July 2003 Archives

July 2003 posts

Previous July 2003
More July 2003

quick OT - the book that defines a generation -- Anneth, 16:13:55 07/14/03 Mon

Maybe a year and a half ago, the New Yorker ran an essay about books that define a generation, by creating a way for readers to relate to the world. I read it a long time ago, and can't remember the specifics of the arguments, but the author's conclusions were this: The books that have been most definitive for their respective generations have been, chronologically,

The Catcher in the Rye,
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,
Bright Lights, Big City,
and, for the 1990s-present,
A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius.

A recent conversation about Heartbreaking Work implicated the article, and led to a discussion about whether or not it actually is "the definitive novel for a generation." Does anyone have any better ideas?

Thanks,
Anneth

[> LOL! When I saw your post, the first thing I thought was 'Heartbreaking Work'! -- Rob, 16:27:22 07/14/03 Mon

And, nope, I have no better ideas, because, IMO, it is the defining work of this generation. I've read it 3 times in the past year, and no other book I've read lately really captures the psychological mindset of the time quite as well. Of course, time will have to tell if it actually is (odd, isn't it, that you really can only truly classify what "the book of a generation" after it's already passed?) but it's definitely the defining work of my early 20s, which I'm still in. ;o)

Rob

[> [> Re: I would add Catch-22 to that list -- Brian, 20:30:32 07/14/03 Mon

As a flower child of the 60's, this was the book that convinced me that I could never go in the army; and therefore,the madness of Vietnam was something I had to avoid at any cost.

[> Re: quick OT - the book that defines a generation -- aliera, 04:59:55 07/15/03 Tue

I wonder if this would be based in number of readers (in western culture only? or multiple?) or ones where you are able to link to actual societal changes. And what about books that become a part of the standard curriculum so they have a sort of enforced impact? And when did books start becoming easily accessible? My grandparents generation didn't have a lot of books. My parents did but you know there was TV and radio. And then I wonder if certain books actually create a way to relate to the world or reflect it? Hrm.

I like Tolkien in here.... possibly, just my bias :-)

[> Nah, 'Bridges of Madison County' and 'Java for Dummies' are the new defining works -- Random, 08:35:33 07/15/03 Tue

[> [> LOL. Don't forget 'Love Story' -- Sophist, 10:50:57 07/15/03 Tue

[> [> [> Can't we? Please? -- Darby, 11:32:15 07/15/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> Where do I begin to tell the story of how great a love can be... -- Sara, who doesn't have to say I'm sorry! So there!, 11:51:03 07/15/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> ROFL -- Sophist, 12:45:25 07/15/03 Tue

[> [> Nope. The defining words are Buns of Steel, and Women Who Love Men Who Hate Cats! -- Caroline, 13:30:33 07/15/03 Tue

[> [> [> 'Buns of Steel?' Never read the book, only saw the loosely-adapted movie -- Random, 14:01:01 07/15/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> Silly Ran! The book's always better! ;o) -- Rob, reading Suzanne Somer's brilliant treatise on non-dairy, 15:33:45 07/15/03 Tue

[> Wow - I feel really out of the loop -- matching mole, 11:22:11 07/16/03 Wed

As I've never even heard of the latter two works.

I'd agree with Brian about Catch-22 - it seemed (at least at the time) more widely read than 'Fear and Loathing'. Also 'Slaughterhouse Five.'

I'm obviously completely unqualified to judge books from the 80s and 90s but I would suggest 'Generation X' if only becuase the title got used to name an entire 'generation' of humans.

[> [> Re: Wow - I feel really out of the loop -- Aliera, 12:30:47 07/16/03 Wed

I think what's tough for me in looking back is that most of us wouldn't like to admit in public that we read. Most of the people I knew actually didn't read, not by choice. TV sure, that got talked about a lot. In fact, I remember reading as being one of my defining geeky traits... comics and books. So when I try to think of what everyone I knew was reading, what I come up with are the things required for class... if it's what we connected to, generally not books.

Today, my son and all his friends, and most of his relatives have read Harry Potter. It doesn't define the generation(s) but it's going to be a defining thing for our time. I have to admit that I only started it because of his nagging. He knows I'm always reading and to find a book that he actually liked that was fantasy he just wouldn't let up. And well, when your child is fifteen, to have something that they actually want to share with you, that's a pretty tempting thing.

But that's looking at the question in reverse. For me, I can't really think of one. Coming at the tail end of the baby boom generation Tolkien fits, but then fantasy and sci fi were my preferences....and it's about the ending of an age. If I ask Ben that question (well, I can't phrase it quite that way), blank stare: Book? Their book, would I guess, come later. But what they involve themselves with will be part of that definition.

So I'd be curious to know what others think.

[> The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold -- Deb, 22:27:35 07/16/03 Wed

The generation where the media made middle-classed, murdered children, especially teenaged females, and their killers into celebrities.

And when a girl, say named Buffy, fights back and saves herself, along with the rest of the world, it must be kept hidden. 'Girl kills fanged attacker in the cemetery' might make local news coverage, but it would never become a media spectacle.

The time setting of this book is perfect. After the 60's and early 70s, the remainder of the 70s decade offered few wars to cover, no resigning presidents, no handy government conspiracy, no more moon landings (actually occurring ON the moon), no more Summers of Love or Woodstocks, no political assassinations (well, not as many high profile) no race riots, no nuclear missle stand-offs that we know of of course. The Cold War started to have a chilling effect on big news stories. The media, like everything else, became postmodern and when it used to be frightening to think about what was happening to everyone else on the other side of the world, all the sudden it became a terrifying experience to walk, alone, the two blocks to the corner mart to buy a soda. The Gentlemen lived around the block and were, at this very moment, lurking behind every bush, and they had their fingers pointed at you. And you had no cell phone! And your hair was long, straight and parted down the middle. And when you got back home safely, just barely, your mother is beside herself in fear that the Gentlemen invited you home for dinner and you had accepted. Then you are grounded to your room for a month, a whole month to think about what might have happened if.........

Book Melee - the votes are in! -- Sara, 22:32:47 07/14/03 Mon

Here's the schedule:

July 28th - Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

August 11th - Dracula by Bram Stoker

August 25th - Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey

September 8th - The BeeKeeper's Apprentice by Laurie King

September 22nd - Hamlet by William Shakespeare and Rosencrantz and Guilderstern are Dead by Tom Stoppard

Ready, set, get out your books and commence reading!!!

[> I got to find out in chat! Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah! :P -- Rob ;o), 23:48:05 07/14/03 Mon

[> [> And if you think Dawn could whine...you shoulda heard Rob! -- LittleBit (rolling eyes), 00:19:14 07/15/03 Tue

[> Yahh! Thanks for putting it all together, Sara! -- WickedBuffy, 08:00:53 07/15/03 Tue

[> [> lol! ps -- WickedBuffy, 08:27:08 07/15/03 Tue

I was looking for one of the books on Amazon, and accidentally mixed two titles into one.

Went into mild, but deep, shock when I saw the new &used price of "The Beekeepers Daughter" is $114!

My Dumb.

[> Re: Book Melee - Dracula & Frankenstein -- aliera, 07:39:13 07/16/03 Wed

Sorry if this was already mentioned, but Dracula's available as an etext here: Dracula if anyone needs it. Also, at some other mirrors. And they have Frankenstein too, here: Frankenstein

[> [> Thanks for posting those, Aliera. I completely forgot about that option! -- WickedBuffy, 09:25:54 07/16/03 Wed

[> [> [> Re: You're very welcome. -- Aliera, 11:31:58 07/16/03 Wed

Second part of Joss's interview on Buffy season 7 in Cinefantastique (CFQ) magazine -- ECH, 07:07:50 07/15/03 Tue

It all comes to an end in season seven with a return to the basics with Buffy going up against the first (an ultimate evil), along with dealing with a number of Slayers in training, the return of Faith and a genuine relationship with Spike who, like Angel, has been given his soul back. "We had a few things in mind with season seven," explains Whedon. "One, everybody was tired of being depressed including us" "Two, this was the last season. Three, lets get back to where we started. Let's go back to the beginning. Not the word, not the bang the real beginning. And the real beginning was girl power. The real beginning is what does it mean to be a slayer? And, not to feel guilty about the power, but having seen the dark side of it, and finding the light again. To explore the idea of the Slayer fully and to see a very grown up and romantic and confusing relationship that isn't about power, but actually genuinely beautiful between two people in the form of Buffy and Spike."

"I feel that I wrote the perfect ending for the show and wrapped up everything exactly as it should be. We wanted t hit the final chord of a beautiful symphony. That, unfortunately, was in season 5. So with season seven, I sort of had to shut the door on that this was the last episode a bit, because the weight of that was crushing me. I was terrified. But, I also specifically knew what I needed to say and what I needed to have happen. That was in there. But, when you get into actually writing it, your just 'Oh, God, it's not good enough.' Then you are like 'Dude you have to chill,' because its unbearable pressure. You want the last episode to mean something that no other episode has. And, its ****ing large. It was so big and hard to shoot. So we went out with a bang, hopefully and emotional one". "I want it to be remembered as a consistently intelligent, funny, emotionally involving show that subtly changed the entire world."

[> 'Oh, God, it's not good enough' -- ZachsMind, 08:40:34 07/15/03 Tue

The Fugitive. "The day the running stopped!"
MASH. "Whenever I smell month-old socks, I'll think of YOU."
Star Trek Next Generation. "All good things must come to an end."

...and now Buffy the Vampire Slayer. They'd saved the world a score of times before. This was the first time they literally changed the world. Not too shabby.

I think Whedon hit the ball outta the park.

[> wow. Two questions answered for me in that one. A new one came up. -- WickedBuffy, 09:07:48 07/15/03 Tue

First, what it meant when they said: "Let's go back to the beginning. Not the word, not the bang the real beginning."

Joss said: " And the real beginning was girl power. The real beginning is what does it mean to be a slayer?"

I'm just not sure what the answer to that was, though. Was it made clear?

Second, that he wanted Buffy and Spikes relationship to be:
".... to see a very grown up and romantic and confusing relationship that isn't about power, but actually genuinely beautiful between two people in the form of Buffy and Spike."

That's what I originally thought it was. Then it was confusing because there were so many excellent posts discussing why it wasn't that kind of relationship.

I loved hearing how much pressure he felt writing the finale. I can't even come close to imagining how difficult it would be to go out with the bang the show deserved.

[> [> Re: wow. Two questions answered for me in that one. A new one came up. -- ZachsMind, 10:11:11 07/15/03 Tue

"I'm just not sure what the answer to that was, though. Was it made clear?"

What it means to be a Slayer? The answer to that is in the season seven mantra: It's not about right or wrong it's about power. Girl power is about choice.

Faith proved that one CAN choose to do evil with the Slayer Power, but Angel taught her that one eventually has to face the consequences. The Slayer Power itself is not all sugar & spice & everything nice with a dose of Formula X, y'know? The Slayer's power comes from an evil place. The real Vampire Slayer chooses to do good with it.

She chooses to slay vampires, otherwise she's just.. well, whatever Faith was between seasons three and seven. Y'know. An ex-mayor lackey. Eventually in jail. It wasn't until Faith had some time to think and then came back to help Angel that she began to take charge of the power at her disposal and make the choice to do good. Then she was on the road to being a slayer again.

When Buffy chose to give up being THE CHOSEN ONE, something she was never comfortable with anyway, she gave the power of choice to all the Potentials. The very First Slayer was not given a choice. Buffy fixed all that. She went back to the beginning. Told those three wise dudes where they could stuff their black gooey guy. Then with Willow's help and the scythe, she rewrote the tradition. The history and the prophecy. She started the Slayer line anew. She changed the world.

The real fun part for Angel this fall though is how many of those slayers are gonna choose to do good with what they got? You give power to all these girls without any explanation or anything? Unless Willow attached with the spell a little voice-over.. "Your mission should you choose to accept it, is nifty!"

[> [> [> About the power -- MaeveRigan, 10:48:43 07/15/03 Tue

You give power to all these girls without any explanation or anything? Unless Willow attached with the spell a little voice-over.. "Your mission should you choose to accept it, is nifty!"

Some posters here and elsewhere have expressed concern over the sudden appearance of loose-cannon slayers all over the world. Maybe this will be a plot-point in an AtS episode, which is a little more grounded in reality (though not much), but Buffy has always been much more metaphorical/allegorical.

