May 2004 posts
A Farcical Look at
Wolfram and Hart....spoilers for "The Girl in Question.
-- Rufus, 17:56:37 05/11/04 Tue
I've said next to nothing about "The Girl in Question".
I was waiting to see what some others thought about it. I laughed
through much of the show and to prove I'm a Trollop, here's my
favorite non-lead line...
You give us the money, we give you the head.
Remember, I am a Trollop. I don't know if that demon should be
charged with kidnapping or solicitation...!
So, what't the deal with this episode that pissed off so many
people? I've seen people say that the characters of Spike and
Angel weren't themselves, acting out of character. I saw it as
a way to highlight just how wrong a place they are in working
for Wolfram and Hart. Both characters are reduced to reacting
much like everyone under Jonathan's spell in "Superstar".
No one could live up to Jonathan in superstar, hell, he even wrote
a book. Angel and Spike are seen reacting to a character that
they can't seem to win when it comes to charisma. Note the fact
we never see "The Immortal".
The chase for Buffy leads to a "Life Serial" kinda repeat
of the guys at her door time after time looking for her. So, what
about the mission? The mission gets grabbed and the main reason
they are there ignored. More on that later.
It's the scenes at the Italian branch of Wolfram and Hart that
got my attention.
Illona: Ciao! Benvenuti! Welcome! (she makes a b-line for Spike)
Spike, you are the very meaning of handsome. You take my breath
away! Ah, I have no breath! And you, what an honor, the great
Angelus.
Angel: Actually, it's just Angel.
Illona: Ah yes, of course. The gypsies, they gave you your soul
back. The gypsies are filthy people [spit] And we shall speak
of them NO MORE!!!
(I actually know people who say very much the same thing, really
I do)
I am Illona Costa Bianchi
Sounds like a great gal, she reminded me of the gal in the nightclub.
Both seem friendly enough.
Illona: Whatever it is you want, we give to you. If you want
the world, we give you the world...we give you 2 world in fact...because
this is our way.
Yeah, that's Wolfram and Hart's way, but how much does all that
crap really cost. Angel and gang started this season with lots
of new goodies, Angel himself seems to mention that helicopter
a lot. But, how much did all the frills cost. This is where this
episode is so good. It may be comic but there is an undercurrent
of what Wolfram and Hart is all about. The emphasis may be on
the Mary Sue like Immortal but the real news is the fact that
Angel and crew are running in place and Wolfram and Hart are taking
full advantage of that. When Angel and Spike come back all shredded
from an explosion, Illona gives Spike a new wardrobe and gives
Angel that awful jacket. When they want more she gives them the
bums rush closing them out of the office.
Illona: Sometimes you have to put your fate in a higher power.
Angel: We're heroes. We don't need any higher power.
Illona: I'll be in touch. (she closes the doors on Angel)
Angel: We make our own fate. We don't need any body cleaning up
our mess. You know we're champions.
The whole scene made both vamps appear so...impotent.
It's Andrew that gives them direction when he says that Buffy
is moving on, and maybe they should to as while running in place
they will keep missing her. That is the message in this episode,
not who gets the girl, not the perfect Immortal, but the consequences
of running in place while behind closed doors Wolfram and Hart
continue the same old same old...evil.
Replies:
[> Re: A Farcical Look at Wolfram and Hart....spoilers for
"The Girl in Question. -- Ann, 19:09:41 05/11/04 Tue
"If you want the world, we give you the world...we give you
2 world in fact...because this is our way."
I knew this sounded familiar to me.
Thine Lord is the Kingdom,
O God from whom all blessings flow,
The Power and the Glory,
all things come from you
for Ever and Ever
of your own do we give you
World without End.
W&H giving themselves godlike powers in this instance.
Her name: Illona Costa Bianchi has meaning as well. Illona is
an Irish name meaning light of the sun. I think her first name
is too similar in spelling to Illyria's to be a coincidence.
Costa: noun: any of the 12 pairs of curved arches of bone extending
from the spine to or toward the sternum in humans (and similar
bones in most vertebrates). Not unlike W&H's offices reaching
out and supporting evil like a spine.
Bianchi is more commonly known as a world famous cycling manufacturer,
winery and apparently a gun manufacturer. It is also the last
name of a character SMG played in a 1983 tv movie called Invasion
of Privacy!
Thanks for the quotage. I agree with your assessment of Angel
and Spike at W&H. I do think farce works here. Neat connection
to Superstar as well.
[> Re: A Farcical Look at Wolfram and Hart....spoilers for
"The Girl in Question. -- Buffalo, 19:22:57 05/11/04
Tue
I'm in your corner, Rufus. Humor has always been one of the great
qualities in BTVS and ATS. Borneaz has the great ability to trip
over a chair when looking sad, or fall through a window when trying
to be stealthy. The time Spike looked like a pincushion from arrows
when Willow bemoaned the drty deeds done to Native Americans,
or had the classic comeback "out for a walk....bitch,"
along with the motorcycle ride to Giroy with Andrew on the back
talking about preferred snacks. Giles looking pitiful in his wizard
suit hoping for some business at the Magic Box was like still
life in motion. And of course, the classic group scream in Tabula
Rasa. All the actors got to really show how far they can stretch
and remain in character, IMO.
Given that the original confrontation between The Immortal and
the vampiric duo was when they were evil, I'm not so convinced
he's a bad guy as they just got their egos bruised. Those ships
were in Horse Latitudes.
[> The symbolic nature of the closing of the door in "The
Girl in Question" spoilers -- Rufus, 13:36:44 05/12/04
Wed
It was the closing of the doors in the scene where the CEO of
the Italian Wolfram and Hart that points to a problem that Angel
has that he seems unaware of.
The closed door often points to a hidden secret, but also
to prohibition and futility. From the Herders Dictionary
of Symbols
Illona was all kiss, kiss, ciao...you have no problems, but she
represents what Wolfram and Hart are doing to the Gang. They give
them the world but shut the door to them knowing any of their
secrets. They find out what Wolfram and Hart wants them to. Angel
said he was a hero or a champion but the ease that Illona closes
the double doors, dismissing Angel and Spike speaks to the contempt
that Wolfram and Hart has for the pair. Gunn is right, they need
a compass to get out of the farce they are playing.
Kinda OT - Interactive Philosophy!
-- Darby, 18:25:28 05/11/04 Tue
Design a deity!
Measure your moral parsimony! (I got 84%, Sara got 47%.)
Shakespeare vs Britney!
Lots more!
Go to http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/games.htm
Have fun!
Replies:
[> And for Evil Spawn Graffiti... -- Darby, 05:34:25
05/12/04 Wed
Down the % categories, his parsimony was 63%, and for all of the
others he either matched one of us, or was close to exactly between
- never outside the parent-bracketing range. Dunno what that means
(it could be related to the limited number of questions for each
category), but it feels like it ought to mean something...
Charisma in Playboy! --
NYCGIRL, 06:36:59 05/12/04 Wed
Charisma Carpenters pictorial in Playboy is incredible!
Replies:
[> Re: Not to be a PIG, but that's a must buy for me!
-- Vegeta, 11:44:28 05/12/04 Wed
Oh yeah, when I first heard that she was going to be in Playboy
my mouth dropped. It's like three of my birthday wishes coming
true at once.
Oh happy day!
[> [> Re: And she's such a natural! -- Brian, 21:02:18
05/12/04 Wed
NBC Rumor Debunked, But...
-- Rob, 08:06:15 05/12/04 Wed
from moviehole.net
Making sense of the Angel rumours
Posted on Wed, 12-May-2004
According to Aint it Cool, news about "Angel" moving
to NBC might have been a bit premature. The site contacted an
anonymous source who shed some light on the situation. "I
wish it were true, but it's a steaming pile of BS. The sets have
been struck, the writers are on new shows, etc. Joss is very focused
on SERENITY which starts shooting in three weeks."
There is good news though. James Marsters recently told reporters
that that he could be spraying the hair white again for a 'Spike'
Spin-off. We heard from a reliable source overnight who backed
up this one.
"It's about the only thing that's likely to happen at this
stage. Marsters is pretty keen to keep on being Spike. You can't
blame, it's a cool character. They're looking at shaping the
telemovies around him, only because Boreanaz isn't that interested,
not because Spike's the more appealing option."
According to 'Tabasco', the telemovie might happen before the
end of the year - but not as early as September as previously
rumoured. "Best case scenario for everyone: telemovies go
off, Spike gets a series. Whedon's taking a break at the moment
though, so don't expect anything official for a couple of months".
Rob
Replies:
[> Thanks, ever cheerleadery one -- Ann picking up the
straw again, 08:27:17 05/12/04 Wed
[> Re: NBC Rumor Debunked, But... -- Kendra, 12:06:37
05/12/04 Wed
I read at another site that WB is not as pleased with Dark shadows
as originally thought...this could bode well for a possible spin-off.
the character & future of
the Immortal -- Rich, 11:43:49 05/12/04 Wed
I posted part of this elsewhere, but I'd like to expand it.
It took a while to figure out why I hated "TGIQ". I
think it hinges on Buffy's dual nature.
I've seen posts linking the immortal to Angel,Spike, Angel
*and* Spike, & Mythos (from Highlander).
If we discount hearsay, what we know of the immortal comes from
Spike & Angel's memory. He sent henchmen to attack them (losing
one in the process), he escaped retaliation by hiding behind a
mystical barrier, & he did
all this just for sex. He appears to be a sexual predator, a manipulator,
& a physical coward. The first two could apply to Angelus, Spike,
or Mythos ( in his 4 horseman days). The last (cowardice) doesn't
seem to apply to any of them.
