slowly and painfully, to accept who and
what they are: fellow human beings.
[> [> Very nice! -- Pony, 08:01:05 01/06/04 Tue
I especially liked: "The unexamined life and the unlived
life - two ways of rejecting the mess and pain of being human."
Nothing much to add except that I am doing my little impatience
dance while waiting for new episodes. When? When?
[> [> [> Thanks, Pony. -- Arethusa, 08:48:53
I'm counting the days too.
[> Yes, it should be 'Lift' -- Tchaikovsky, 06:49:54
shadowkat's post is much more worth reading than this one, which
merely gives a link
to the old website, where 96 episodes are reviewed.
[> [> Indeed it should -- Vickie, 09:41:49 01/05/04
and thanks for making a great song run through my head each time
I visit the site.
[> Re: The Minor Fall, The Major Life, The Chromatic Rejection
of Tonality (Angel Odyssey 5.8) -- Rob, 09:32:55 01/07/04
Smeagol and Deagol, brothers and Hobbits,
Actually, having read the chapter yesterday, I have to tell you
that Smeagol and Deagol were friends, not brothers. Your analysis,
of course, still works, because they are brother-type figures
(like Spike and Angel) and the parallel with their names backs
up the comparison to brothers further, as does the allusion to
the Cain and Abel story in Genesis. Hate to be all nitpicky, and
the last thing I wanted to do is unravel any of your essay, which
I greatly enjoyed and agree with on all points, but just thought
I should point out that minor detail.
| More January 2004