"Chosen" deals with the issue in part through Willow's statement that she can sense the new slayers, wherever they are, and Dawn says, "We have to find them"--with the implication that Willow, Dawn and Giles may form the nucleus of a new Council of Watchers and Guardians.

At the same time, metaphorically the new slayers are all of us. Not just girls or women, though "girl power" may be the origin of the show, but every human being who understands what it means to have the power to choose between good and evil. It is a world-changing power. "Yeah, Buffy. What are we going to do now?"

[> [> [> [> Re: About the power -- ZachsMind, 11:25:22 07/15/03 Tue

I'm hoping that this becomes more than just an occasional plot element in AtS-5. The writers may completely ignore the fact during sweeps, but I like to believe the real reason W&H is bringing Angel into the fold is because they're Circling The Wagons. They knew this was coming - they even gave Angel the talisman that Spike used - and they need Angel to help combat the Slayer menace.

One or two Slayers is tolerable, especially if one of them gets incarcerated. However, a few score to a few thousand scattered all over the world? An army of women each with a superiority/inferiority complex and the power to turn demon meat into compost fertilizer? I think the real villian in AtS-5 could be the slayers themselves. They got no Watchers. Nobody to help them see right from wrong. Even if they all mean well they may cause more harm than good. And Angel will have to do what W&H says anyway, cuz they got Cordy & Connor hostage.

However, the writers will probably just dismiss the "change" that Buffy instigated, and I'll be very disappointed when that happens.

[> [> Re: wow. Two questions answered for me in that one. A new one came up. -- Rina, 11:05:28 07/15/03 Tue

"That's what I originally thought it was. Then it was confusing because there were so many excellent posts discussing why it wasn't that kind of relationship."

You shouldn't have let the opinions of others influence yours. Just stick to what you were feeling about Buffy and Spike, when you first saw them forming a relationship in Season 7. Your original opinion was probably right . . . at least for you.

[> [> [> Other peoples' opinions are worth listening to, I think -- Random, 12:02:28 07/15/03 Tue

I'm a very smart guy...but I come here because most posters on this board are very smart and have interpretations and insights that I didn't consider. And thus I can change my mind because they offer ideas that make more sense or provide a clearer insight than mine. There are quite a few posters here I respect enormously because they almost-inevitably offer very intelligent posts that make it worth my while to re-evaluate my initial thoughts on the shows. (Not gonna get into the name game -- lord, that would take forever.) But I think WickedBuffy wasn't suggesting that she was right or wrong, but that she found other opinions that provided alternatives to her own reaction and she hadn't clarified a final opinion. Everyone's opinion is "valid" regardless of other opinions...input from other peoples' can be an enormous help, though, in making the personal decision whether our own opinions are "right." For us or anyone else.

[> [> [> [> 'xactly, Random! Were you inside my head? -- WickedBuffy ::thinking Random may need a tetnus shot now::, 20:29:27 07/15/03 Tue

But thanks for the support, Rina - I believe that was your very kind intent. :>

What Random said is how it goes for me, here. And "confusion" is such a natural place for me, it's become something positive - meaning my mind is still open and I'm absorbing all kinds of different, new information. Which is the state I love being in!

Hearing Joss's "official" statement about Spike and Buffys relationship is important - but it goes in the "official statement brain file", which is right across from the "here's how I feel about it brain file".

[> [> [> [> Re: Other peoples' opinions are worth listening to, I think -- Rina, 11:40:56 07/16/03 Wed

I have nothing against listening to other opinions. On the hand, there's nothing wrong to sticking with one's original opinion or feeling either. If that person's first gut instinct that Buffy and Spike had a "romantic" relationship in Season 7, it was probably what it seemed to her - despite "intelligent" essays or posts that said otherwise. Sure, that person could change his or her mind. Then again, I've always valued my personal feeling over another's argument.

[> [> ahhh - choice! Thanks, all. Now then that sparks ANOTHER question. -- WickedBuffy, 20:39:53 07/15/03 Tue

Great answers - I got it. :>

One question came up for me reading those - it was about choice and there were lots of different ways and types of choices going on to make that clear.

Buffy didn't like being the only Slayer, she wasn't given a choice. But long before she become more despondant and alienated because of how she felt about it being the only one, she simply didn't like it because it was inconvenient, cut into her social life AND her dating life. (Those early-Buffy years ::sigh::)

But all the new Slayers didn't get a choice about being a Slayer. Yes - they will make further decisions now based on their Slayer status. But remembering how Buffy felt when she felt the job thrust her and protested it - so all these Slayer Newbies didn't get to make the biggest choice.

Just an observation. It feels as if Being a Slayer is about choice. But becoming a Slayer isn't.

[> [> [> About choice -- Plin, 07:31:12 07/16/03 Wed

Here's how I see it: we don't choose our gender, hair color, race, family/religion/location of origin. That's all the luck/unluck of the draw. It's the same with Slayer power, you either have it or you don't, it's a matter of chance.

Buffy, however, didn't have a choice about what to do with it. She was the only Slayer, the Slayer, the one girl in all the world. Shirking her duty meant, essentially, abandoning humanity. Because she was unique, her powers and responsibilities set her apart from everyone else, and this is what fed her loneliness and sense of isolation.

Now that everyone "who can stand up, will stand up", the game has changed completely. These girls don't get to choose whether to become Slayers, but unlike Buffy they get to choose whether and how to use those powers. They will never be isolated or alone because there are so many others who share in the slayerness (and also because, presumably, Willow and Giles et al. will go looking for them and offer guidance where needed or wanted). The Slayers get to choose their own destiny, rather than being simply the tools of the Watchers' Council.

[> [> [> [> Completely agree! -- ponygirl, 07:58:37 07/16/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> I second the agreement ! -- jane, 13:49:07 07/16/03 Wed

[> [> [> Slayer Newbies -- Rina, 11:43:39 07/16/03 Wed

I doubt very much that Buffy and the Scoobies will "force" the new Slayers into performing their duty and becoming supernatural crime fighters.

Whether they have Slayer powers or not, I suspect that the choice will be up to each individual Slayer on whether she wants to pursue such a lifestyle.

[> Re: Second part of Joss's interview on Buffy season 7 in Cinefantastique (CFQ) magazine -- Rufus, 18:14:33 07/15/03 Tue

to see a very grown up and romantic and confusing relationship that isn't about power, but actually genuinely beautiful between two people in the form of Buffy and Spike."

I like this quote because it sums up what Buffy and Spike were about in season seven and it was the perfect destination for a relationship that started on an adversarial note.

In season six we see what happens to a relationship that is based only on physical attraction and lacks love in one of the parties. In season seven we got to see that love relationships don't always include sex to be meaninful and long lasting.

Selflessness Over-Rated? -- Rina, 08:00:32 07/15/03 Tue

Has anyone ever read Paul F. McDonald's essay, "Vampire Slaying and Cultivating Insanity"? It is his take on the Season 6 episode, "Normal Again". While reading it, I came upon an interesting passage on such topics as selflessness and self-absorption:

"It is this steadfast refusal to play by contradictory rules that sets Buffy apart from all the other Slayers. What causes her to be like this could be a subject of great debate. Her sense of humor is certainly part of it, humor being the idea that one's self and the world are not to be taken too seriously. But where does this come from, when everything around her constantly screams death and destruction? Why does she think for herself rather than allow herself to simply be defined by her society? In my opinion, it stems from her remarkable, glorious, and unswerving self-involvement. There are a few Buffy critics out there, and most of them complain about and thoroughly detest her tendency to be self-centered. I can't argue with them that she's not, because they are right - I just feel it's quite possibly her single best quality."

Here is another passage:

"Needless to say, a genuinely self-involved person would never kill themselves by hijacking an airliner and flying it into a building. Quite frankly, it seems to me the world would be a much better place if people stopped falling prey to whatever social system happened to be popular that week, and instead dedicated time to cultivating their own inner life. Maybe even spend more time listening to their own heart than what some babbling idiot on C-Span is saying. Buffy is self-involved. So what? From that point of view, couldn't the same criticism be leveled at Christ? Or the Buddha? The fact of the matter is, every single person that we admire was and is completely and utterly self-involved. To live in a world where no one is self-involved is to live in a world where no would create art, develop philosophy,
play music, or even speculate on spirituality. That's yet another paradox of all this.

All this horribly self-centered people go on to make the world a better place for the rest of us, whereas the responsible, conservative, even selfless people usually just
go around doing what they're told, and that increasingly becomes blowing each other up. It is again a double-bind. The disparity this time falls between the professed and the actual. Everyone is led to believe that being self-centered is a bad thing, when in reality, it improves the whole lot enormously!

The person who condemns ego-centric behavior is indeed relying on their own ego for advice. It's asking "Why can't that other person be as ego-less as I am?" In many cases, the ego wants to get rid of itself so it can take more pride in itself. As Alan Watts pointed out, using the ego to get rid of the ego is really the most invincible form of egotism! Dancing around and calling the ego bad names often
results in nothing but more ego in the form of spiritual pride. Trying to get rid of the ego that way is like trying to grab yourself with your own hands and throw yourself off a roof. It will never work. Again, the only way to diffuse the ego is to allow yourself to be self-involved. It works by virtue of what the Taoist sage Lao Tzu might call the "law of reversed effort." In the spirit of all this, I hereby select Buffy as the Patron Saint of Self-Involvement. May many more follow in her footsteps. I know I have. Can you imagine me sitting down and writing this essay, confident that people are going to read it? How much more self-centered can you get?!"

I don't know about the rest of you, but I found his words very interesting.

[> Dedalus is always very interesting and thought provoking -- Rahael, 08:22:17 07/15/03 Tue

And indeed, Buffy necessarily self involved, as she is the title character, and we see everything from her viewpoint. And in the context of Normal Again, which is the ep that Dedalus aka Paul MacDonald was reviewing, it is even more stark - the entire world of the Buffyverse exists within her.

But I just wanted to add a qualifier - in my view, yes, if people were less self sacrificial, they wouldn't do terrible things like become suicide bombers. On the other hand, the men and women who ask them to do these things aren't very self sacrificial, indeed they are selfish and self involved to say the least.

And the people who have to oppose them are to an extent called to be self sacrificial, simply due to the nature of the threat they are facing (plus I would say that1 the psychology of those who martyr themselves in such a destructive way is very complex, and there is more to it than simple self sacrifice).

Finally, the message of S7 is quite mixed as to self involvement/self sacrifice, especially if you look at Chosen ;)))))

[> [> I can't imagine anything more selfish than Homicide Bombing -- Dochawk, 11:31:41 07/15/03 Tue

What these people are doing isn't suicide, its homicide. What can be more selfish than killing innocent people and destroying them and their families to make a political point? And they believe they get a death with 80 virgins? This is way OT, but waaaay too important to let pass.

[> [> [> terminology -- anom, 15:20:53 07/15/03 Tue

"What these people are doing isn't suicide, its homicide."

But so are most bombings--calling them "homicide bombings" doesn't distinguish them from bombings that kill people while the bomber remains at a safe distance. And the distinction is a significant one to make. It has implications for understanding the mindset & tactics of the bombers & those who send them, which can help in efforts to prevent these crimes or, when that fails, to punish those who order them (usually remaining at a safe distance while they send brainwashed young people to die killing others).

And if the idea is that somehow "homicide bomber" sounds worse than "suicide bomber"--in the case of people carrying out these crimes in the name of Islam, at least, "suicide bomber" is singularly insulting. Islam forbids suicide. Suicide bombers want to think of themselves as "martyrs."

[> [> [> Hard to better anom's reply, but -- Rahael, 16:23:14 07/15/03 Tue

but see my own attempt to explain below, to Ronia "I think it's more complex than that"

I'm not talking about the recent incidents in America - it's way too touchy and, moreover, I am more confident discussing the history of the group that has affected my community - they also seem pertinent becasue they have really developed suicide bombing as a tactic as no other group has done. In fact, after September 11, I was surprised to see a chart on the news which placed them top in the world for successful suicide bombing attempts. A rather macabre achievement for my community.

I can't afford to dismiss them as weak or selfish or cowardly. I have to accept the fact that they are very skilled at battle, very skilled at searching out and eliminating opponents, and are capable of acts great bravery. How on earth would they be winning if they weren't? They've seen of army assault after army assault.

[> [> [> [> I should make clear -- Rahael, 16:42:19 07/15/03 Tue

Well, I thought it was clear but I've been instructed to clarify!