Even at their worst, all 3 did their own killing. They might delay
a fight for strategic ( or sadistic) reasons. They wouldn't hide
from a fight just to party ( to Spike, a fight *is* a party, & some
of his parties look a lot like
fights ). They were (are ?) predators, but also warriors. They
share this trait with Riley Finn & (especially) the Slayer herself
- it was a major factor in her relationships with Spike, Angel,
& Riley. The immortal fit this pattern.
There is a pattern he does fit - a character known & despised
by many. The Immortal is "poophead" Parker on steroids.
He will cheat on Buffy (probably already has).
If caught, he'll try to talk himself out of responsibility,
like Parker did. Buffy may buy his line - he's charming,
& she has lousy judgement in romance ( & a strong sex drive,
which would also be a factor).
But (here's the cowardice part), Buffy is also the Slayer. The
Slayer doesn't send people into battle - she
leads them. She doesn't sacrifice others - she sacrifices
herself *for* others. Buffy can be gullible - the Slayer knows
who to trust in a fight. She trusted Spike when no one else would,
& Willow when Willow didn't trust herself.
She likes a man who's good in bed - she *needs* a man who
will cover her back.
The Immortal may fake devotion; he may fool Buffy. He can't fake
courage; he won't fool the Slayer. When trouble comes (doesn't
it always, in the Buffyverse ?), she'll know
exactly who she's been "boinking".
The Slayer has *NEVER* tolerated deception or betrayal
gracefully ("...you don't kmow what a Slayer is. Trust me
when I say that you're going to find out"). The Immortal's
future ? SHORT (if you want to visit Rome, do it soon).
Replies:
[> Correction to the character & future of the Immortal
-- Rich, 12:11:29 05/12/04 Wed
I meant to say "doesn't fit this pattern" in paragraph
5.
note to self: don't try to proofread until you stop foaming at
the mouth
[> Patterns and Assumptions -- dlgood, 13:16:59 05/12/04
Wed
The problem with this analysis, is that we don't really see enough
about the Immortal to make such judgements, or to fit him into
such patterns as you point out:
what we know of the immortal comes from Spike & Angel's memory.
He sent henchmen to attack them (snip) & he did
all this just for sex. He appears to be a sexual predator, a manipulator,
& a physical coward.
This doesn't exactly present Buffy or The Immortal's side of the
story, and thus seems to be missing that which is most necessary
to draw such a strong conclusion about his actions or motivations.
Or hers.
Angel and Spike's opinions are shown as being inherently biased
representations of reality in the episode. The Immortal might
be a cowardly poophead looking for nothing but sex, and misleading
poor Buffy - as you suggest. Or maybe not. Without actually seeing
either Buffy or the Immortal, it's hard to conclude such projections
are factual.
[> So? -- Lunasea, 14:52:26 05/12/04 Wed
She moved on. She didn't settle down. We hear about them snuggling
and see her dancing. Even Andrew says he's "not all that."
This isn't her true love or Mr. Right. He's Mr. Right Now. He's
the rebound guy. He's fun. She doesn't need a commitment or even
monogamy. If she was ready for that, she'd be done baking and
Angel could enjoy warm delicious cookie Buffy.
Parker was Liam. Buffy likes the type. She likes to be swept off
her feet. Nothing wrong with that, especially when she isn't looking
for a serious relationship. He's a great lay and you do Buffy
a great disservice by assuming he has fooled her.
Somehow I don't think Buffy will be crying to Willow when the
Immortal breaks up with her or maybe she'll leave him. Maybe she'll
pull a Parker.
[> Response to dlgood & Lunasea -- Rich, 15:43:52
05/14/04 Fri
There I was, just venting a little (or a lot), & somebody actually
posted responses - pretty good ones.
debating the ethics of fictional characters may not be the best
use of time - but you both made good points, so I'll try to answer
them.
Dlgood - you're right. I *am* making assumptions based on very
little evidence, of dubious quality. But what else have we got
?
An optomistically-garbed executive (from Wolfram & Hart); a lovestuck
demon extortionist (who cheats on the deal); & a bartender (who
probably wouldn't want to insult a good customer - expecially
since he's in the room at the time). Sorry - I don't trust any
of these.
I might trust Andrew, but he won't take a position - he can't.
When the scoobies found him, he was a basket case - they gave
him refuge, forgiveness, & purpose. He can't take sides in this,
any more than Xander could choose between Willow & Anya. He supports
nonintervention because he doesn't want his friends at each other's
throats (or his).
Granted, Angel & Spike are biased ( to be fair, so am I). OTH
- they seem to remember events the same way. To that extent, they
corroborate each other. Also, they could have come for the Immortal
at any time, & didn't - until they heard Buffy was involved. When
they got on the plane, they didn't know she was dating him - they
thought she was in danger. That's not jealousy or anger, it's
genuine concern. I have to think they had *some* reason for it.
I might change my mind if we had an alternate version of the earlier
encounter, but we don't.
I might also change my mind if we heard from Buffy. As I said,
Slayer Buffy has good instincts about who to trust. Human Buffy,
OTH, has an "amazing heart". When I called her gullible,
I didn't mean stupid - I should have said optomistic - she *wants*
to trust people. Sometimes she trusts the wrong ones. We don't
know which Buffy is we're dealing with here.
In sum, I agree it's a weak case ( it wouldn't even get *into*
a courtroom). But it's the only case we've got. So for now, I'll
stick with the "poophead" theory.
(BTW - I don't mind your clipping the original post, but I'm sorry
you had to drop the "dead henchman" reference, because
it was key. To the Slayer, innappropriate sex would be a venial
sin, if that. Sacrificing a follower to *get* sex would be an
abomination.)
II. Lunasea - you're right too. Buffy has walked through way too
many fires, for way too many years, & she deserves a break.
If she wants to explore, experiment or have fun - she's earned
the right. If she wants sex with the wrong guy (again) - it may
bother me, but I'm not her father (although I *am* old enough).
So far, we agree.
But ( you knew that was coming, right ?)
In the Buffyverse, people can change - Spike got a soul, Buffy
went Neanderthal, & Willow went full-on screaming homicidal bonkers.
Souled Spike still likes to hit things & piss people off, CaveBuffy
still jumped through fire to pull people out, and MadWillow still
wouldn't kill Xander ( the entire world, yes - Xander, no).
They changed, but their defining behaviors didn't.
If I assume the Immortal *was* a jerk ( to be polite), then I
have to think he probably still is. I think he's using Buffy because
I think that's what he does.
Similarly, Buffy usually doesn't look for "Mister Right Now"
- she goes for longterm serious commitment. Spike may have been
an exception (that got *very* confusing), but I don't think she
wants to repeat that experience (would you ?). I think she's serious
about this
guy because that's what *she* usually does.
( If it were Faith, I'd be on board in a heartbeat).
In the Buffyverse, casual hookups can become seriously dangerous.
Hang with a cute guy on Halloween - you're liplocked with a vampire.
Invite a man home after a
date - you're pregnant with a litter of demons. Ask a woman out
for coffee - you're hanging from the ceiling with a knife in your
stomach. I think this relationship will end
badly because that's what the Buffyverse usually does.
I agree I haven't *proven* my case - I could be completely off
base.But as someone said:
"The race is not always to the swift, or the battle too the
strong, - but that's the way to bet". I think it's a good
bet that Buffy *will* end up crying to Willow - & the Immortal
will be faced with a seriously brassed off Slayer when she does.
PS. The last thing I wanted to do was disservice to Buffy - I
think the writers did her a disservice with this story, & that's
why I had such a strong reaction to it. They needed to end the
Buffy/Angel/Spike triangle, so the boys could get on with their
upcoming kamikaze mission.
[> Special note to Lunasea -- Rich, 11:05:06 05/15/04
Sat
At this point, I'm starting to bore even me, so I'll try to keep
this short.
Like dlgood, you undervalue the "dead henchman" angle.
The Slayer's code allows Buffy to sacrifice others for the greater
good. It also allows her to sleep with (almost) anyone, in any
way, for any reason at all - or none. But she cannot, does not,
& would never risk or sacrifice others just to get laid. If the
Immortal did, then he's beneath contempt - not mine, hers. If
she finds out - he's toast.
[> [> As Angel put it: -- Finn Mac Cool, 06:44:08
05/16/04 Sun
"She'd never fall for a centuries old guy with a dark past
who may or may not be evil."
There's a difference between having a dark past and currently
being evil (considering that Buffy counts Angel, Spike, Willow,
Giles, Anya, and possibly Andrew as friends and/or lovers should
indicate she feels that way as well). Besides, if the Immortal's
minions were able to capture Spike and Angelus, there's reason
to believe they could contain him (it was never made clear whether
the Immortal captured them with or without help, or if he was
personally involved at all).
[> [> [> Re: As Angel put it: -- Rich, 11:40:31
05/16/04 Sun
Good points (also BTW, a good name - we may have a common heritage).
I agree we don't know enough & I'd like to know more, but I'm
trying to reason from what little we *think* we know. I'm also
reasoning from character, which I admit is uncertain.
It seems (may not actually be) true that the Immortal sent his
men against Angelus & Spike. As I've said, the Slayer doesn't
work that may. Her people aren't expendable.
If they're going into danger, she goes with (if she can); she
goes first; often she goes alone.
Of course, this would make phase 2 of the Immortal's plan impossible
- but she wouldn't have a phase 2 - at least not this phase 2
(most likely "dust them", maybe "pound them to
mush with a big sledgehammmer" (but we did that last night)).
Her prime directive, in any of her many modes (remember "Anne"
?), is to protect people, & she'll die to do it - she did. This
doesn't mean she can't risk or sacrifice her followers - she has.
It certainly doesn't mean she can't have sex with vampires or
anyone else - she's been there.
It does mean she can't risk another person *in order to* have
sex. If she did, she wouldn't be Buffy - she can "move on",
but she can't move there.
She also wouldn't hide behind a mystical barrier or hecnchmen
after the attack. She'd face any possible retaliation personally
- at the very least, she'd get everyone else out of danger.
I don't just object to what the Immortal apparantly did. I object
- (*much* more strongly) to how & why he apparantly did it.
I get that Buffy can fall for a man who's evil - she's done it
before & might even prefer it, given her own dark side. The original
Slayer demon is still in there somewhere. What got me started
is that she seems to have fallen for a man who - by her own standards
- is a total sleazeball.
(Btw - Have I mentioned how much I don't like this guy ?)
[> [> [> [> But does the Immortal really have any
advantages in a fight? -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:25:35 05/16/04
Sun
I mean, for all we know, he might not be any good at fighting,
that's why he has the goon squad. Buffy would certainly agree
with the position that people with little to no skills in combat
shouldn't be needlessly placed in a battle. Also, given how much
Angel and Spike have changed since those days, it's no big stretch
to say that the Immortal has changed as well. And, even if he
hasn't, wanting to have sex with two incredibly hot women and
waylaying two vampires isn't wrong. Not killing them probably
wasn't such a good idea, true, but that's no more morally ambiguous
then Lorne's attitude towards his Caritas customers, and he's
a beloved character (all this is assuming, of course, that the
Immortal didn't plan to kill them and his lackeys didn't just
get overconfident with themselves in carrying out orders).
Yes, there's little to support my assertians over yours, except
for one thing: Buffy thinks he's OK, and given how well known
the Immortal is, I imagine she'd quickly find out if he wasn't.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: But does the Immortal really
have any advantages in a fight? -- Rich, 20:42:36 05/16/04
Sun
This is one of the many things we just don't know, & probably
won't. I agree, it would be nice to have a different version of
the story.
As for the "Buffy likes him" argument - Buffy's Slayer
persona is pretty sharp - her human side has been fooled before.
I mentioned earlier - she likes to trust people.
[> [> [> Re: As Angel put it: alternate hypothesis
-- Rich, 16:51:04 05/16/04 Sun
I don't buy this one for a second, but -
If the Immortal *KNEW* that Angel & Spike would someday be resouled
(maybe he lives backwards, like Merlin),then he might want to
run them out of Rome without killing them so they could fight
evil later in their lives. This assumes that he's basically good,& all
my previous statements are
completely wrong.
Spoilers Power Play --
DorianQ, 18:59:29 05/12/04 Wed
I am really going to miss this show.
Question: did Angel really kill Drogen and give up the child to
the Fell?
And I love Cordelia too.
Replies:
[> Re: Spoilers Power Play -- Sofdog, 19:20:15 05/12/04
Wed
Right there with ya. Next season could have been so awesome.
Answer: Yes, I'm sure he did. That kind of organization wouldn't
play games with membership. Angel looked so sorry when he saw
Drogen's face.
Although Angel's speech about how the battle was neverending and
all they could do was rock the boat was a bit depressing, I am
so loving him.
Is there any chance next week might be more than 60 minutes?
[> [> Anyone else... (spoilers 5.21) -- Pony, 20:47:46
05/12/04 Wed
....reallllly hoping we get some sort of further explanation for
Angel killing Drogyn? Like that he perhaps was in on the plan
and willing? Because if Drogyn was indeed an unwilling sacrifice
how is that any different than if Angel actually had killed Fred
to further his ultimately-for-the-greater-good plan?
[> [> [> Re: Anyone else... (spoilers 5.21) --
Ann, 21:01:32 05/12/04 Wed
That is what I keep thinking. Was it a suicide of sorts? He seemed
very tired and this would be an option.
[> [> [> [> Re: Anyone else... (spoilers 5.21)
-- Alistair, 21:55:54 05/12/04 Wed
It is possible that Drogyn, given eternal youth a millennium ago,
has the power to ressurect himself. After all, that deeper well
still needs a guardian. If not, then Angel knew that killing Drogyn
would be the price, after all, if he succeeds in his plan to halt
the apocalypse machine, it would be worth Drogyn's life, to save
billions- or at least give billions the choice to save themselves.
That Senator was truly horrendous. Plans for the White House in
2008?
I really love the political message being sent out by the show
in its last breath. Software, oil... politicians. They are running
a machine as well, a manifestation of the Senior Partners exists
in our world the same as in Angel's (maybe not as a circle of
the black thorn), or another secret society, but a group of the
elite in power who are running things to a certain end. The only
thing that makes human evil so pointless is our mortality. All
the power we are able to collect is meaningless after our deaths.
On the show, immortality goes hand in hand with power- to never
die and conquer all, that is winning.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyone else... (spoilers
5.21) -- Sofdog, 08:21:36 05/13/04 Thu
[The only thing that makes human evil so pointless is our mortality.
All the power we are able to collect is meaningless after our
deaths.]
Not necessarily. Evil can certainly be passed on as a legacy.
The evil corporation left to one's heirs, the victims who become
fellow perpetrators. Evil can replicate and outlast the originator
in countless ways.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyone else... (spoilers
5.21) -- heywhynot, 16:13:42 05/13/04 Thu
Very true. Corporations are dynamic systems and like all systems
that survive, they have mechanisms to sustain. Working up the
corporate ladder has a tendency to change people because you have
to play by the rules which alters their perceptions of the world.
Thus those on top tend to be alike, homogenized.
[> [> [> Re: Anyone else... (spoilers 5.21) --
Kenny (the Other One), 22:14:08 05/12/04 Wed
I hope not, as that would be too easy an out. Angel wanted every
member of his team to understand the sacrifices they were making
should they choose to stand by him. I love this episode for a
number of reasons. If nothing else, shoutout to Cordy and her
being key to this final plot (damn actor/producer relations).
More importantly, this demonstrates how the character of Angel
has changed. Since the series started, and especially since "Shanshu",
fighting the good fight was about Angel's redemption. Even when
he realized that he shouldn't focus on that end it was key to
his motivation. Angel's not the type of person to believe that
saving the world will take Drogyn's murder off his record. He's
willing to take the burden of murdering another, of being guilty
of performing blood sacrifice, to save the world. I don't think
he believes that he'll be pardoned for his actions because it
helped the greater good. I don't mean to get into a discussion
of what he did was right or wrong. Rather, I think it's necessary
to the strength of the narrative that he killed Drogyn without
Drogyn's acquiescence as part of the plan.
I also think this makes an interesting contract to "The Gift".
By the end of that season, I believe Buffy was ready to die. I
don't think she committed suicide, as I've seen some people say,
but she was tired, and she was ready to give her life so that
someone less tired could live (and the universe could still exist,
which is a plus). But I don't think there was any question in
her mind about what would happen to her soul. She didn't think
that she'd have to live in perpetual torment so that the world
and her sister could be saved. Actually, she was stunned that
her friends thought that could happen to her. Angel, on the other
hand, is enjoying living. He has Nina, whom I've really grown
to like. Pushing her away hurts him. He wants to keep going on.
And he knows that his actions are sentencing him to hell. He's
not the hero. Hell, he's not even saving the world from being
turned into a realm of torment in a matter of seconds. He probably
wouldn't even be able to convince most people that they are in
an apocalypse because it's so subtle. He's willing to go to Hell
for eternity to save the world from a slow and painful death.
It's not a feat people will remember for centuries to come, as
they never knew the problem existed. To me, that's what makes
the story poignant, and Angel's murdering of Drogyn is key to
that.
[> [> [> [> Re: Anyone else... (spoilers 5.21)
-- buffybuy, 22:38:23 05/12/04 Wed
i am inclined to think that drogyn was an unwilling participant.
I think his murder by angel is going to have to be resolved as
a means-to-an-end type deal with his conscience. Also Illyria's
Crash-Bandicoot/Life metaphor was very touching; it being annoying
sometimes and yet she doesnt wanna stop playing. I just dont understand
how they can have so much more stories for this series and just
cancel it on such a suspenseful note. Is there ANY hope whatsoever
of another series, or movies. Ive heard about Spike-centric movies,
but that would completely blow, in my opinion. A 2 hour movie
every month or even every 2 months is preferable to total cancellation.
PS- angel and spike intimacy? whats THAT about...;}
[> [> [> [> Re: Anyone else... (spoilers 5.21)
-- Pony, 06:49:35 05/13/04 Thu
So murder's okay as long Angel feels bad about it after?
Jasmine believed she was acting for the greater good. So did Connor
when he dragged that girl off to be killed. Right now I'm thinking
that Angel has been corrupted - not in the sense that he's fighting
for Wolfram & Hart but that he's fighting like them, as
though evil can be fought by doing evil.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyone else... (spoilers
5.21) -- Kenny, 07:41:00 05/13/04 Thu
I never said it was OK. I just said that I liked it from a storytelling
point of view. It's a powerful statement and contrasts nicely
with other things that have happened on AtS and BtVS.