In the second paragraph, I'm talking about the terrorist group as a whole, not just the suicide bombers. They have people who do traditional guerrilla warfare, plus intelligence work, etc. Suicide bombers are used to target specific individuals (they've never done what Al Qauda did). A friend of the family died this way. Just him and the suicide bomber.

Oh, and believe me, the word "suicide bomber" strikes chills down my spine. I know the implications. It chills me in the same way as my skin crawls when I hear an aeroplane, even now. I still associate them with the other kind of bombers. One could say that I need the prefix of 'suicide' to differentiate! As Anom points out, 'homicide' bombers' describes both.

[> The 'virtue' of selfishness? -- Sophist, 08:22:50 07/15/03 Tue

The subject line happens to be the title of a book by Ayn Rand. Didn't think too highly of her argument then, and can't really agree here.

To keep this topical, let me just say that, though I often hear Buffy accused of being "self-involved" (an accusation that, frankly, baffles me), I can't remember ever seeing a poster describe her as "selfish". I do not believe the two terms mean the same thing, yet much of the author's argument requires conflating the two. In any case, Buffy is not someone I'd describe as "selfish" under any imaginable use of that term.

[> [> Re: The 'virtue' of selfishness? -- Rina, 08:29:13 07/15/03 Tue

Maybe she's not "selfish", but she has committed selfish acts. I would not mind if her selfishness did not harm anyone. But in one or two cases, I'm afraid it did. And even she eventually realized it.

[> [> [> Re: The 'virtue' of selfishness? -- Kate, 09:01:35 07/15/03 Tue

Of course Buffy commited some selfish acts that affected others, but so didn't Xander, Willow and Giles (think Sweet, My-will-be-done-spell, and Eygon respectively) and it seems to me that those three tended to get off the hook more easily than Buffy. The reason being because Buffy's negative actions tended to have greater consequences due to her role as the slayer. Yet it is those very actions and consequences that made her human and more remarkable as a hero - she was flawed and we still were able to love her. I have always found it terribly unfair that the characters and a great deal of viewers hold Buffy up to these incredibly high standards of behavior where she had to be perfect or always on the ball, yet I never felt like those judging her (characters at least, can't comment on viewers) were expected to live by their own high standards.

Neither have I ever understood the accusations of overall selfishness and self-involvement that certain viewers have lodged against Buffy. I saw her behavior as no more selfish or self-involved than any of the other characters. Sure it might be highlighted a bit more, but as others have said in the past, the title of the show is "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" - it's about her world, her pov and her reaction to the people in her world. Now if Willow or Xander or Giles were the main focus, then I might agree with accusations, but I personally don't. I have always admired and respected Buffy as a character. She's human and that is why I love her.

[> The quote is a little out of context -- Rahael, 08:36:13 07/15/03 Tue

In the context of the essay:

http://www.atpobtvs.com/existentialscoobies/fictionary/e020315A-DED.shtml

It reads quite a bit differently. The example of the martyred suicide bomber, to be honest, doesn't fit in so easily with the main thrust of Ded's essay.

On the other hand, Sophist, you raise an intriguing question: Ded are you a Randian? cos if you are it might be a repeat of the 'feminist values' debate in chat? LOL! (no! I'm joking! I'll be good thist time!)

Where is Dedalus anyway? Come back!!

[> [> Sorry, this was meant to be a reply to Sophist -- Rahael, 08:52:01 07/15/03 Tue

[> [> You're right, and I was unfair. -- Sophist, 09:27:44 07/15/03 Tue

Actually, Ded didn't use the word "selfish"; that was my interpolation. In re-reading it, I'm not sure that was fair.

OTOH, I can't agree with his description of what it means to be self-involved, with his prediction that self-involved people wouldn't make good terrorists, or with his characterization of Jesus as self-involved:

self-involved: absorbed in one's own thoughts, activities, or interests.

On a metaphorical level, sure Buffy is self-involved. In this sense, the whole show is the story of how a girl grows up fighting her internal demons. They are her demons and we see the fight from her POV.

But from a storyline viewpoint, which is what Ded was talking about and where I've seen the accusations, I don't agree that Buffy was self-involved. By this I mean that she may have been self-involved on occasion, but that it was not part of her character.

By justifying and even praising self-involvement, Ded seems to be accepting this characterization of Buffy. Not only do I not agree, I don't agree that self-involvement would be a good thing, at least not as a permanent characteristic. Self-examined, yes. Self-involved, no.

[> [> [> Agreed -- Rahael, 09:44:03 07/15/03 Tue

On a meta level, which, arguably is where Normal Again dwelt, Buffy is 'self involved', so absorbed by her thoughts and her actions that she lies on a hospital bed, a prisoner of her mind. On the actual level of the story, she isn't. This all boils down to one's view of the importance of Normal Again.

(Mine? the universe of Normal Again is to Buffy, what the world of the Buffyverse is to us)

[> [> [> [> How so? -- WickedBuffy, 09:50:51 07/15/03 Tue

"(Mine? the universe of Normal Again is to Buffy, what the world of the Buffyverse is to us)"

I understand that in a very general sense, but did you have some very specific points about how or why?

(Purely asked as it sounds intriguing)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: How so? -- Rahael, 10:12:49 07/15/03 Tue

Oh, I think that I was trying to say that both universes were true simultaneously, while making the distinction that one of them was 'true' but not 'real'. Just as the world of the Buffyverse is 'true' but not very 'real', to us.

And the Buffyverse has metaphoric value to us, that teaches us to see our real world a little differently, so Normal Again has metaphoric value to Buffy, and thus, in extension, to us.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you! That was quite clear & intriguingly enlightening. -- WickedBuffy, 20:09:51 07/15/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> selfless bombers..hmmm -- Ronia, 10:10:40 07/15/03 Tue

Off the top of my head, I can't think of too many examples of people being *more* self involved, than in a suicide bombing. It's all about *their* sacrifice, and *their* cause...not at all about the suferring and unwilling sacrifice of others to their cause of choice. I'd like to see an example of a suicide bomber surviving, and then being interviewed many years later. In fact, I think it'd make a really interesting if heartbreaking read..in my world, when you bomb a building, you ought to have to survive, bury the dead, and console the bereaved.

I'm not certain how I feel about the idea that it is even possible for a person to step outside of their own experience of things, I think we are self involved by imperative. The examples dedalus gives seem more to me examples of wisdom, people who made their decisions with an end in mind, not careless or reckless with their lives, and not unaware that their decisions would affect others. A selfish person would feel entitled to being the only person who counts in any given situation. Buffy has done this on occasion, but these are the occasions that are filled with regret. They cost her more than she anticipated and they also cost others more than she could imagine. These selfish acts weren't even intentionally selfish and still wreaked havoc on everyone within a six mile radius [wink].

OK..I admit, I'm rambling a bit..but..the concept of selfishness as something to strive for, is such a foriegn one, I have trouble wrapping my words around why I think it's not a virtue. I did notice that the term selfishness was used in places where I would have used self aware, perhaps that is the thing I keep tripping over...just adding my somewhat jumbled thoughts into the fray..[Ronia, packing and dreading the yearly Iowa exodus}

[> [> [> [> [> Was this directed at me? -- Rahael, 10:25:01 07/15/03 Tue

or at Dedalus?

Well, I don't really want to talk about the issue of suicide bombers here, not because it's too politically sensitive for the board, but I am too conflicted about it.

I try to see things from the view point of my enemies. I try to understand that they may be misguided, and that they are being sacrificed themselves by cynical evil men. I try to understand this, and it is made easier because I was in too close a proximity to the world they grew up in - the traumatised world they grew up in. Did I say "evil"! about the young children led back to their villages and asked to betray dissenters? You see, the terrorists already knew who the dissenters were. If you didn't name the right ones, you'd end shot, and you stil wouldn't have saved the people you might have protected.

This is a world of heartbreak, so far from the experiences of many, that I find it useless to try to explain it to you using words like 'selfish' and 'selfless'. I see the young children carrying guns, know that they want my family dead, and my heart still breaks for them, and yes, I can think of them as selfless, becasue they are being sacrificed for the wrongs committed by the adults of the community.

(and yet, I have to disagree with your previous comments to me about how I *should* forgive them)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Pre-emptive sorries -- Rahael, 10:49:32 07/15/03 Tue

Reading this back, I realise that this is an overly aggressive response. This topic really oversets everything in me.

But my heart is so torn up about these young men and women. A lot of them were conscripted. They've devastated my world, and yet the very foundation to rebuilding the damage they did is to understand and empathise with them. I also feel badly because they are truly voiceless and trapped. If they survived and were interviewed? Well I know many who have survived. Their stories are indeed heartbreaking. But they live in fear of their lives every single day, and do not come into the open. Moreover, they are truly 'selfless' because their sense of self has been utterly broken.

As has the selves of their victims.

The damaged have no choice but to recognise the humanity of each other, and try to move on.

[> [> [> [> [> [> um, actually.. -- Ronia, 13:55:09 07/15/03 Tue

Nope, not directed at any poster in particular..just reading along and happenned to tack on to the end of your post because I had a thought, and it bubbled to the surface. Having said that, I'll address the ideas you bring up. I hadn't taken children into consideration with the previous post. Would the same rules apply if I had my way? Absolutely. I suspect the use of children is not at all random. Children are selfish, they will choose themselves or people they love every time. They are perfect candidates for this type of abuse. Evil and destruction, however, have far reaching affects, and the fact that they were too immature by far to have understood these affects, does not absolve them. What they have done will follow them throughout their lives, and will help to shape the person that they become. Is it heartbreaking? It is devastaing beyond words. The evil and cynical men that misguide and abuse them, were likely also misguided and abused in their own childhood. These experiences aren't limited to war torn countries, however. Suffering is common to man. It may wear a different face, but pain and choice follow all people. I think it is incorrect to assume that there is always a "good" choice. A choice that will avoid pain for everyone. Often, there isn't. Often, no matter what you choose, there will be suffering. So, the question becomes, how do I make my choice? The selfless choice stands in stark contrast with the selfish one. To say, what you are doing is wrong, and I refuse to embrace the evil that you represent, and let the chips fall where they may...will make it very hard for them to manipulate the general population into contributing to their agenda. The selfish choice is to rationalize, that, hey, someone is gonna die, better you than me. This enables these circumstances to continue, in my opinion. Now, this is easily said, and works very well..on paper..enter the cold sweat and agony of making a selfless decision, and things seem to take on more complexity. I think a reason for this complexity may be the struggle that even a person desiring to do the right thing at all costs would find themselves engaged in. What is the right thing? What do I make these decisions based on, and is it worth my life? Am I really convinced of the beliefs that I profess? Every person who has a difficult and perhaps sadistic choice to make will have these questions and many more. They will need the answer in the space of a few seconds, and will not have a chance to change their minds. Action once taken cannot be undone. Can a person ever be truly selfless? Can a person step outside of their own experience? People have been asking themselves and others these things long before I was around. I think that Btvs asks it as well. I have no more a definative answer than the next person. The only thing I do have, is my own experience, and the beliefs that were shaped by it.

I thought I might also take a minute to address the forgiveness issue..I think perhaps I have been misunderstood..In that particular post, I wasn't addressing you specifically, but rather forgiveness in general, and at the same time defending your opinion. I don't share your belief, but neither do I espouse the idea that a person should forgive because it will make them feel better and enrich their life. I think that true forgiveness is a profound, and rare occurance. It is costly to the person who chooses to do it. It is to look at the offending party, say, you can never restore to me what you took, cut off a pound of your own flesh in payment rather than demand theirs, and consider the debt cancelled. It is an act of mercy. It is to give a person what they need and not what they deserve. It will not in any way gratify you or return to you what was taken. So then, forgiveness is not something to be carelessly hurled around, or taken lightly..it doesn't serve you. This is something we seem to agree on..so, I'm not completely sure where the disagreement is. The only place of disagreement that I can find might be [and take this with multiple grains of salt, I haven't seen that thread in a really long time]why to forgive. I forgive out of obedience and fellowship with a God that I believe exists. I feel directed to do it. I fight and struggle. I have good days and bad ones. Days when having my tongue nailed to the floor looks more appealing then the task set before me. I made my choice though, I cast my lot in terms of loyalty, the reasons were sufficient to me and I live with the fallout from them. This is one of my favorite things about Buffy. I wish that the story could be told as richly as I suspect it would have been, save for the handy tv censors, but..what they give is enough..it makes a wonderful background to discuss RL issues, gives examples of humanity, both shiney and tarnished, shakes it up and watches the pattern emerge.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think it is more complex than this -- Rahael, 14:55:20 07/15/03 Tue

I think I was overset because I realized something. I wrote it elsewhere, but I'll put it here because it's the only way I seem to be able to express it. To try and say why I find it utterly impossible to say: These are the selfish ones, and I am free from this. I didn't mean this for this forum, but I'd rather repeat it than re-excavate my emotions. I should point out that I'm not going to start arguing semantics about 'selfless'. I'd certainly try to argue for 'self sacrificial'. It is certainly a great thing, self sacrifice, but it can be terribly abused. (And I should point out that Ded should defend his own word usage, though it doesn't seem terribly cricket when he isn't around to do it.)