[> [> [> [> [> [> So much for living as the
world ought to be (spoilers 5.21) -- Pony, 09:24:58 05/13/04
Thu
I like the idea of Angel murdering Drogyn as being acknowledged
as a fatal flaw, going back to the very beginning of the series
where Doyle suggests that one day Angel may decide that it serves
the bigger picture for him to kill a few people. This could be
the final seal on Angel's doom - that he is damned by his own
actions and has been corrupted, but is still fighting on. That
makes for a pretty cool and tragic story.
What makes me uncomfortable in the extreme is the possibility
that Angel killing Drogyn is meant to be seen as regrettable but
acceptable in the sense of Angel having to make hard choices or
getting his hands dirty. Hopefully we'll see which it is next
week, but I'm worried that this is one of those questions that
won't be addressed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> glad you said this,
pony--well put! -- anom, 09:57:36 05/18/04 Tue
[> Re: Spoilers Power Play -- Alvin, 03:00:29 05/13/04
Thu
Since there was some talk in another thread that Spike's "little
Shiva" comment might be in reference to a computer game,
I thought I'd throw out that in a D&D computer game called "The
Shadows of Undrentide", Drogan is the name of the player
character's friend and mentor. He ends up sacrificing himself
so that the player character can go on to fight the game's big
bad.
[> [> A little help please.... (spoilers for 5.21 and
questions) -- Briar Rose, 17:08:43 05/13/04 Thu
Without going into a long stroy about it - I was interrupted in
my viewing last night.
Did I hear correctly that when Angel pulled out his glowey amulet,
it froze everyone and opened their minds to him long enough for
Angel to tell them that even though he was acting evil, it was
a ploy of some type? And are they going to remember what he said
after the freezing, if I heard that correctly? What do they know,
or do the viewers know if they know?
I am a little cheesed off, since this was one of the most important
eps ever and I missed sooooo much of it. I (basically) missed
everything said after Illyria was being beaten to mush.
i believe I heard Angel say that Cordelia had transfered the visions
to him in her Goodbye kiss. Is this correct?
[> [> [> Re: A little help please.... (spoilers for
5.21 and questions) -- heywhynot, 18:56:05 05/13/04 Thu
Angel used a "glamour" crystal to create the illusion
that he was still fighting the gang. It gave him 6 minutes to
tell everyone his plans without the Circle finding out his plans.
They are going to remember. He did not alter his friends. He altered
the perceptions of those looking in on the scene (like Hamilton).
Wes, Gunn, Spike, & Lorne know Angel's plan. That he received
a vision from Cordelia when she kissed him. That he wasn't going
to let Fred's death be meaningless. He was going to use it to
allow him to break the circle (hence the story that he was behind
Illyria's arising and Fred's death). And they know and have agreed
to take part in his plan to kill the entire Circle.
[> [> [> [> Thank you so much heywhynot!!!!! I
can stop angsting now. Until next week.... -- Briar Rose,
01:29:47 05/14/04 Fri
[> [> [> [> One little point I'm wondering about...
(spoiler for 5.21) -- Masq, 10:46:56 05/14/04 Fri
Before they pull away to show the glamor that Marcus Hamilton
is looking at, everyone has raised their hands EXCEPT Lorne.
I wonder if there's any significance to that.
[> [> [> [> [> Ummmmmmm (spoiler for 5.21)
-- Rufus, 23:14:13 05/14/04 Fri
He was begining to raise his right hand just as they cut away.
Politicians (tounge in cheek
speculation, spoilers 5.21) -- Vegeta, 12:16:35 05/13/04
Thu
Any else notice some connections between the Senator and a real
politician (maybe a joke with the writers). Her name was Helen
and she had designs on the White House in 2008. Sounds an awful
lot like a junior Senator from New York. That's right, Hillary
Clinton. Names start with the same letter, both blond, both have
icy personalities (IMHO), both eye balling the White House in
'08. Does anyone remember Helen's last name? I wouldn't be suprised
if it starts with a "C" or rhymes with Clinton.
Since, I suspect a lot of the posters are liberals, I just thought
I'd throw that out there to see what happened. Enjoy.
Replies:
[> Re: Politicians (tounge in cheek speculation, spoilers
5.21) -- dlgood, 12:41:10 05/13/04 Thu
It's pretty broadly stroked. Is Whedon saying senators are Eeevil.
Is he poking fun at political figures who "demonize"
their foes in such broad strokes whether from the left or the
right? Is he mocking California's senators like Barbara Boxer
and Dianne Feinstein.
Mostly, I think it's a gag with no particular targets beyond the
institutions of government. HC just provides a convenient frame
of reference.
[> [> The Senator Isn't a Specific Politician, She's
ALL Politicians -- AngelVSAngelus, 13:30:51 05/13/04 Thu
Unfortunately, being funded by hostile governments, lying about
your opponents, and winning office by coercion are all things
that typically describe a great deal of politicians here in the
state.
Including one sitting in the white house.
[> [> [> Re: The Senator Isn't a Specific Politician,
She's ALL Politicians -- Corwin of Amber, 19:43:24 05/13/04
Thu
This is why I never bring up politics on this board anymore.
Here's a thought...does assuming the worst of your political opposition
actually encourage the worst to happen? Both sides of the political
spectrum in the U.S. have been demonizing the loyal opposition
for so long that people actually feel free to encourage assassination
of the sitting president (as has been done of Bush) or accuse
the sitting president of murder (as has been done of Clinton).
I'm starting to think that conditions are ripe for a civil war
in this country. We HAVE to tone down the political rhetoric,
or we'll have another inside of 20 years.
[> [> [> [> Re: The Senator Isn't a Specific Politician,
She's ALL Politicians -- dlgood, 05:11:03 05/14/04 Fri
We HAVE to tone down the political rhetoric, or we'll have
another inside of 20 years.
I'd certainly prefer more decorum in public debate, but I find
that the only really large driving faction are the NeoCons. The
other groups are significantly smaller and less vocal.
I'm not sure how today's overheated political rhetoric compares
to either the 1850s or the 1880s, whether its a directed trend
or part of a cyclical process... I'd have to study that far more
than I am...
[> [> [> [> civil war -- skeeve, 07:30:23
05/14/04 Fri
We're not going to have another civil war.
Once we have all-electronic voting,
the powers that be won't need one.
Wait a few more years and
election fraud won't be necessary either.
The anti-dissent forces will be sufficiently
powerful to preclude any meaningful change
in government.
An open question is whether it's possible now.
[> [> [> [> Actually rhetoric doesn't work the
way it used to -- Charles
Phipps, 09:29:11 05/14/04 Fri
The encouraging of the assassination of a sitting president is
something that's always been done. From Washington onward.
The essential assumption that politicians are in fact evil no
matter who is going to be elected though is rapidly becoming mainstream
in my area.
You can't fight a civil war is both sides are scum by the majority
of people.
[> [> [> [> [> Wow, this went off on a tangent
-- Vegeta, 10:09:59 05/14/04 Fri
Who would have thought that within 5 responses "civil war"
is being discussed. Ouch. Anyhow, I am still waiting for Senator
Helen's last name from anyone out there (please). The tape I used
to tape the episode won't play (to my dismay). I still think that
even if Helen is a steorotype of all politicians, she was modeled
after the junior Senator from New York. You know as well as I
do that ME doesn't really create "generic" characters.
Except the thousands of vampires and demons who have met a quick
demise without a speaking role (except "Grrr, Argh... ugh...
poof!").
[> [> [> [> [> [> Speaking of tangential
digressions -- fresne, 11:31:10 05/14/04 Fri
Because you know, Friday and the day progresses to the weekend.
I guess because the character was a senator from California, and
California's two female senators, Feinstein and Boxer, don't really
strike me as, well, demons, I guess I didn't really correlate
the character to a junior Senator from New York. Actually, I was
impressed with how generic her opposition's ad was.
I mean, I had no real sense as to the Senator's political flavor
was. Heck for all I know she's a member of the Chartreuse political
party, their symbol is the banana slug (Go UCSC) and they support
government funding for white goat sacrifices, tariffs for exports
from demon realms (as listed in Provision A, sub-article XIVV)
and limited government regulations/controls in the Fear and Loathing
Industry.
However, since, that wasn't enough of a digression. Hmm...yes.
One of the costume ideas that my friends and I just haven't had
time to put together is Victorian Political Party cheerleaders.
You know, "Go, Tories. Go Whigs." Our pom poms would
be made of velvet ribbons. The skirts, would, of course, have
to be floor length. It wouldn't do to expose our limbs after all.
The idea is to wander around Gaskell's ye Occasional Dance Society
Winter Ball and possibly Dickens Faire and chant 1870/80s political
rhetoric (we're not so much precise as after juicy barbs), but
you know like cheers. Perhaps, give each other the cut direct.
Course, when we've made the outfits, I'll bother to do my research
on cutting remarks about the children today, railroad bond bubbles,
and the disgraceful inaccuracies of the opposition party's media
arm. Or not. The point is to be a Victorian Political Party Cheerleader.
It's all about the clothes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Speaking of tangential
digressions -- Vegeta, 12:21:31 05/14/04 Fri
Hmmm... I didn't catch that she was a California Senator. I mean
just cause she came to the Wolfram & Hart office in L.A. doesn't
mean she is from that state. She did bring a video of her opponent's
campaign ad (not that she wouldn't). This is, like I said a "tounge
in cheek" speculation. Did anyone catch the good Senator's
last name yet?
Also, the Victorian party is definetly about the threads.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> My theory.
People hate Hillary, Ergo evil female senator equal... --
Charles Phipps, 21:05:53
05/15/04 Sat
It's just like Billy's family supposedly being the Kennedys. Yeah
there's a VAGUE correlation (actually is his family the same family
as this girl?) but not necessarily one.
And one made for purely joke value.
[> [> [> [> [> [> The only similarity...
-- LeeAnn, 00:43:28 05/15/04 Sat
The only similarity I saw to Hillary Clinton was the blond hair.
And as far as civil war goes, either we get honest elections,
paper ballots counted by people in front of other people, or,
well, it will come to that.
Who
do you trust?
[> [> [> [> [> I think after a civil war starts,
both sides are scum by the majority of people ;-) -- KdS,
01:48:29 05/15/04 Sat
[> [> [> i wouldn't go that far -- anom, 22:03:46
05/15/04 Sat
Even the most jaundiced opinion of politicians doesn't deny that
at least some of them start out idealistic, even if in the end
they can't resist the corrupting influence of power. The senator
in this episode clearly never had any idealism to lose.
[> I'm wondering if it was an X-Men film reference --
KdS, 01:45:53 05/15/04 Sat
The way that, in X2, Mystique is impersonating the Senator
who died in the first film.
[> Re: Politicians (tounge in cheek speculation, spoilers
5.21) -- nightly, 19:25:25 05/15/04 Sat
Brucker or Crocker is what I heard for Senator Helen's last name.
The reference to Hillary were pretty obvious to me - her appearance,
running for president in 2008, lock on the women's vote, getting
financing from "hostile foreign governments," something
about a lack of personality which is a common barb against Hillary.
[> Going both ways -- tomfool, 07:27:30 05/16/04
Sun
The direct answer to your question is Senator Helen Brucker, as
others have already noted. To me, there's no linguistic relation
to Hilary Clinton. But that's just me.
In the larger sense, I see an interesting phenomenon. I think
it's clear that the character is meant by Joss/ME as a generic
everypolitician. And why do I think this? Because viewers with
a tendency toward dittohead (and please, I'm using this term affectionately)
interpretations of the world can see that HB is OBVIOUSLY a thinly
veiled version of Ms. Clinton. (Who by the way is the most 'demonized'
politician in the country.) And those viewers who might describe
themselves as ultraliberals (again affection all around!) can
CLEARLY, clearly see this politician as a thinly veiled version
of a Delay or a Hatch or a Bush.
The beauty of the writing accomplishment is that somewhat polarized
viewpoints can be equally accomodated. Both viewpoints are equally
correct. The character is a blank canvas to be filled out with
the worldview and experience that each viewer brings to the table.
I'll just say, nice job ME.
[> [> yeah, they were very careful... (vague, inconsequential
spoilers for 5.21) -- anom, 14:40:44 05/16/04 Sun
....not to have her state any specific political positions, weren't
they? As far as we know, she's not even against pedophilia--it's
just a useful charge to level against her opponent.
[> [> [> Re: yeah, they were very careful... (vague,
inconsequential spoilers for 5.21) -- skeeve, 06:54:46
05/17/04 Mon
...not to have her state any specific political positions,
weren't they?
She didn't state any because she didn't have any.
No care required.
[> [> [> [> And, additionally, -- mrsubjunctive,
07:38:12 05/17/04 Mon
Getting people to accept a "politician" character as
evil is about as difficult as growing dandelions.
The Angel Bunch Rides Again...(spoilers
Ats 5.21, The Wild Bunch) -- shadowkat, 06:22:11 05/13/04
Thu
"Suddenly it was sundown for [five] men. Suddenly their day
was over. Suddenly the sky was bathed in blood. [Five] men who
came too late and stayed too long...Unchanged men in a changing
land. Out of step, out of place and desperately out of time. Born
too late for their own times. Uncommonly significant for ours."
--Tagline from The Wild Bunch by Sam Peckinpah
A while back in an interview, Jeff Bell, showrunner of Angel
Season 5, mentioned that Whedon yearned to end Angel a bit
like the Wild Bunch. Fans were confused. The Wild Bunch?
The Wild Bunch is a 1969 western by Sam Peckinpah who more
or less created the slow-mo violent action sequence that you now
see in so many movies. The story is pretty simple - it's about
an outlaw gang in the old west, circa the late 1800s who attempt
to rob a Texas train, but fail miserably. Determined to change
their fortunes, they go into a partnership of sorts with an evil
Mexican General named "Mapache" Juerta, who employs
them to steal a shipment of guns. When that goes awry and they
realize Mapache has been using them as his puppets, killing their
friend, Angel, who is the wet-behind the ears innocent - the wild
bunch decide to turn the tables on the General and his gang in
one last hurrah. "We won't survive this," says
Pike, "and I won't make any of you do it - it's your choice.
But I want to make Angel's death mean something. Our lives mean
something. We won't be able to take them all out, but we can take
out a few. And go out in a blaze of glory while doing it. Who's
with me?" They entire bunch is - because everyone in
the bunch adored Angel. They all want to take Mapache down and
hopefully redeem themselves a little in the process.
In Powerplay, Ats 5. 21, Angel states pretty much the same
speech. He, like Pike, is tired of being someone else's toy, or
puppet. He's tired of playing games and going around and around
and around the mulberry bush. As Illyria and Drogon point out
playing the video game Spike's left them - it's meaningless after
a while, yet addictive, compelling. Also as we see in the circular
symbol of the black thorn kabbal, the powerful group that runs
things - it's a gear, a wheel, a loop, a cage - grinding things
onwards forever.
Now it's been a *very* long time since I last saw the Wild
Bunch, but like Angel Season 5, Peckinpah is obsessed
with circular images (as well as ant metaphors) - the beginning
scene of the film which remains ingrained in my memory - starts
with a close-up of a scorpion, then we pull back and see it covered
with a circle of fire ants, then back again, see kids squatting
in a circle around it pushing the fire ants at it and torturing
the ants. Then pull back still further and see the nine men ride
into town, the Wild Bunch. (The circles in the film represent
the Bunch's trajectory - the first is the victims of the guns
the bunch procures for the mexican general, the second the bunch
themselves (the ants), and last the children or mexican general.)
The final sequence also deals with circles, the Bunch is encircled
by the mexican army and bullets are flying. The ants are basically
turning on the children. In Angel, we have circles as well - the
symbol, the circle of men around Drogon, then Angel biting Drogon
at the center. We also have the mention of ants - Angel mentions
how they are nothing but ants, that people are just ants for the
slaughter and it's whomever has power that rules. Just like in
the Wild Bunch - whoever is controlling the ants, rules.
Yet - this appears to flip on itself in both the Wild Bunch and
Powerplay - it looks like Angel and his friends are ants that
Hamilton and the inner circle play with, but in reality - they
are playing with inner circle. So the question now becomes who
are the real ants? Humans, whom Angel calls weak, or the black
thorn demon club pushing them at each other with sticks?
Back to circles:
The symbol that Angel shows Wes and finds in the black thorn lair
is the same symbol in the robot in Lineage, on Illyria's
coffin, on the top of the fail safe in You're Welcome.
And in this episode, Powerplay, Lindsey describes the group
as a gear - the circle is a gear in a machine that makes it run.
If you think about it - each time we saw the symbol it was attached
to a machine of some sort - something that moved. In Lineage
- the device that made the robot move and triggered a bomb, in
You're Welcome the device that operated the fail-safe,
and in Hole in the World the device that opened the coffin.
Open, operate, move. Like a game of go or and infinite game between
select players.
In James P. Carse's book - Finite and Infinite Games - a vision
of life as play and possibility - he notes there are two types
of games - one for the purpose of winning, one for the purpose
of continuing the play. He also notes that there is not a game
unless the players choose to play it, and no one can play who
is forced to play. Whoever must play, cannot play - you have to
choose to play the game. In Angel this season, we've had
lots of references to games, particularly in the last few episodes.
This harkens back to former episodes, Dead End ATS S2,
where Lindsey tells Angel the key to WR&H is not to let them make
you play their game. Remember no one can make you play. You have
to get them to play your game. Gunn repeats this view actually
in Inside/Out to Fred where he states, you flip over the
playing board. Now Angel says the same thing - we stop playing
their game. He has in effect stopped letting them pull his strings.
Something Cordelia of all people shows him - why does it have
to be Cordelia? Because for the past four seasons the PTB pulled
Cordy's strings, she let herself be their pawn - so instead of
passing on her visions to Angel per se - she passes on her insight
- she shows him he has a choice, he can either continue being
a cog in the big machine, a puppet, or he can break out and start
his own game separate from theirs. We have free will.
Each of the power-brokers in the inner circle represent the villians
this season. The Senator who is a demon soul in a woman's body
- probably courtesy of Hainsely from Just Rewards, also
an echo of Illyria taking over Fred perhaps? Vail - who represents
the erasure of memory and mind-wipe. Izzy the devil - who is from
You're Welcome. The Arche-Duke from Life of The Party.
And of course Marcus Hamilton who appears to be Drogon's twin.
One who can't tell a lie and is virtuous - granted immortality
for a noble cause, the other nothing but lies and manipulation
- evil, granted immortality for a less than noble cause. Photo-negatives
of each other.