"Home hit me hard. Home hit me in ways that I am only now starting to unravel.

During the writing of a rather intemperate post by me about terrorists, a single image flashed to my mind, Connor standing in the shopping mall, explosives tied around his body. When I first saw 'Home', first saw that image, I gasped, but I didn't realise then, what I was recognising.

The children who walked the streets of my town carrying guns, ammunition on their bodies. I feared them, but felt so much pain when I turned my eyes away from their guns, and dared to look them in the eye. I cannot claim it was the disinterested pain of pity. What I felt was fear, that I might end up that way. Some of these children's parents had been killed by the very same terrorist group, put into an orphanage, indoctrinated and conscripted. Some of the children I went to school with ran away to join them.

My mother established a home for dispossessed young women, who had been raped or tortured, who had no where else to go. As a community, they worked together to establish a home and income for themselves. After the terrorists murdered my mother, they walked into the home and conscripted every young woman into their ranks. I had left the country already. I had escaped.

I wonder, will the Connor we saw at the end of the episode, will he ever remember? If he saw himself in the mirror and dimly recalled his old pain, would he be able to comprehend these two lives? Would his present, happy, family memories fall away until all he was left with was the bleak choices, the old wounds, no protective lies left to him at all?

Part of me is standing outside, looking in at myself, right now. Whispering to me of an older, former life. Are you safe enough yet?

I rarely dream of my old home. I can only recall one. I walk around in the darkness, because the electricity supply has been cut off. Everywhere, the stench, the disquiet of death. Why have I returned here? I've left it all behind, haven't I?"

(Just to add, not referring to your post on forgiveness. If I post something here, it is up for disagreement, and it was certainly something I expected. I'm just not so used to being told to forgive so forthrightly in chat! I was just a little indignant when I misunderstood your post and thought you were saying I was too sympathetic to terrorists when you'd told me how imperative it was to forgive them in the past)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> beautifull home... -- Ronia, 15:49:14 07/15/03 Tue

Home hit me pretty hard as well..and you may have landed a finger on why..very nice post

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you. Very powerful ep. -- Rahael, 16:00:11 07/15/03 Tue

Even in his very last moments, Connor seemed to contain several seasons worth of stories within him. Only fitting for a young man who contains universes within him.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why 'Home' and S4 are so disturbing -- KdS, 03:29:07 07/16/03 Wed

I think that, as usual, Minear et al were going for the tragic, but in traditional European drama tragedy always came from the suffering character's tragic flaw - some failing of their own. The problem with S4 is that it seems that what happens to Connor and Cordelia isn't (mostly) driven by their own flaws, but seems forced by the authors as a new way to torture Angel. We still feel at the end, that Connor may be too badly damaged to be redeemable by anything other than what Angel did, but so much of that damage is because he never got a chance to become a person in his own right - manipulated by first Holtz, then Cordelia and finally Jasmine.

The issue with Cordelia is more complicated, because one can argue that she does have a tragic flaw to an extent, the desire to see herself as something unique and special which drives her decision in Tomorrow. It's hard to explain this without seeming to bash Cordelia as the point is quite subtle, but the best analogy is to compare it with Helpless. In that episode Giles decided that any test which requires you to shaft someone you have a close personal relationship with in the abstract greater good can't be the product of a good source. Cordelia had no problem with that because she was too fascinated by the idea of making a great sacrifice herself, and didn't seem to consider the damage her sacrifice would do to others. But even so, the consequence still seems so disproportinate that it's painful to watch.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why 'Home' and S4 are so disturbing -- yabyumpan, 05:25:37 07/16/03 Wed

Just a quick reply as I'm off to work..

Cordelia had no problem with that because she was too fascinated by the idea of making a great sacrifice herself, and didn't seem to consider the damage her sacrifice would do to others.

At the time of 'Tomorrow' I don't see how she could have. the only implications really from her perspective where that she would stand Angel up! Yes, the FG would lose it's 'heart', but in terms of what good she could do with the FG and the possible good she could do as a 'higher power' I don't think it's difficult to see why she chose as she did. Yes, her flaw was possibly seeing herself as 'special', but seeing as she'd very deliberatly kept the visions for 21/2 years, even though at one time they were killing her, and agreed to give up part of her humanity so she could continue to 'fight the good fight', I don't think her claim of 'specialness' is to far off the mark. How many of us would suffer as she had done with the visions and then give up a part of themselves (( look on it as the equivalent of chopping off an arm) so we could continue to do good?

Sorry for the spelling, haven't got time to correct it :o)

[> [> [> Re: You're right, and I was unfair. -- Rina, 10:58:20 07/15/03 Tue

I don't know if I agree with you or not. A part of me see nothing wrong with being a little self-involved. As far as I'm concerned, it depends upon the situation.

[> Maybe it's the degree of self-absorption that makes a difference. -- WickedBuffy, 08:48:11 07/15/03 Tue

That essay sounds very interesting. What a great point about Buffy's self-absorption.

I wouldn't go as far as saying she's unswervingly self-absorbed, though she does appear to have a large amount. And the point that it keeps her different from other slayers in a way has merit, too. If she was totally self-absorbed, though, it seems she wouldn't be going out every night to patrol.

Sure she griped about it alot sometimes - and even tried NOT doing it. She really wanted to go to parties and on dates or just sit home watching tv. But she usually didn't. It seems a selfish person WOULD do whatever they felt like - duties be damned.

Just like many other traits, there are good sides to them and bad - an unhealthy amount and a healthy amount. At times it seemed (blaringly) that Cordelia was the most selfish person on the show, but she wasn't unswervingly self-absorbed either. She did step up to the plate at times and made selfless sacrifices. If anything, Cordelias selfishness was out of balance in the early years but it also served to illuminate Buffy's self-centeredness in a kinder light.

Cordy's continually hurt others and Buffys mainly hurt herself.

I'm not sure that the words "selfishness", "self-absorbed" and self-involved are all interchangeable, though. Don't they have different connotations? And I messed them up just now, too. :/

[> [> Agreed re different connotations -- Rahael, 09:09:22 07/15/03 Tue

I should have added, in my previous email that line of argument in the essay was an attempt by the author as a riposte to those who argued that Buffy was a selfish so and so.

But I have funny views about authorial intent!

[> [> [> Selfless vs Selfish -- Sara, 11:44:52 07/15/03 Tue

At work - shouldn't be reading or posting - but got to throw this in. Selfish is not the oposite of selfless, at least not to me. What does 'selfless' mean other than to give up one's self (not a dictionary definition, just my view) and what I took from Rina's post, which I found very interesting, was not a tribute to selfishness but a questioning of selflessness. From what I've seen, selflessness can literally make you lose your self, and having someone whose self was very valuable to me do that, I can only say I believe had she been less selfless, many things would be better. I do not believe that Buffy is a selfish character, but the fact that from the start she looked out for her interests and her concerns made her more effective and probably kept her alive, by allowing her to build and protect the connections that saved her on more than one occasion. Ok, getting back to work now...really...going to start running that report...

- Sara

[> [> [> [> According to Webster's Collegiate, selfless = unselfish -- Sophist, 12:42:32 07/15/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> Re: Selfless vs Selfish-this is getting chewy -- Ronia, 14:03:38 07/15/03 Tue

This makes me wonder what defines a person? What makes me myself? What is so great about myself that it's worth keeping around? Is it good to be selfless if you replace what you took away with something better? How will you know with accuracy what is better?...nummy food for thought, thanks sara!

What do we know about Cleave Land? -- ZachsMind, 12:01:26 07/15/03 Tue

There is a thin shaft of light in the darkness that is the place in my heart now for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." That thin shaft of light hints that Whedon and the think tank at Mutant Enemy are pulling our collective legs. I have a theory that they actually do have a show in the works which will run as a continuation of the Slayer story, but will not involve any of the principal players from "Buffy" in any predominant way. Perhaps they'll be occasional special guest stars. We'll learn the truth about this during Sweeps.

Hey. Allow an old man a glimmer of hope, alright?

So I put the question to you. What do we know about Cleveland as a possible location for a comedy action horror tv show? Other than the fact it's already been done in the form of "The Drew Carey Show" that is. Would you watch a Slayer show that took place in Cleveland but didn't feature most of the familiar faces from "Buffy"?

I mean we know Anya, Faith, Buffy, Willow and Spike would probably never show up, cuz the ladies are doing movies and Marsters'll be doing television. Giles is a slim chance at best. Xander and Dawn maybe would be in the Cleveland Slayer tv show. Wood and some of the potentials we know. Amy and Johnathan maybe (I know John's dead but I could write him back in w/o much effort so I'm sure M.E. could too) and then the rest of the cast would of course be all new people.

So what's more important to you? The faces or the story? They could start a whole bunch of new tv shows in fact. Like CSI & CSI Miami. They could do "Hellmouth: Cleveland." "Hellmouth: Hawaii." "Hellmouth: Vegas." I think it'd be fun!

[> d'H is holding the fort in Cleveland. Even the hellmouth is afraid to open there -- Random, 12:11:43 07/15/03 Tue

[> [> Reasons D'Hoffryn is holding court in Cleveland. -- ZachsMind, 13:09:57 07/15/03 Tue

Reasons D'Hoffryn is holding court in Cleveland.

He's an Indians fan.
They throw great parties.
Makes for interesting fanfic or so I hear..
The Hoff likes to rock n roll.
The joy of making life for this guy a living hell.
Some people also know Cleveland as helltown.

[> [> [> ...wow! Did anyone know Cleave Land was this creepy? -- ZachsMind, 13:36:54 07/15/03 Tue

Creepy Cleveland is yet another end of the world so it's the natural new home for the Scoobies.

Homer (Angel Odyssey 4.22) -- Tchaikovsky, 14:35:38 07/15/03 Tue

Below are just a few, largely unconnected thoughts. I suspect many of
them are very old news to most Angel watchers, and apologise in advance
for this. My only real claim is coming at the series with fresh
eyes.

A section from the first paragraph of the Odyssey. Still an
surprisingly valid disclaimer- except for the 'a few' bit!

Home is the place where, when you haveto go there, they have to take you in

Robert Frost

Home is a sadness, not a place

Jason Webley

Yes, this is a super-indulgent build-up, but I'm feeling sad about the
end of an era. Here comes 'Dreams of Home', a poem I wrote last year,
about thoughts of family and belonging.

Not often- awkward and accusatory
But it happens.
Momentarily- a homily homeily.
A tedious, edifying spectacle?

Family, tedious, with unedifying spectacles?
Perhaps- careful.
This isn't the whole truth
Neither nothing but the truth.

It may not be full of hedonism
Or wholesomeness.
Somewhere between white and black
Lies the gold of non-visual sparkle.

Not always- half-hearted and sheathed in dull.
Yet nacreous.
The repeated, the grey and grey and grey
Still contains that which shines in sunlight.

It may only be consolation
For loss, love, life.
L for leather- comic platitudes' levity
Levity, the word itself.

But sometimes. Somehow. Somewhere.
How does that end?
Over the rainbow- in a mythical world
Or there's a place for us.

What exactly did that mean?
A mental place
Or a barrier under which the grass is greener
Escape to utopia? Note Atlantis drowned.

Hello everyone. I loved 'Home' from beginning to end. In fact, that
summation goes for this Season I've just finished as well. There were a
couple of makeweights hanging around in the mid-sections somewhere, but,
as so often the case in Angel, (more so than Buffy in my
opinion), the book-ends were glorious. 'Home' and 'Deep Down' are
fantastic episodes. But they are also episodes that fit together a lot
more snugly than 'Lessons' and 'Chosen'. Now considering the latter pair
are a Whedon creation, and the former the separate works of Minear and
DeKnight, this says a lot for the writers of the Season, for their
genius and coherence, and the beautiul themes that have been hiding just
under the surface. I know 'Home' is sad and features some horrible
decisions, but frankly, Minear is so good at these episodes that I feel
uplifted anyway. It's like 'Reprise'- gloriously, hideously sad and
nihilistic, and yet with an odd sense of pleasure that someone can right
so truthfully about the human condition. That elevator ride. That police
dismissal. That break-up.