Twins. And of course the Senator with her smart vamp, and Angel
with Gunn - Gunn and the vamp echoing each other - the vamp in
his suit reminding us a bit perhaps of Gunn at the start of the
season? All these villians have one thing in common - they are
string pullers - they play games. In the film noir, Ripley's
Game - Ripley, who lacks conscience, amuses himself by playing
games with people. He is interested to see if he can get an innocent
man to kill. Can he push the right buttons. Just one kill. That's
all he wants. He gets off on the power of it. The ability to manipulate
someone else without them knowing it. The man he chooses does
not knowingly play Ripley's game, yet he does allow himself to
be used by Ripley to play it. To be manipulated. The man in Ripley's
Game reminds me a bit of Angel - who has allowed others to play
him, not knowingly and certainly not willingly, but has done so
all the same. Vail, the Senator, the Arche-Duke, are seen doing
things similar to Ripley - not obvious things like killing people
out-right, no behind the scenes manipulations. The Arche-Duke
with his slave on the leash, or the Senator with her policies
and laws that allow certain evils to continue, or Vail with his
magics manipulating time and space. Little manipulations like
the ones that got Illyria's coffin across oceans.
Angel like Pike in the Wild Bunch has grown sick of this.
The little manipulations, the strings - he has decided to create
his own game and he, unlike in Home with the mind-wipe, has asked
his friends to join him - because like he states you can't do
it alone. Also like Pike, Angel is making a powerplay of sorts,
but not quite the same one that Drogon, Lorne or Illyria discuss.
Angel isn't interested in taking power or territory - so much
as regaining his own power. He's acknowledged he and his friends
have power - that power is in a simple phrase - "free will/choice"
and it is the power that he yanked back from Jasmin in Peace-out
and is now yanking back from the SP.
Final notes:
-Drogon's death. Drogon had lived over a thousand years. He had
chosen to be a jailer and keeper of others, restricting power.
Like the old ones he safe-guarded, he no longer belongs in the
world. I honestly think Angel did him a favor. Also his death
reminds me a bit of Eve's loss of her immortality. Again - an
immortal dying. Hamilton and Angel in a sense do to Drogon, what
Hamilton did for Eve, end his immortality - which Drogon himself
admits he's grown tired of.
- I don't think Illyria is dead and I'm still not unconvinced
that there's more than an ounce of Fred in her yet. As Spike states
- her greatest power is her resemblance to Fred, wonder what would
happen if that resemblance was more than skin-deep? I think there's
more than one mislead here, but I could be wrong. Completely unspoiled
on the finale. Do *not* spoil me!
- The call outs to The Wild Bunch in both BTVS and ATS:
Whedon named three of his vampire characters after the bunch -
Gorche brothers, and Angel. He named the boyfriend in the movie
version after Pike. (Also we have Spike). The ant metaphor. And
now the speech.
Episode? Okay. A bit slow in places. One too many speeches and
Nina bores me. Outside of that? Enjoyed it quite a bit.
[* citation note: The taglines are slightly alterred and from
the 1969 Western, The Wild Bunch by Sam Peckinpauh, starring
William Holden (as Pike), Ernest Borgnine (as Dutch) and Robert
Ryan as (Deke), plus Warren Oates and Ben Johnson as the Gorche
brothers. And Jamie Sanchez as their friend, the innocent Angel
- see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065214/ for more information.]
Thanks for reading.
SK
Replies:
[> Good catch! -- Pony, 06:56:38 05/13/04 Thu
[> Video Games as Metaphor -- neaux, 07:42:01 05/13/04
Thu
Well this was the third time video games were used this season.
or maybe more,
the first time Spike was playing Donkey Kong.
I think last week Spike had a HandHeld video game.
This week Illyria and D are playing Crash Bandicoot.
Yes these are just games, but I believe the emphasis is more on
the controller/Control aspect rather than the "games are
just games" idea. Why is playing a video game meaningless,
yet addictive/compelling? Its because the person "playing"
this game is in Control. They are given the power over their own
world, something that still appeals to Illyria. The idea that
Spike is always the one playing these games is Ironic well, because
Angel is the one trying for real power. Yet maybe a bit telling
about the difference between Spike and Angel. Spike wants this
power just as much as Angel but is content with controlling just
a game while Angel wants Real world power. Angel's using real
world characters.. manipulating Wes, Gunn, Lorne Spike and Drogon,
heck even dead Fred, to gain this world power.
So that's my take on the video game references. Control = Power
[> [> more games and amusements -- Ann, 07:56:50
05/13/04 Thu
The Circle of the black thorn looked like a BeyBlade toy. The
toys battle in a stadium to the death. And the girl Stacy Blue
(or to be a Illyria parallel should be stasis blue as that is
how she was housed)is discovered at an amusement park - Funland
Amusements. This child/kid/baby/smiletime theme of "amusement"
continues while the apocalypse is coming.
[> [> Agree and disagree, regarding Angel's motives (Spoilers
Ats 5.21) -- s'kat, 22:13:18 05/13/04 Thu
"Yes these are just games, but I believe the emphasis is
more on the controller/Control aspect rather than the "games
are just games" idea. Why is playing a video game meaningless,
yet addictive/compelling? Its because the person "playing"
this game is in Control. They are given the power over their own
world, something that still appeals to Illyria. The idea that
Spike is always the one playing these games is Ironic well, because
Angel is the one trying for real power. Yet maybe a bit telling
about the difference between Spike and Angel. Spike wants this
power just as much as Angel but is content with controlling just
a game while Angel wants Real world power. Angel's using real
world characters.. manipulating Wes, Gunn, Lorne Spike and Drogon,
heck even dead Fred, to gain this world power."
Interesting. While I agree with the take that characters want
control and control is a type of power, I'm not sure I agree that
Angel wants *real* world power.
Angel's speechs are interesting. In both he telegraphs to his
friends that he doesn't think much about power. This is a man
who probably knows more about power and power games than anyone.
He's been trying to obtain power all his life or been at the whim
of other's powers. To the extent he wants control over himself
- yes he wants that type of power you are correct. But he isn't
meglamanical nor is he after the type of power Illyria speaks
of, that's a mislead I believe.
What Angel is doing here isn't all that different than what Buffy
does in Chosen or Pike in The Wild Bunch and that is change the
game. Have you ever done role-playing games that don't have as
a goal a winner or loser, but more the idea of continuing play?
The goal of the players is to keep the game alive, not to let
it end, and while players can choose to drop out or can get wiped
off the board - another player replaces them and the game continues.
This is infinite play. It's not like Donkey Kong or video games
where the goal is to achieve a title or win a prize or rescue
someone at the top of the hill. It's different - because what
it's about is just playing.
Infinite games don't have winners or losers. They aren't about
getting power. As I was explaining in a post to Rufus below -
the infinite player plays with strength not to be powerful.
Look at the black thorn club and Lindsey's speech. Lindsey is
in some ways Angel's shadow self - he wants the opposite of Angel.
Lindsey wanted power. He wanted to gain admittance to the inner
circle. To be the SP's player. To have real power. Angel realizes
that's a crock. That titles aren't important, nor power, so much
as strength. IF Angel was after power, like you state, he wouldn't
be asking his friends to help him and he would suggest stopping
the gear.
Nor would he say - we won't win, we won't lose, we won't completely
stop it, but we will put it out of commission for a bit. Put it
out of commission for a bit. Stop the machine that is playing
a finite game. Then it restarts.
But not necessarily as finite anymore. He changed the rules.
He's no longer playing WR&H's game of vampire with the soul
might be on either end of apocalypse - apocalypse will happen
down this line, at this point, we build towards it, and there
will be a winner. What Angel does is say, no, not necessarily.
Drogyn's death is interesting. IF you think about who Drogyn is
and what he represents. He's order. He guards the well with the
old ones. He's lived forever. HE has a title.
He is eternal but never changing, literally stuck in place, until
Angel wedges him out - it's Angel who gets him to leave the deeper
well and it is Angel who changes him, so Drogyn stops being the
immortal and becomes mortal.
James Carse in a book about infinite and finite games says:
"The finite player aims to win eternal life; the infinite
player aims for eternal birth."
Interesting quote. Think about it in terms of the Jossverse.
Spike and Angel are "reborn" when ensouled. Connor has
three births - one with Angel in Lullaby, one with Holtz in Sleeptight,
and one in Home. He keeps being reborn. The shanshu prophecy is
about eternal birth not eternal life. You have to die to live
- translates roughly to rebirth.
Spike and the amulet, he burns up and then is reborn.
Then of course there's Buffy, who dies and is reborn again Gift-Bargaining,
and dies and is reborn again Chosen.
So, it's not about obtaining power or territory, it's about continuing
the play. Not sure it makes sense - it's a bit of a brain teaser,
but it's what I think ME is trying to convey.
[> [> [> A little speculation about change as rebirth
(Spoilers Ats 5.21) -- Arethusa, 08:27:34 05/14/04 Fri
In a way, the Shanshu is also about eternal change. Angel, Drogyn
and Illyria all have/had immortality in common. They wouldn't
die, get older, have children (presumably) or have many other
life-changing experiences. But if Angel shanshus, he will begin
to change constantly-to get older and experience all the changes
that occur as we age and finally face death.
Angel says our power lies in our ability to make choices. Each
time we choose a move, the game changes; our actions create consequences.
And our life changes in some way, we change, we undergo a death
and rebirth, we move on the the next position on the board. To
not make a choice, to not make a move, means we are stuck in one
spot, and therfore vulnerable to the actions of others. We are
swept up in someone else's consequences, victims of "fate,"
ie, our own inactivity.