So for the final time in a while, a title:

4.22- 'Home'

There are as many different meanings of 'Home' as there are people, I
would imagine. Without going for the obvious, 'Home is where the heart
is', (although I suppose 'Home is where the Hart is', would have done as
a title), I found a couple of ideas of home above, without reverting to
phrase encyclopediae and so forth. I think I agree with Webley. Home is
a sadness. That place that is secure, but also denies potential to grow,
that always imagines itself to be enlivening the present, when it is in
fact safeguarding an often outdated past. Yet home is a happiness too.
And it's a place, or a person, or a family, or an experience, and it's
ever-shifting. I often tell people I'm going home, but do I mean my
University Home in Leamington Spa, my family Home in Bradford-on-Avon,
or my father's Home down the road? All of them, at one point or other.
It's when I'm asked where my Home is that I have to think for a minute
or two- and usually answer depending on how much time I have, how well I
know the person and whether they're asking interestedly or with an angry
scowl. In other words, instead of giving the most honest answer I can, I
pander a great deal to expectation. Because Home is an un-pin-downable
place. It seems we know most where home is when we don't have it- it's
the place Spike isn't in 'Pangs'. And the very final, heart-breaking
scene of 'Home' joins in with this. Several moons ago, alcibades
mentioned the framing metaphor for Family in Season Four of Angel. In
the poster's continued absence, it's left to me to point out how
beautifully it's used in the final scene- with Connor's family framed in
the window, and Angel resolutely outside, at that distance that he
himself has chosen for Connor. And, for the first time ever, we see
Connor make a joke. That homely, that re-assuring thing. Sunk in the
bosom of the family, complete with sweet little sister, gruff-ish father
and doting Mother, Connor has found something that isn't a lie- and can
toast 'To Family' without a hint of irony. Of course, the irony is all
too clear to the viewer.

Another beautiful point about this wonderfully directed, nicely acted
scene is the way it so consciously echoes 'Deep Down'. At the beginning
of the Season, and as a lovely trick so carefully portrayed that it
works straight, we see Angel's view of perfection. A meal, with all the
members of Angel Investigations re-united. Lorne back from Las Vegas,
Connor and Wesley reconciled and everyone sharing the best of times. Yet
Angel is the centre-piece of this- sitting at the head of the table,
ladelling out nourishment much as in 'Parting Gifts'. This abundance,
and the dark, rich colour scheme used, is repeated at the end. Now,
again, and so painfully, Angel is the Outsider, the Avenger who enables
society, who enables family but is forced to stay outside in the cold
himself- in fact, in the wilds of the forest in which Connor lives.
There is a family happiness, and it does involve Connor. And while Angel
is at the head of the table in 'Deep Down', Connor takes the lead role
in the family here- the high-achieving student, the loved Big Brother,
the gently cynical but happy child. It would be perfect, but for Angel's
decision, one which, only an episode after he inflicted free will on the
world, tore it away from the one person he cares about more than anyone
else.

So that's the last scene. But actually I was put in a happy, Minear-y
mood right from the beginning here. All sorts of interesting little
lines, and playful direction. There was a bit of one-eyebrow-raised
amusement playing through those first few scenes that worked
excellently. Lilah, inexplicably back from the dead, makes the rules,
and Minear makes his cast play along with him just as they must play
along with Lilah. She sizzles, and every actor is just that little bit
more in character than usual- rather like when Whedon directs.

And so we get the nosensical, pointless, 'what's going on?' of the fake
teaser ending. What we thought was finished, wasn't. Lilah defies
expectation and goes on. Li-la-li, li-la-li-la-lie-lali.

And then we return to the shcoked disbelief. Whedon goes to great
lengths to get rid of the credits in his special episodes by devising
extra scenes or fiddling with the order of things at the beginning.
Here, Minear uses them to stress the length of the character's silence.
It's almost certainly the longest silence in 'Angel', and possibly the
longest period of complete soundtrack silence, (ie, no Chirs Beck
music), on either show, although I'm more than willing to be put right.
And it's funny, and nicely done. We see a lot about the character's
indecisions and personalities just in each one's decision not to speak.
And so we get the first act, where Lilah, (or Minear?) tells us what's
going on. We are told the limo will be waiting. And we, like Fred the
every(wo)man, can't quite resist what's lurking inside. It's almost
certainly nefarious and evil and beautifully planned, but that's the
allure of it. Fred gives into the intrigue as we do. And so, once we've
taken that leap of faith, it seems so much more likely that Angel, he of
'Reunion', Wesley, him of 'Deep Down', Gunn, who has already
half-accepted it in his mind, and Lorne, who despite his glorious
singing voice has never let morals get in the way of a chance at fame,
will follow. It's very important that each comes to his or her own
decision. It's not unilateral- it's the free will of the whole Family.
Each could have said no, but none did. They used what Angel won back
from them to compromise with their definition of evil. How's that for
murky waters, eh?

And as a throwaway line, we get "What's the odds the humans are the
most corruptible?". Well, considering where they're going, Wolfram and
Hart, the Home of millions of evil, ever so human lawyers, the odds seem
to be shortening all the time.

And just as AI come to their personal decisions to go, they are greeted
by an almost tailor-made, perfect guide. Or at least so it might seem.
We might at first criticise Minear for the simplicity of Fred with the
scientist, Wesley with the Watcher, Lorne with the singers of his
dreams, Gunn with the attractive woman, and Angel with his nemesis. But
the plans are somewhat more nuanced and revealing.

-Well, almost all of them are. Lorne's great joke about them having
'everyone I've ever wanted to meet' more or less seals his section.

-For Fred, we are introduced to the nerd's delight. But not just this.
Fred is short with Knox over the Dungeons and Dragons comment, but turns
ona sixpence when she realises that she would be the Boss of the Science
Department. It appears that the timid, babbling cave-girl of Pylea now
craves Power and authority. Perhaps this was a section of her dream back
in college- the day when she could be the Professor testing out theories
and with able scientists and state-of-the-art equipment to help. In a
sense, Wolfram and Hart offer her back what Seidel pinched from her so
painfully seven years ago. And that, the idea of authority mixed with
the continuing delightful nerdiness is what seals Fred's fate.

-I'm worried about Gunn. I'm less than qualified to go into the details
of the imagery of the Black Panther, but suffice it to say that the
never concluded line 'The answer is among you' [any takers anyone? It
wasn't Cordelia, as she wasn't in the White Room], came back to haunt
me. Unlike the only half concluded visitation of Joyce slash the First
to Dawn in 'Conversations with Dead People', Angel's season has seemed
too immaculately plotted to be let go to waste. Maybe someone
plot-minded can explain. Anyway, back to the worry. That big cat seems a
version of Buffy's in 'Intervention'- but on a rather grander scale. I
was definitely waiting for Gunn to say 'Hello Kitty'. But the cat led
Buffy to two things. One, it led her to consider herself- what it means
to be a Slayer. Perhaps Gunn was made to consider what it is to be a
Warrior. But more baldly, Buffy was told 'Death is your Gift'. I
sincerely hope this isn't some nasty foreshadowing for Season Five. We
need Gunn to live.

-For Wesley, it is about getting beyond the visage. At first I was
dissatisified that after we see Gunn's insecurity and Fred's lack of
self-confidence being handled, we se the section with Wesley doing
supposedly the exact opposite. But actually, that's the whole point. I
should have trusted Minear. For distrust, and complete certainty, and
the real books with the real knowledge, not just some fancy English
bookshelf, is what Wesley was given. He was given a physical and
intellectual challenge, which eventually led him to something he could
really admire. Genuine books and files stretching as far as the eye
could see.

I've been wondering about unresolved feelings that Wesley had for Lilah
for a while. The scene where he vuts her head of is wonderfully
portrayed, but since Lilah appears to have been buried away, repressed
like so much of Wesley's past. Here he attempts to free her- to give her
the will to do what personally she'd like to do. But in a small
inversion of what is later to be the crux of the free will exploration,
we see that what Wesley wants for Lilah cannot be inflicted upon her
without her will. She's signed up for life and death, in perpetuity.
It's her choice, just as Wesley and Lilah have always had an equal, if
never healthy, relationship.

-Finally, we have Angel, who is given that thing that he's been lusting
after for ages. Which could be sunlight. And could be Buffy. But he
managed to reject those years ago- in 'In the Dark' and 'I Will Remember
You' respectively. Cordelia is more pressing, but Connor finally makes
him snap. He is the one incredible worthwhile thing that Angel has made,
and he safeguards it. He goes to see Connor,and in so doing is made to split the two things he has been fighting for throughout the Jasmine arc. There was Connor, and there was the ability of others to have free will. After Angel inflicted free will on the world, like it or not, (an extreme irony, as valheru pointed out), he thought he might be able to get Connor, the other thing he was fighting for back, but instead he is given an ultimatum to choose. And straight away, Angel abandons the quest for free will, in two regards. First, he tells the Gang that he has made an executive decision to except Wolfram and Hart's offer for all of them. This goes against the earlier, carefully crafted scenes where they all decide to get into the limo separately. If we were to believe it was a s simple as free will= liberty, we are quickly confused by it. And of course, secondly, Angel forgets Connor's free will in order that he can lead a happy life. A dreadful decision to have to make, and a wrong one. But just perhaps the least worst.

This Minear episode crackles along with plenty of his trademark, almost poetic and entrancing dialogue. Here's a few more highlights to cover some straggling points.

-'And 30% more energy efficient'. This line made me giggle. Wolfram and Hart have the diabolical intent of luring Angel with sunlight, although they already suspect something more dear to his heart will be necessary. But they are endlessly efficient and thorough, like that Kafkaesque research woman from Season Three. That 30% sums up all we may have come to hate about evil lawyers.

-'Come on Charlie, let me show you around the chocolate factory'. Of course, Lilah is working on behalf of Wolfram and Hart, and Mr Wonka was going to give the Chocolate Factory to Charlie, as the tribestial company plan to do to Angel, so the metaphor is apt. Furthermore, the very trait that Wonka requires in Charlie, the sheer childish wonder and love for the factory, devoid of selifishness, gluttony, money and pride, is the one that Wolfram and Hart appear to use for each person. It runs deeper, but the snazzy machinery is the surface layer that means the gang don't immediately ignore the offer. That joy about the things they like, but with the ominous feeling it will soon be corrupted.

-'You live as the world is as it should be'. Another tidy tie in from 'Deep Down', from Angel's glorious speech to Connor. Here, though, we see the compromise. In Lilah's chocolate factory, Angel has the tools to act on what he believes, but will h be interfered with. That line, 'the value of compromise' comes back to haunt Angel as he makes himself compromise both his crusade for free will and his distrust of Wolfram and Hart in order to give Connor the life he feels he deserves.

-Perhaps the most beautiful line of all- so sparse and poetic in a way perhaps only Minear and Whedon can do on the series: 'Flames wouldn't be eternal if they actually consumed anything'. So much duality. The flame suggests old flame, the flame of the burning perpetuity, but mostly Lilah's loyalty to the company, running beyond her life and into her death. Arguably the living flame, the one that in Christian theology burns away self and leaves one through with holy charity as outward vesture, may just have been the Wesley/Lilah relationship. Lilah was starting to be burnt away, confused about her alliances. In death, there is the certainty of the eternal flame, but also the knowledge that there is no such thing as a flame that consumes nothing. It's false even though constant.

Leaving just the scene that made me tearful. It's instructive, more so than perhaps any other individual, to consider David Boreanaz' acting for proof that practice and diligence can lead to strides forward. The power of emotion, the extraordinary desperation and understanding and hurt in his final scene talking to Connor was startling, mostly given just by his facial expression, a crumbling old castle, once again losing its reason for being fortified, even without Tim Minear's writing on top. When you see his glib, detached, wooden performance in 'Welcome to the Hellmouth' and set it aside this, it really gives you hope that you can improve in whatever you do. Here he is stellar, the situation is incredible poignant, and the conclusion is absolutely mind-blowing. Connor, while claiming 'You can't be saved by a lie', just might be, given the opportunity to start again. All the lies and pain have left in life in ruins, and yet it is not reset by simple kindness, consideration and generosity, but by putting the world to 'reset'. The smiling happy Connor that the shell of Angel sees is a lie. We have been taught 'the value of compromise'.

Of course, we see Connor's complete breakdown, and that it is, as Angel fears, all about him. There are the two fatherhood scenes- that with the man away from his family early on, and later berating another Father for not keeping his daughter comforted. This act as nifty prefigurements of the final meteoric offering in the mall.

And so the Season ends as it began, with me spouting superlatives about how the truth is in there, but hidden so deep that Angel mirrors real life. There's a thematic unity in Minear episodes which however never leads to a glib moral or an easy answer, and I will really miss his writing, as I have done for much of this Season. But with Edlund, Whedon, Craft and Fain and Goddard, (and of course Bell and Fury, who I admire less but do have good moments), Season Five of 'Angel' has the ability to match all the previous three in being brilliant. Season Four contained an odd makeweight, but with the Angelus arc, the Jasmine arc, the first and final episodes, it presents itself as a classic in the Angel mould of confusion.

There's a shortish post to be written tomorrow that will contain the following things:

1)Poetry (prepare for Tennyson, guesses welcome)
2) The season ratings
3) Some thank yous at an ending (if not the ending) of the Odyssey
4) A plea for some technical advice that could keep the Odyssey going.

But that's to come. For now, I leave you with a toast:

Connor: (toasting) To family.

TCH
PS Please excuse the wacky formatting. As you can tell, this post was written in two parts!

[> Ah, you beat me to it! -- Masq, 14:57:39 07/15/03 Tue

Not unsurprising, given my lead feet where "Home" is concerned.

But I'm working on it, I swear!

[> [> Looking forward to your analysis already -- Tchaikovsky, 00:51:17 07/16/03 Wed

[> Preserving this thread, so can read later. -- sk, 17:50:05 07/15/03 Tue

[> Re: Thanks TCH! -- aliera, 18:48:51 07/15/03 Tue

[> Slaving over season review; will post tomorrow. -- cjl (preserving thread), 21:01:08 07/15/03 Tue

[> Doing yet another thread preservation...Cutprint! Looks good TCH. -- s'kat, 21:08:56 07/15/03 Tue

[> Gratitude, poetry, videos, ratings (Angel Odyssey: Ithaca) -- Tchaikovsky, 05:46:12 07/16/03 Wed

Hello everyone.

I've had this post planned for some time. I was going to do it after 'Tomorrow', but I was allowed to continue through Season Four. Now I've got a healthy amalgam of different odds and ends to say, but I'll try to keep them relatively brief.

Firstly, here's some ratings. The usual boring old disclaimers- firstly that this gives a much more primitive idea of my opinions than the reviews themselves- secondly that some of my opinions may have changed over the course of the Season, which in this case has been a lengthy stretch of real time as well.

Deep Down: 9
Ground State: 6
The House Always Wins: 3
Slouching Towards Bethlehem: 6
Supersymmetry: 8
Spin The Bottle: 7
Apocalypse, Nowish: 6
Habeas Corpses: 5
Long Day's Journey: 7
Awakening: 9
Soulless: 10
Calvary: 6
Salvage: 7
Release: 8
Orpheus: 9
Players: 7
Inside Out: 7
Shiny Happy People: 5
The Magic Bullet: 7
Sacrifice: 8
Peace Out: 7
Home: 9

Year end total: 156/220
For comparison
Season 2: 158/220
Season 3: 156/220
Season 1: 147/220

There are a couple of patches that just let it down from being a Season as good as two, in my opinion. Actually, although these ratings out of ten aren't given with the final ranking in mind, I think they do represent my general feeling about the show- that Season One was weaker, and that the other three are of very similar quality with Season Tow just edging it.

Secondly, I'd like to say thank you. Thank you to everyone who's ever read one of these posts- it really pleases me that anyone goes to the trouble of wading through them. Thanks also for every single reply, each of which I've read an dis valuable. Just to know that you've stimulated some kind of thought is a precious thing.

And thirdly I'd like to thank six particular people who've helped made the Odyssey what it is:

Rahael, who responded to the very first post by saying that there wasn't enough discussion of Angel to balance Buffy, and so I decided to keep going for a while

Rob, who wrote one particularly kind comment after my reviews of 'Five by Five' and 'Sanctuary', which were pretty lengthy by Season One standards, got no responses. I considered giving up at that point, but he made me go on.

shadowkat, who spent what must have been several hours transcribing a Tim Minear interview that gave great insight into the mind of one of the creators, and helped bolster the Odyssey through Season Two

cjl, whose Annoying Series is a very rewarding way to end a season of the Odyssey.

Masq, for just generally being the best, but also for often humouring people who want my threads back, and for her extraordinary website, which has much improved my understanding of the series.

And finally and most importantly of all, to

yabyumpan, through whom I have watched every single episode from 'City Of...' to 'Home', and has helped me battle the postal system with considerable success, and let me off for wrongly dated cheques!

Next, a technical question. aliera has been investigating whether it is viable to send tapes by post for Season Five from America to Britain at a reasonable price. It turns out it is possible. However, I believe the video tapes are different. How would one go about playing an American video tape, or recording a British one? Any ideas welcome. In case anyone's wondering, I don't own a computer, so beyond issues of legality, downloading episodes is just not possible.

And finally, here I am, back in Ithaca, possibly to start out again. So what better excuse than to reproduce Tennyson's Ulysees about the aging warrior and sailsman's perpetual Wanderlust.

Ulysees

It little profits that an idle king,
By this still hearth, among these barren crags,
Matched with an aged wife, I mete and dole
Unequal laws unto a savage race,
That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me.
I cannot rest from travel; I will drink
Life to the lees. All times I have enjoyed
Greatly, have suffered greatly, both with those
That loved me, and alone; on shore, and when
Through scudding drifts the rainy Hyades
Vext the dim sea, I am becoming a name
For always roaming with a hungry heart;
Much have I seen and known, - cities of men
And manners, climates, councils, governments,
Myself not least, but honoured of them all;
And drunk delight of battle with my peers,
Far on the ringing plains of windy Troy.
I am a part of all that I have met;
Yet all experience is an arch wherethrough
Gleams that untravelled world whose margin fades
For ever and for ever when I move.
How dull is it to pause, to make an end,
To rust unburnished, not to shine in use!
As though to breathe were life! Life piled on life
Were all too little, and of one to me
Little remains; but every hour is saved
From that eternal silence, something more,
A bringer of new things; and vile it were
For some three suns to store and hoard myself,
And this grey spirit yearning in desire
To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bound of human thought . . .
There lies the port; the vessel puffs her sail:
There gloom the dark, broad seas. My mariners,
Souls that have toiled, and wrought, and thought with me -
That ever with a frolic welcome took
The thunder and the sunshine, and opposed
Free hearts, free foreheads - you and I are old;
Old age hath yet his honour and his toil.
Death closes all; but something ere the end,
Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.
The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks:
The long day wanes; the slow moon climbs; the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
'T is not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down;
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are:
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Glorious.

TCH

[> [> Thanks, TCH -- cjl, 07:00:54 07/16/03 Wed

But the reason why the Annoying Series is anywhere near enjoyable is because your Angel Odyssey forces me to think the themes of the series through and write at a higher level.

Dave Sim, the creator of Cerebus the Aardvark, once said that when he tries to do imitations/parodies of most artists, he can get away with his usual bag of tricks and draw over his mistakes. But when he does an impression of one of the greats--like Hal Foster--he has to be at his best. Three lines on the page and you'd damn well better get them right, or the buzzer sounds and you lose the vacation to Hawaii and the year's supply of Turtle Wax. I feel the same way about your essays--I've got to work for my supper, otherwise you're going to blow me off the page.

Hal Foster's Prince Valiant was the original model for S2 Groo--and so we return to Ithaca once again. The Angel Odyssey is one of the lasting pleasures of this board, and I can't wait for Season 5.

I should post my year-end review tonight.

[> [> [> Re: Thanks, TCH -- aliera, 07:47:33 07/16/03 Wed

TCH I know I generally don't have much to add to these threads; but I do have to say again how much I enjoy what you've done and what you are doing. Here's to the continuation of the Odyssey, virtual and otherwise!

[> [> [> [> Re: Sorry cjl. The above should be under TCH's last post. -- aliera, 07:51:17 07/16/03 Wed

Which is not to say that you are not appreciated also! :-)

[> [> [> Thursday morning treat for the hours ahead Briton- hooray -- Tchaikovsky, 08:02:02 07/16/03 Wed

[> [> Awww, you're welcome, TCH. And thank you again... -- Rob, 08:05:03 07/16/03 Wed

The Odyssey is one of the most enjoyable things on the board, ever, and I'm going to miss reading new ones (for the time being, only, I hope) to the point that part of me wishes you could have been deprived of the episodes longer, so we could have more to look forward to during the summer. Nah, don't worry, I wouldn't be that cruel. ;o)

re: the videotapes, there are 3 ways for you to watch it. 2 involve purchases. You'd need to either buy a US VCR (on-line probably), buy a converter-VCR that can record NTSC to PAL (which is the video format in Britain), or...I know in the US, there are places that will do it for you. I think they'd be in the phone book under "Video Production" or something like that. I don't unfortunately have any idea how much any of these options would cost. I assume the 1st or 3rd would be the cheapest. The 1st, while possibly expensive to begin with, may be better in the long-run, so you don't have to pay each week. But I don't know too much about this.

OnM probably knows more.

Rob

[> [> [> Thanks Rob. And attention, OnM! -- Tchaikovsky, 09:18:30 07/16/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> But what about our BehindtheBoard fic? Didn't *that* inspire you? -- Random, preserving like mad. Mad, I tell you, ma-a-a-d!, 23:14:24 07/16/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> Speaking of which, when's the next installment? -- O'Cailleagh, 15:45:17 07/17/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> In the works, in the works.. -- Random, 20:48:31 07/17/03 Thu

[> [> Cordelia, ratings of S4 episodes& thanks tch (Angel Odyssey: Ithaca) -- shadowkat, 11:15:04 07/16/03 Wed

First off, read your marvelous essay of Home this morning and have to say, it's the first review of Home that I absolutely agree with. Not one disagreement with anything you said in that review. You said it very well. That adding anything to it...seems unnecessary.

Thanks for the acknowledgement - anything I could do to keep you doing those essays was well worth the effort.
You gave me better appreciation for episodes I thought less of at the time. Heck, you even made me reconsider the Pylea arc and the Grooslaug...which is more of an accomplishment than you know ;-)

On to the ratings:

My ratings for S4 episodes are somewhat higher than yours, and higher than S2, which while I liked it, had episodes that I basically switched off in mid-viewing or did other things during and didn't fully watch until a friend sent the tapes of them to me, two years later. While I loved the Darla arc in S2, most of the other filler episodes, left me somewhat cold at the time. I have more respect for those episodes now, oddly enough and part of that is due to your reviews of them. So - to an extent - my views can be altered by what I read on line. Not completely, of course. ;-)

As you mention in your Home review - S4 Ats was very tightly plotted - possibly the most tightly plotted season of any show they've done. Every episode seemed to be part and parcel of the arc and build on the next one. The only thing I had major problems with in this arc was Cordelia's storyline. Even if Charisma hadn't gotten pregnant and they'd just made her completely evil with no Jasmine - it still would have felt off. Actually I think Jasmine and Charisma's pregnancy may have saved the arc and the character of Cordelia...in this one circumstance, I think the actress's personal life actually served to make the story much better and she, inadvertently, did the creators/writers a favor, whether they or she realize it.

In fact the episodes in S4 that I had the most trouble with were the ones that concentrated too much on Cordelia or that
wonky storyline, one which they've never really answered to my satisfaction. I'm curious to know what you thought of the Cordelia arc, TCH? You never really say -- or perhaps you did and I missed it?? In Home, I was left with the assumption that Evil Cordy was a pod person possessed by Jasmine, that all her acts weren't done by her at all. And the last time we saw the real Cordy was in either The House Always Wins or possibly Spin The Bottle. I do feel the
writers did the character a disservice here and well understand people who loved the character, being less than happy with S4. In that sense, I suppose I'm lucky to be neutral on her, but that said, it did not prevent me from seeing the problems with her story-arc. I spent a good portion of S4 trying to figure out what the heck they were doing with this character. As I stated in one post: my theory on Cordy changes each episode. That, I believe may be the biggest detractor from the season and possibly adds weight to the objective assertion that S2 was far better overall. It was for that reason alone - we didn't really have any true out-of-character or head scratching moments in S2, not like we did in S3, S1, and S4. (S1 - She and Wes' pratfalls every five minutes, S3- the head-scratching cordy arc starts here, S4 - the cordy arc.)