This might explain something that bothered me-how does attacking
the senior partners in a suicide plan continue Angel's journey
to reconnect with humanity? Perhaps it means he's finally ready
to change, to move across the board even if he has to sacrifice
himself to do so, a pawn that is removed from the chessboard so
others can go forward. His need to remain immortal, that is unchanging-a
choice he made in IWARY-was holding him back. (Which make his
the Immortal an interesting choice for an "enemy"-Angel's
enemy is Immortal[ity]. The Immortal may be all that, but he's
not what Buffy would want forever, as we know from her relationship
with Angel. She is changing, and could not be happy with someone
who couldn't.)
[> Interesting! Now another movie to add to my rental list
-- Cheryl, 07:56:00 05/13/04 Thu
[> Re: The Angel Bunch Rides Again...(spoilers Ats 5.21,
The Wild Bunch) -- Jay, 09:24:00 05/13/04 Thu
The episode was a good one. And yes, it was a bit boring in spots.
For me, the episode didn't really start until about halfway through
and Wesley point-blank questioned Angel about Fred. Angel's "answer"
really spurred the show to life. After that it was almost all
good.
[> s'kat once more makes Whedonesque.com! -- Masq, 11:43:57
05/13/04 Thu
Yeah!
clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap
[> Re: The Angel Bunch Rides Again...(spoilers Ats 5.21,
The Wild Bunch) -- Cubiclesatan, 11:45:42 05/13/04 Thu
Just wanted to say this was a great read! It's making me miss
the brilliance of Joss and Co all the more. Only one ep left -
it'll never be enough.
[> Nice work, thanks -- Ames, 12:22:45 05/13/04 Thu
I hope someone's saving this for The Annotated Angel
[> Re: The Angel Bunch Rides Again...(spoilers Ats 5.21,
The Wild Bunch) -- karen, 13:16:54 05/13/04 Thu
I appreciate your insights. Now I must go rewatch for the Wild
Bunch parallels. Thank you!
[> Wildbunch and realistic characters (spoilers Ats 5.21,
The Wild Bunch) -- Rufus, 16:57:07 05/13/04 Thu
Trollops have been talking about the Wild Bunch parallel for awhile
and your post allows me to finally say something here. Fans of
Angel the Series sometimes expect heroes of another time where
there is only good and evil to fight. What Sam Peckinpah in the
"Wildbunch" and Joss Whedon in "Angel" and
"Firefly" do is to bring us realistic heroes, and these
heroes may win but at a great price.
From Doing it Right, The Best Criticism on Sam Peckinpah's The
Wild Bunch Edited by Michael Bliss
Using the shorthand of behavior, Mr. Peckinpah has mad a film
only about the hardest honesty: life is bitter and cruel and
very hard to get through, and men and women, the best of them,
are endlessly foolish. And the absolutely imperative need to
be Right is nearly alway rendered corrupt. Maybe once it redeems,
but you will have to be ready to die for it. And practically
nobody is. Exept the Wild Bunch.
As the odds against them steadily mount, their implacable enemies
are everwhere before them. Each maneuver becomes and appointment
in Samara: Pike Bishop (William Holden) says it low and clear,
"I wouldn't have it any other way either": a banal exchange
between witless, simple men...but that is the gesture of
will that is man's only salvation when faced with himself.
The Wild Bunch is about the discovery by these witless, limited
men (which means all of us) of the difference between Right and
Wrong, in this case by a process of elimination: if year after
year for a lifetime you do everything wrong, you will wind up
having done it all wrong, and nothing can change it. Since there
is nothing else to do wrong, and something can change it. Since
there is nothing else to do wrong, and something must be done,
ergo you will finally do something Right...almost by accident.
And it will cost you everything. This is exactly what happens
to the Wildbunch: it is called the human condition, and it is
a definition of the terrible path toward tragedy. Mr. Peckinpah,
to clarify further, states unequivocally that Good and Bad (resulting)
in any moralistic judgements, as in Melodrama) have absolutely
nothing to do with it. Good and Bad are easy concepts for children
and women, says Mr. Peckinpah; Right and Wrong are awfully damned
hared to tell apart...and between them, after a given point of
no return, grown men may not vacillate.....
All of the divine madmen (Buddha, Christ, Gandhi) have known that
to be right and to say so is a very expensive proposition. But
we learn from the Wild Bunch that being wrong costs more, costs
everything. And ends up the same.
That is all we know abou The Bunch and all we need to know: just
their collective behavior, just that. In 1969 it is supremely
valuable to see once more in our fiction men who are only men
make a decision (neither Good or Bad...simply a Right decision,
balance on a hair) - and back it with their lives. Robert
Culp from Sam Peckinpah, the Storyteller and the Wild Bunch.
Angel the Series is a more adult take on the story started on
Buffy. Angel is a more flawed character and the hundreds of years
he has lived has shown he has made a fair share of wrong choices,
but so have the ordinary man like his gang of demon and human
friends. Joss Whedon may not give us a story we want but he will
give us a more realistic view on just how wrong we all can go
given the right set of circumstances, and turn it around by having
this group of demons and men/women join in a fight to do something
right.
Earlier this season there was a reference to "Ship of Fools"
by Lorne. Everyone is a fool and everyone can rise about their
own wants and desires to find that compass that leads to a spiritual
growth that results in a good end result, even if the character
doesn't outlive that choice.
[> [> Winning/Losing or just playing the game (spoilers
Ats 5.21, The Wild Bunch) -- s'kat, 21:48:49 05/13/04 Thu
What's interesting in the Wild Bunch - and here in Angel and in
Chosen and to a degree in the Trek series - is you are hitting
on an idea that James Carse also discusses in Infinite and Finite
Games. What is it?
That there are no winners or losers in the game of life.
That life is not a finite game where someone wins at the end and
if you manipulate the odds and claw your way up you get the prize.
But being linear thinkers - we think that. A + B = C.
There's so many images this season about order, control, rules,
practices, laws - Gunn who becomes the expert on demon laws and
has Angel sign contracts, or you have the trade - you have to
help these clients and make profits or you lose the business.
The whole set up of the contest in Destiny between Angel and Spike
which is for what - a cup of Mountain Dew?
When you look at the film the Wild Bunch, also a few other Pekinpah
films such as Sam Garrett and Billy The Kid (I may have the title
wrong) - you see an interesting pattern.
They are films about men in desperate times who spend their lives
fighting battles, trying to win or steal or claim some fortune
and once they get it? Feel empty. Okay I'm king of the hill, now
what? Just like Angel at the top of WR&H. Peckinpah steps
back, and has his characters realize it isn't about winning and
losing it's about how you play.
It's not about good or evil, right or wrong, it's about continuing
the play - going out in a blaze of glory so to speak so you can
be reborn.
Here's a few quotes from Carse's book that might help:
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called
finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose
of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the
play."
Angel remarks how it doesn't matter if they win? It's not about
good and evil. It's about stopping the machine for a moment -
even though it will continue on? Very similar to Buffy who knows
what she does in Chosen won't end evil, what it does is change
the game. The First Evil like WR&H/black thorn club is playing
a finite game - wants to finish and have a definite winner. Buffy
flips over the playing board turning it into an infinite game
which ends the First Evil. Angel does the same thing in a way
when he kills Drogyn, who is a player of the finite game - he's
a guardian, a rule-keeper, he works within boundaries, and does
not change, eternally the same - never able to be reborn, because
he never dies. Angel by killing him changes that. Just as Eve
by falling for Lindsey becomes reborn as a mortal. No longer eternally
in a straight line.
As Carse states: "The finite player aims to win eternal life;
the infinite player aims for eternal birth."
To the finite player the world is a linear place, we are born,
we achieve, and we die. It's made up of winners and losers. It
is made up of forms, rules, boundaries. Controlled. To the infinite
player - we are born, we die to become reborn, recycled in the
web of life which is infinite. There is no winner, no loser, it's
not static.
"The rules of a finite game may not change; the rules of
an infinite game must change."
Angel plays by WR&H's rules, yet he lies, he plays with them,
changes them. How? With Drogyn and Illyria. He lies about Illyria
and instead of taking out an innocent, he takes out an immortal
- turning the playing card over, like in a game of GO. Think about
it - three Immortals have been made mortal via Angel this season:
Eve, Lawson and now Drogyn.
"Finite players play within boundaries; infinite players
play with boundaries."
" Finite players win titles; infinite players have nothing
but their names."
Both the Bunch and Angel let go of titles. At the end all they
have is there names. Not so the Mexican General or for that matter,
the members of the black thorn, - so many titles there. Senator
- who fears losing her's, as you state below - "I clawed
my way out of hell - I better be 're-elected'." The 'arch'-duke.
The "Senior" Partners.
As Lindsey states - to enter, Angel must give up his title: "champion".
Angel does. Not only that he gives up the title of "hero".
HE's stopped playing the black thorn's game, he's flipped it.
Buffy if you think about it does the same thing in Chosen - she
gives up her title, by empowering all the slayers.
"The finite player consumes time; an infinite player generates
time."
Reminds me of Timebomb, the idea of consuming, wasting time is
linear. We only have so much time. In infinite play - we generate
time, time exists around us encircles us, but is defined by us.
Illyria tells Angel he is caught in a web, controlled. Angel tells
Illyria she doesn't have to be a puppet to time - that they can
change the future. And Angel does so in Timebomb. He stops Illyria
from consuming time, and flips it.
"A finite player plays to be powerful; an infinite player
plays with strength."
Here's the key I think. This is also in response to neux's post
above. Is Angel making a power play? I don't think so. I think
that's the mislead. He even tells us this. It's not about winning.