Looking at the list of episodes, the ones I found myself liking the most oddly enough were the ones dealing with Fred (odd b/c I didn't like the Fred centric episodes that much in previous seasons), the ones dealing with Wes and with Gunn (equally odd b/c up until S3, I wasn't fond of many Wes centric episodes or Gunn centric episodes until S4, so these three characters were actually given a bit more depth in S4.) The one's I was less happy with were the ones that focused on the Angel/Connor/Cordy arc...while I liked Angel and Connor - the Cordelia part of the triangle felt contrived somehow. Too out of character - which may have been the point, not sure. I did like the Jasmine arc and I feel Jasmine may have made up for it somewhat. I also liked most of the Angelus arc, even though I find the whole plan to bring back Angelus somewhat contrived. Again that might have been the point. Perhaps we were supposed to feel that way - since Jasmine tells us all these things were manipulated to bring about her birth. But I'm not sure it worked dramatically...it felt it bit sloppy in places, possibly more a fault of the medium we're in than the show itself?

The episode ratings :

Deep Down: 10 (TCH =9)
(by Stephen Deknight)
After much thought, I'd give Deep Down a 10/10. I honestly don't see anything wrong with this episode. The framing device is stellar and kept throughout the series, also used again brilliantly in Home. We have character development on practically everyone, even Cordy's brief scene where she announces how bored she is. The plot switchs back and forth, building suspense throughout, keeping us guessing,
and rewarding us for hanging in there. Each plot twist paid off with a nice wicked surprise. The whole Wes saving Angel portion of the episode was twisty and morally ambiguous - rewarding the audience's desire to see Justine pay yet at the same time unnerving the audience with how she does pay for her crimes.

Ground State: 7 (TCH = 6)
by MEre Smith
I found the introduction of Gwen to be one of the best introductions ME has done of a new recurring character. She was shown as vulnerable, multifaceted and mysterious with just a few short, dramatic scenes. The myth reference to Dinzani - was appropriately creepy. The pay-off, Cordy's in a better place, nice and ironic.

The House Always Wins: 4/5 (TCH =3)
by David Fury
I liked this episode better than you did. I liked it better than Storyteller (I know, I know, shocking to say the least.) Why? Because I found the whole metaphor about gambling away your destiny to be rather interesting - particularly with the twist that a higher being can interfer and give it back to you. But what I really liked about THAW is how it appears, after watching the entire season. Think about it? In THAW - Angel gambles away his destiny by mistake and is caught in a nice happy loop, reminiscent in a way of his years wandering aimlessly until the PTB send Whistler after him. Here, we have higher being Cordelia - ask the timeless question (taken from Wim Wenders
flick Wings of Angels (not to be confused with City of Angels) where Angles just watch but never ever interfer) - what's the point of watching if we can't ever change anything? Why can't we? What's the harm? So Cordy breaks out of her mystical prison and interfers - breaking Angel out his. And for her troubles she is deposited sans memory right in the middle of the Hyperion. One wonders if that was the moment Jasmine gained control of Cordelia - when Cordy decided to interfer? Was it also the moment Angel's destiny changed? This is commented on again in Home - where this time around Angel is the one who interfers with Connor - changing Connor's destiny. And in Peace-Out where,
Angel flips the switch and throws everyone out of their higher being induced happy loop. On top of all this, we have Lorne who gets everything he ever dreamed of in Vegas yet at a horrible moral price he can't live with. We think he's learned the error of his ways - yet doesn't W&H offer Lorne the same thing in Home? Everything you ever dreamed - all the people you ever wished to meet...oh ignore the
tiny print about morality. Very interesting episode when you think about it.

That's not to say I didn't have problems with it, I did.
David Fury in my humble opinion just can't write Angel well.
Angel's jokes about the rat pack did not work, they fell flat and seemed oddly out of character. From his interviews, I'm wondering if Fury just doesn't understand the character and the soul thing? Not sure. Fury does however write Lorne, Gunn, Fred, Wes, Cordy and Connor rather well - so I try to ignore it. Also Fury's brand of humor? Not always mine.

Slouching Towards Bethlehem: 6
(Jeff Bell??)

Agree. Although I'm tempted to dip it down to a 5. While it was a good enough episode, I keep forgetting what happened in this episode along with where it came in the series, which I guess says it all.
I only rate it higher than THAW, because I found it more enjoyable and less annoying in places. But not overly memorable except for the Wes/Lilah bits that I loved. Actually W/L were the best thing in this episode. The episode did focus on Cordelia and her wonky arc and also started the whole c/c/a triangle so that may be my other difficulty with it.

Supersymmetry: 9 (TCH =8)
Craft and Fain's first episode (they seem to be Ats answer
to Drew Goddard - hitting the ball out of the park on the first throw?)

I know, I know - parts of the Seidel plot was a bit sloppy
and not very consistent with what we learned about the whole Pylea thing. But since I was never that fond of the whole Pylea thing, I was able to overlook it - I liked what they came up with in Supersymmetry better. For the first time, I began to find Fred interesting. Gunn and Fred for that matter - interesting. These characters which had been sitting in stasis for sooo long, finally got to be fleshed out a bit. Every character was used pretty well here. And we got a little less of the whole C/A/C triangle.

Spin The Bottle: 7
Joss Whedon

Agree completely. While incredibly funny in places, it seemed off as well. Perhaps it's the focus on the C/A/C arc?
I liked the bits on Wes, Angel and Connor. But I found Fred and Gunn to be a bit too cliche and off for my taste, making me wonder if Whedon just doesn't feel comfortable with these two characters? Connor and Angel were perfect.
But Cordelia? shrug. Again wonky.

Apocalypse, Nowish: 6
Deknight
Agree. I wasn't overly fond of this episode. And yes, it also focuses on A/C/C arc. Outside of a few nifty sequences: like the team fighting the Beast, Gunn/Wes
tension, and Cordelia dreaming about watching Invasion of The body Snatchers...the episode seemed a bit overly melodramatic.

Habeas Corpses: 10 (TCH =5)
JEff Bell (I think)

Here you and I completely disagree. I loved this episode.
And I hate zombie movies, refuse to see Resident Evil and have never made it through Night of the Living Dead. Yet, I loved this one. I found the Wes/Lilah portions gripping.
It was actually scary, rare occurence. I had no clue who would get killed, if anyone. And the last sequence in the White Room was chilling. I also loved the metaphor emphasized by the title. For my full opinion on this one, check archives. One of my all time favorites.

Long Day's Journey: 7

Agree.

Awakening: 8 (TCH =9)
Deknight and Fury
I think this one is overrated. It's okay. But Angel's perfect day played a little bit too much like a sappy version of Raiders of the Lost Arc meets Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom for my taste. If it weren't for the last sequence of Angelus laughing...I probably would have given it a 4. But the twist makes the episode and puts it in the 8 category - since the dream is clearly meant as satire.
And you just have to appreciate someone satirizing the hero myth and Indiana Jones at the same time.

Soulless: 10 (tCH =10)
Craft and Fain, dir: Scean Austin

Completely agree. Favorite all time episode. Loved it.
Also in my humble opinion the best acting David Boreanze has done in his life. He brought out stellar performances in every one else as well. Absolutely adored the interaction between him and Wes. The literary/movie references were also wonderful. Flawless episode. Can't find one single thing wrong with it.

Calvary: 9 (TCH =6)
(not sure who did this baby, thinking it was Bell,smith and Denkight)

Disagree. Had the best twist - Cordy killing Lilah. And was probably one of the few episodes in the wonky Cordy arc, that I liked. Also loved the Calvary metaphor which the board analyzed very well at the time. I won't repeat it all here.

Salvage: 7 (TCH =7)
David Fury

Agreed. Outside of Wes/Lilah and Wes/Faith, this episode seemed a little on the weak side. Angelus just seemed way out of character, supporting my view that Fury just does not understand this character. I think he sees him as just a big misunderstood frat boy, which he isn't at all. (I pray Minear has at some point prior to taking off, sat down with Fury and explained the specifics of souling and vampires and the moral complexity of Angel. Minear writes Angel the best in my opinion - oh I will miss him.)

Release: 8 (TCH =8)

Also agree. Wes/Faith were great. But EvilCordy and the beastmaster voice were silly. And Angelus - better, but still far too light for my taste. But Faith/Angel - superb.

Orpheus: 7 (TcH=9)
Mere Smith

I liked Release better, actually. Orpheus...Willow was completely out of character, so much so that I'm really glad Hannigan has no plans to make an appearence next year.
Cordy vs. Willow was disappointing to me. The best part of the episode was actually the alley three way fight between Faith/Angel/Angelus. Although somewhat confusing - regarding what this whole soul thing means. Apparently Angelus really is a part of Angel, just repressed?
And nope, Angel did not grow one iota b/c of the experience. He still does not acknowledge that Angelus resides in him and is a part of him, not a separate entity.
Apparently Faith was the one who came out of Orpheus with the epithany, no one else. And that was my problem with it -
the recurring character gets the epithany, the other characters seem to just be there for her benefit, seems a bit off or episodic in style for such a tightly plotted serial format. The other draw-back - the C/A/C arc...which was starting to grate on my nerves by this point, particularly with Cordy in the black laced belly dancer outfit. By this point, I wanted to slap Connor upside the head and I happen to like Connor quite a bit.

Players: 8 (TCH = 7)
MEre Smith???
Loved this episode. Gunn was finally given a chance to develop and shine. If this is where ATs is headed? Fine with me. Also really enjoyed the Fang Gang's set up of Cordy, delightful. They successfully mislead Cordy and the audience - giving us a great pay-off at the end. That is how you do a successful mislead. I think it helped to balance the C/A/C arc with a good B plot story.

Inside Out: 7
Deknight

Agree. I found it to be a confusing episode. Not as confusing as viewers who hadn't seen the last three seasons, I had to explain it to some people. The best part of it was the whole Cordy vs. Darla section - wonderful.
But the whole this is how we manipulated you via Skip?
A tad contrived and sloppy. In this episode, the writers attempted to smooth out and explain the wonkiness of Cordelia's arc and in doing so, proved to me at least how much they flubbed it up. The arc just did not work.

Shiny Happy People: 5
Craft and Fain (I guess everyone has to get a slow episode)
Agree. Not much to say on this one.

The Magic Bullet: 9 (Tch = 7)

I loved this episode. It was so satirical in places. From the scene in the begining which makes splendid fun of the Fred/Gunn/Wes triangle along with numerous other things to the whole magic bullet conspiracy. Wonderful. I am also one of the few people who actually liked Fred's trip down the rabbit hole - the metaphor fit with her character's arc.
Loved Magic Bullet. I was even able to overlook the Karoke scenes.

Sacrifice: 6 (TCH =8)
Ben Edlund
Up until the insect creature...I found it sort of slow.
The insect creature saved it. But wasn't really all that involving.

Peace Out: 9 (TCH=7)
David Fury, Stephen Deknight, Craft and Fain
This episode gets a 9 for four sequences: Connor/Cordelia (the best Connor/Cordy scene in the entire arc and it's so good, it almost, almost makes the arc pay off), Angel/Jasmine/Connor, and Wes/Gunn/Fred/Lorne/Connor, Wes/Fred/Gunn/Lorne/Angel and Lilah. Loved those sequences.
Really great pay-off for a so-so arc.

Home: 10 (TCh=9)

Your essay ironically enough explains fully why I give this episode a 10. I see nothing wrong with it. For the reasons you stated in your essay above. Ironic - since you yourself give it a lower rating. ;-)

Well those are my views, YMMV (your mileage may vary).

Thanks again TCH for a wonderful series of in-depth reviews.
Hoping to see them continue.

sk

[> [> [> Very speedy word on Cordelia -- Tchaikovsky, 12:03:11 07/16/03 Wed

Dashing past- a fascinating read that I'd like to do justic to by reading and replying to at leisure. For the moment, just a note on the Cordelia arc. I found it uninvolving- although I didn't personally consider the writers very interested in the character of Cordelia this Season. The moments I found her engaging was when she was used well for another character- for example, in the fascinating journey of Connor. I may have underplayed how much I loved Connor's story and character this season- not quite Masq/Scroll love, but up there. Also, she was interesting with Willow. But frankly, as Angel, Wesley, Fred, Gunn and Lorne all had brilliant arcs, I let the Cordelia arc slide without too much grumbling, as I would have liked to have done with Dawn in Season Seven.

See my 'Peace Out' review for where I thought they finally tied up Cordelia's story nicely and thematically.

TCH

[> [> American video tapes -- Rahael, 17:12:59 07/17/03 Thu

(Wooo! I played a part in the Odyssey!)

My vcr plays american video tapes - I know this because on the front it says PAL/NTSC. Does yours say this?

As for recording, nothing different, you just need to make sure that what you play it on is compatible with the American video.

At least that's what my experience tells me.

[> [> [> Yes, it does. Excellent! -- Tchaikovsky, 12:20:42 07/19/03 Sat

[> Yay! -- ponygirl, 11:54:57 07/16/03 Wed

Congrats, TCH on a fabulous Odyssey! I've had a troubled and rather cranky relationship with AtS in the past, but s4 was a delight, I would rank Home as my favourite episode. I think of it as the equivalent of The Gift, both in terms of quality and also in that it serves as a perfect summation of the series. If Home had been the final episode of AtS (and I'm very glad it wasn't) what a dark and powerful message we would have been left with about moving past idealism, the choices and the compromises we all have to make to live in the world.

It's interesting that both shows had some serious plot threads left dangling this year, but Home made me forget my questions about the necessity of the Angelus arc, the Beast's purpose, and Cordelia -- Chosen, I'm still asking about.

[> Catharsis and the eternal flames -- Random, 15:25:28 07/16/03 Wed

In death, there is the certainty of the eternal flame, but also the knowledge that there is no such thing as a flame that consumes nothing. It's false even though constant.

Wonderfully put, TCH. What I believe we are looking at is - like most traditional perceptions of Hell - an unending catharsis. And a catharsis that never completes itself achieves nothing but suffering. I recall someone complaining that Lilah was offering meaningless wisdom. The contract isn't Lilah, the person said. It is what binds her. Burning it should free her from the spell. This, I think, is a mistake. Lilah watches Wesley's failure and alludes to a greater metaphor, but we need not bother looking past the contract for the meaning of her words. The contract, that little piece of paper, is Lilah. It is everything she is bound up in a few simple (or not-so-simple, if I know legalese) words and sealed with a signature. More on that later, but I just wanted to note that what Wesley attempted to do was, in essence, a quick-fix catharsis sealed with a kiss given far too late. And, unsurprisingly, it failed. She had already damned herself long before she met Wesley.

Perhaps, one of the defining differences between the portrayals of evil and good in the Buffyverse (Yes, dammit, it's still the Buffyverse) is the concept of catharsis. The auto-de-fe in Amiel's abyss of self. Forget about power. It's about catharsis. Who gets it? Who doesn't? The list of good characters who achieve it is short, but still far longer than the evil ones. We can count on the fingers of one hand the number of evil characters who have achieved catharsis in the Buffyverse. Faith, when she faced Angel in the alley, and again when she watched Buffy and Angel suffering the consequences of her actions.. Darla, as she sacrificed herself to save her child. To some imperfect extent, DarkWillow as she poured her rage out against her oldest friend, burning away the darkness in the process. One died. Another almost did...but thanks to an Angel who had already faced the darkness, finally went to jail instead. The third survived, but then came the rebuilding process, this time with purer elements.

No evil being - so far as I recall - has ever managed to complete a cathartic moment. Angelus, I think, was mistaken as he stood before the statue of Acathala. It wasn't about becoming...it was about catharsis. He sought to burn away the baggage of the past - and failed. Was he doomed to fail? I think perhaps he was. Even had he succeeded in bringing about the Apocalypse, I suspect he still would have failed to achieve catharsis. We'll never know, of course. Unsouled Spike never found it...it was only when he attempted to rape the girl he claimed to love that he really faced himself, his own darkness, with clear eyes. He realized that no matter how much he may have seemed to have changed on the surface, the monster was still at the core, still pulling his strings like a marionettist. So he went to seek out a true catharsis - regaining his soul so the real battle to burn away the evil could begin. It was only then that he had a chance to become a "man." As Angel might have warned him, though, it is a slowburning fire. I would suggest that it was only by the grace of the PTB, in Chosen, that Spike truly - and literally - burned away the last of the clinging chaff of monstrousness that had weighed him down for 120 years. His journey was finally complete. I'm extremely interested in what he will be like upon his return. Will he be perfect? No. Catharsis is an end of a chapter, not the whole of the text.

Unfortunately, catharsis is not precisely salvation. It is freedom, change, opportunity - but salvation is an end, not the journey. Connor never found his catharsis - instead, he had a sort of salvation imposed upon him. He lost the battle for himself, so Angel made the toughest of decisions, and destroyed the victor (no pun intended) in that struggle. This galls many of us at the same time as it gives us a small sense of happiness at seeing Connor finally at peace. Thus the powerful reactions to the end of Home. We want to see the story play out because we want Connor to achieve his catharsis. In a sense, he was robbed of it, robbed of his chance. It is a powerful ethical dilemma. Angel does save Connor...but he rips away from him not just his free-will but his chance to truly achieve something, to heal himself.

And so we return to Lilah. She has joined the parade of countless lost souls before her - Holland being the one most of us remember the best - who discovered that evil cannot redeem. It can only corrupt. What Wesley is truly attempting is almost exactly parallel to what Angel did to Connor. He attempts to give Lilah salvation because catharsis is impossible. There's a line derived from Meister Eckhart in the movie Jacob's Ladder that has always haunted me:

"The only thing that burns in Hell is the part of you that won't let go of your life; your memories, your attachments. They burn 'em all away. But they're not punishing you, he said. They're freeing your soul... So the way he sees it, if you're frightened of dying and holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace then the devils are really angels freeing you from the earth."

(I have repeatedly tried to locate the primary source, but have been unsuccessful for several reasons, not the least of which being that I can't read German.) Perhaps this as fair a hallmark of Evil in the Buffyverse as we have ever seen: Evil clings to the past, to its own pain and desires, to everything that makes it what it is. The flames don't burn Lilah because she cannot release her past. She is bound by contract and deed and every selfish motivation that has characterized her life. The flames are false because the catharsis is incomplete. Catharsis is both suffering and essential transformation. One without the other will never be enough. So long as she holds onto her desires - and the profoundly tragic insight here is that she no longer has a choice in whether to do so - the devils will continue to tear away at her without diminishing, the flames will burn without consuming.

I'll be very interested to see how the shanshu plays out. It strikes me as more a cathartic concept than a soteriological one.

[> [> Terrific analysis, Random! -- Scroll, 18:08:00 07/16/03 Wed

The flames don't burn Lilah because she cannot release her past. She is bound by contract and deed and every selfish motivation that has characterized her life.

I think one damning difference between Lilah and Connor is that Lilah has never asked to be saved, never wanted to be redeemed or freed from her Wolfram & Hart prison. She's never felt guilty over her evils, even as Wesley tries to give her salvation. (This joie de vive in evil is kinda why I love her so much!) Like Holland in "Reprise", Lilah doesn't seem the least bit resentful of her lot in unlife, despite now having to call Angel 'boss'.

Unfortunately, catharsis is not precisely salvation. It is freedom, change, opportunity - but salvation is an end, not the journey.

Totally agree with this, which is why I saw Wesley's attempt to burn Lilah's contract to be just as much about his own catharsis as Lilah's. He never considered it to be his salvation though, which I appreciate. Angel's decision to mind-wipe Connor is also about his own catharsis, and perhaps also his own salvation. If Connor/his family is salvation, then "saving" Connor is also about saving himself, I think.

[> [> Burning metaphors in the Buffyverse. (Spoilers to Home/Chosen) -- shadowkat, 20:25:04 07/16/03 Wed

First off - I absolutely loved Random's post. Printed it off and re-read it twice.

I particularly love your last paragraph, which I think says as much about us and how we choose to live our lives as the characters in the Buffyverse. It also comes very close
to my own personal view of heaven/hell and the afterlife.
A view that until now I've never really seen clearly expressed.

So it bears repeating:

"The only thing that burns in Hell is the part of you that won't let go of your life; your memories, your attachments. They burn 'em all away. But they're not punishing you, he said. They're freeing your soul... So the way he sees it, if you're frightened of dying and holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace then the devils are really angels freeing you from the earth."

(I have repeatedly tried to locate the primary source, but have been unsuccessful for several reasons, not the least of which being that I can't read German.) Perhaps this as fair a hallmark of Evil in the Buffyverse as we have ever seen: Evil clings to the past, to its own pain and desires, to everything that makes it what it is. The flames don't burn Lilah because she cannot release her past. She is bound by contract and deed and every selfish motivation that has characterized her life. The flames are false because the catharsis is incomplete. Catharsis is both suffering and essential transformation. One without the other will never be enough. So long as she holds onto her desires - and the profoundly tragic insight here is that she no longer has a choice in whether to do so - the devils will continue to tear away at her without diminishing, the flames will burn without consuming.

Okay...can't add anything to that. Except, agree wholeheartedly. Also in a nutshell describes why I loved Lilah and Spike.

Now moving on to Burning metaphors - which I believe supports yours and TCH's analysis. It occurred to me last night after reading TCH's review and other posts on the board, how truly consistent Spike and Angel's arcs have been and how consistent the whole burn metaphor has been for the evil characters throughout the series, so consistent that it shouldn't surprise us that Spike's sacrifice in Chosen literally involved being burned from the inside by his soul and having his soul immolating all the vampires surrounding him. But it wasn't until I read Random's post tonight that I truly understood why Whedon and Company picked that particular metaphor as opposed to stakes or crosses or swords or a whole host of other things to describe Spike's sacrifice or other similar events.

Let's look back over the seasons.

In Season 1 Btvs - it is made clear that vamps can't deal with sunlight. Buffy defeats them twice in Harvest with this concept. First when she escapes their lair in the old factory, and second when she tricks Luke with fake sunlight.
Later in the season, in the episode Angel, we see Angel avoiding sunlight - literally stuck in Buffy's bedroom all day long.

But it's not really until Season 2, with the introduction of Spike and Dru that the burn metaphor begins to take form.
The first time - is in When She Was Bad - Buffy chooses to torture a vampire by burning it's mouth with a cross.
Next in Some Assembly Acquired - Frankenstein Darryl finally lets go of his life by inadvertently setting himself and his makeshift bride ablaze. Rather than live alone and without her - he allows himself to be consumed by fire and freed. Then we the What's My Line two parter - where Spike sets the church ablaze to keep the Scooby Gange from rescuing Angel and Buffy, so he can escape with Drusilla. Instead of escaping - Buffy drops a pipe-organ on his head, and it is Spike who is caught in the blazing church. The SG believes that Spike and Dru have died, but instead they appear to have gone through a sort of rebirth, Dru now newly reborn in black and evil and powerful (she used to be in white) and Spike weak and unconscious. When they entered the blaze, Spike was strong and powerful, Dru was simpering and weak - now the roles appear to have been reversed and one half of Spike's face? Burned. We don't get
the fire image again until Surprise with the Judge - it appears the Judge has the ability to cleanse the good from the world by burning it away - the opposite of what we'd normally assume. We find out that Spike and Dru who reconstructed the Judge, aren't entirely immune from his power - he can burn them too. And he comes close to burning Buffy and Angel. Yet it is Buffy and Angel's act of lovemaking that truly burns Angel - cleansing the monster of its humanity, its soul - "freeing the soul" from it's life on earth and leaving the monsterous entity in its wake - an ironic inverse (?) of Random's point, perhaps.
The rest of the season's arc in a sense deals with whether Angelus can fully cleanse himself of the taint of his humanity, reach catharsis - the conclusion? Apparently not.
Evil as Random points out never quite achieves it. Spike on the other hand appears to flip...as a result of Angelus attempt at cleansing. The next burn metaphor comes in PAssion - where Giles attempts to destroy Angelus with fire, just as Jenny attempted to metaphorically destroy Angelus with a soul. Both result in burning. Angelus burns Jenny's research, files, computer, everything but the actual curse which conviently falls outside his notice between two desks - where Buffy herself will discover it in a few months time. Giles burns and destroys Spike and Drus'
home, and almost himself - barely touching Angelus. Angelus succeeds in setting Giles ablaze. As the Buffy set him ablaze. But Giles emerges from the flames of his Passion intact.

In Season 3, we get all sorts of interesting fire images.
First there's the daylight dreams Buffy has of Angel,