It's not about power. It's about changing the game. He sees their
strength and instead of playing to obtain power - which is Lindsey
(his shadow-self's goal) and what Lindsey and Illyria both assume
Angel wants, Angel isn't out to "obtain" anything that
isn't his to begin with.
It's not about power any more for Angel. Angel knows quite a bit
about power - he's had 250 years trying to get it.
But he's had an epiphany of sorts, he's realized that's not the
game he wants to play. He already has power. It's time to play
with strength. The Wild Bunch figures out the same thing - it's
not about power, it's about strength. They spent their lives trying
to obtain power and realize finally it's not about that.
Hard to explain in words. But my gut tells me that's what Whedon
and ME are going for. It's by no means new, I think Peckinpah
goes for it as well. Also we see it in the Trek films - the idea
of moving past adversarial play of winners and losers to infinite
play where the object is not to win but to continue the game in
new ways.
[> [> [> Correction on other Peckinpah films and realism(spoilers
Ats 5.21, The Wild Bunch) -- s'kat, 22:37:30 05/13/04 Thu
When you look at the film the Wild Bunch, also a few other
Pekinpah films such as Sam Garrett and Billy The Kid (I may have
the title wrong) - you see an interesting pattern
I did get it wrong. It's Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid. The
other is Ride the High Country.
All three deal with the idea of losing one's sense of equilibruim
or meaning.
In Pat Garrett - it's Garrett who has been trailing Billy all
these years, who begins to wonder what the point is.
He becomes tired of the chase. The movie is in some ways a reflection
on the choices we've made and how we come to this point and what
it means.
Ride the High Country - similar thematic structure. The idea of
heros not clearly heros, no good guys/no bad guys.
Just men trying to find their place in the world and trying to
live with what they've done.
Highly recommend all three. They are long. But fascinating character
studies.
(Of course you have to get past some of Peckinpah's misogynistic/chauvinistic
tendencies, as you can see in the quote you used...they aren't
quite as apparent in his films as you might think. Whedon thankfully
is the opposite on this score. The women are seldom strong in
Peckinpah's films or evident. Partly due to the time period and
the genre, partly due to Peckinpah. )
[> Pac man has no anima. That's why he's so hungry (spoilers
for AtS 5.21, and 5.22 preview) -- fresne, 17:07:22 05/13/04
Thu
Donkey Kong stands on his mighty pipe top mountain looking down
at the little plumbers. He throws his barrels fall. The damsel
in distress is distressed, her frame is frayed. Lying, laying,
lie, lye on the floor. Red and blue and pale. Power drained away
and all world is stench and decay. Tell me no secrets and I'll
tell you no lies. The man who can tell no lies. The woman/fallen
godKing who would not bother. Unless they are lies to herself.
The one she does not know.
It interested me that Illyria characterized Angel's behavior as
something she has seen in other kings. Serve no master but your
ambition, but it seems pay attention to the details. The endless
round of fruit and crystals. The crystals in her eyes.
Crash the Bandicoot.
To be or not to be. That is the question. Whether it is nobler
to play the meaningless game that does not amuse or by choice
end it in a blaze of fire. Through the Fury, into the undiscovered
country. The future. The final episode. The potential for movies.
And away from the endless purgatory of having your heart removed,
only to have it regrow.
That Angel's choice is linked to Cordelia's final blaze. Vision.
Sight. The events are in motion. The racketball pinged from racket
to wall to racket. Be sure to wear goggles to shield the windows
to the soul. Pong.
I'm not sure if it's ill or well timed that the image of Drogyn's
torture and murder were so evocative of recent events come to
light. It's the thorny circle that brands into your skin and then
fades away. The mark is gone. Hidden. The pain remains. Rub it
beneath your shirt and walk on.
I want another season where Spike, Illyria, and Wesley fall into
some horrible triangle of cross species bingo. Intimacy. Intimate.
"Eternity was in our lips and eyes. Bliss in our brows' (the
brow is back) bent: none our parts so poor but was a race of heaven."
Once.
As they stood there discussing their potential funeral blaze,
I pondered Kali burning crowns of thorns. Who will build when
she is done if everyone is gone? Masks that hide your true face.
Hoods. Radicals. People who oer' reach their ambition, it is a
frat party in a basement. People who have reached the edges of
their scope. Worn away by all that they gather and attempt to
accomplish. Alas, Aragorn is dead, consumed.
Well, he was more Elvin fade away, eternal youth in a cave by
a tree, whose roots are a hole. The tunnel that makes the world
a ring. A wearying machine grinding down with cogs and gears that
start with A and end in pocalypse.
The song is almost over, but the melody lingers on.
[> [> Re: Pac man has no anima. That's why he's so hungry
(spoilers for AtS 5.21, and 5.22 preview) -- Rufus, 17:36:32
05/13/04 Thu
I liked how Illyria said the game was pointless but wanted to
continue to play it. Kinda says something about how she views
her current state.
[> Quote on the Senator...(spoilers Ats 5.21, The Wild Bunch)
-- Rufus, 17:42:52 05/13/04 Thu
Senator: I didn't claw my way up from Hell, and get installed
in a human body, just to have some pedophile steal my senate
seat.
Gunn: Wait, he's a pedophille?
Senator: Not yet...but the public better think he is when you
guys get through.
Continues the issue on power and the apocalypse...who controls
the power also controls the nature of the apocalypse. Now everyone
is just choosing sides.
Spike and Angel....Intimate?
What? -- Jaelvis, 07:20:19 05/13/04 Thu
Did anyone catch that line from Spike where he says he and Angel
have never been intimate except once? What does that refer to?
Is this something we know about? Is this sexual intimacy we're
talking about or is it emotional intimacy he's referring to?
Any ideas?
Replies:
[> Re: Spike and Angel....Intimate? What? -- skeeve,
07:28:25 05/13/04 Thu
Spike *might* be refering to emotional intimacy.
That we have seen.
More likely, the comment was Spike was being Spike.
[> Re: Spike and Angel....Intimate? What? -- Rob, 08:11:10
05/13/04 Thu
I think it was emotional intimacy, such as we've seen in some
of their gentler, quiet scenes in this season. But it was worded
vaguely enough to give all the fanfic writers a happy little shoutout.
Rob
[> Re: Spike and Angel....Intimate? What? -- Old One,
08:45:57 05/13/04 Thu
We don't know what he's referring to. It's not something we know
about from previous episodes, or from BtVS. And my guess is he
was referring to sexual intimacy, which doesn't seem that
far-fetched to me...these guys were a team, along with Darla and
Dru, for a very long time. We've only seen them interact over
the last seven years, along with occasional flashbacks.
I agree it's a shout out to Spangel slash writers, kind of a "nudge,
nudge, wink, wink."
:o)
[> [> Re: Spike and Angel....Intimate? What? -- Masq,
09:42:11 05/13/04 Thu
Um, Dub, this is totally OT for this thread, but you know that
little spoiler I'm so mental about?
Everything still OK with that?
bites nails
[> [> [> Oh, darn, I forgot to e-mail you! (Just for
Masq--SPOILER for others) -- Old One, 10:09:30 05/13/04
Thu
Sorry. Yes, you are still A-okay, even given the heavy-handed
hints of the promo for next week. Your boy survives.
:o)
[> [> [> [> Spoiler for finale above (just to clarify!)
-- Masq, 10:42:51 05/13/04 Thu
Thanks, dub ; )
[> Assorted theories: -- mrsubjunctive, 09:56:42
05/13/04 Thu
One: it was a throwaway joke by the writers, a wink, nudge, or
shout-out to the writers of Spangel slash.
Two: it was a throwaway joke by Spike to lighten the mood or whatever.
Three: Spike meant some kind of intimacy other than sexual.
Four: Spike meant what he said, and he and Angel have been sexually
intimate once.
Five: Spike meant what he said, but was downplaying it, and he
and Angel have been sexually intimate more than once.
I personally lean to a combination of one and four, myself, and
am a little puzzled by the rush to assume that it couldn't possibly
have happened. Don't see why not. There've been plenty of hints
in the flashbacks that there might have been something there;
it's not inconsistent with either character. They've been around
for a very long time, Darla and Dru were probably not always available.
(Don't think Darla/Dru slash would be entirely in the realm of
fantasy either, except to the degree that this whole thing is
entirely in the realm of fantasy.) If the prevailing moral code
was against it in certain times and places, that might have been
more of a reason for them to do it ('cause, you know, evil).
They've both been willing to sire men before ("Why We Fight,"
"Conversations With Dead People"), which is occasionally
presented as an almost sexual intimacy ("Into the Woods").
And, in keeping with all kinds of gay porn about straight guys,
they both seem to get really drunk on a fairly regular basis.
[> [> I like theories 1 and 4 as well -- Tyreseus,
13:53:47 05/13/04 Thu
Yeah, my mouth almost hit the floor when I heard Spike say that.
It opens a wide door for the slash fic writers.
You make an excellent point about them perhaps being sexually
intimate to shock, anger or mock the more Puritanical society
when they were evil.
Or, living for a very, very long time (trapped eternally in adolescence
with the hormones of young men) might lead a man to try and find
new thrills - explore urges and desires that are different. I
know of quite a few predominantly straight men who have explored
same-gender intimacy at least once in their lives. In fact, some
queer theorists believe that prior to our rather recent gay rights
movement, men would have been less opposed to some sexual experimentation.
It's our recent obsession with labels and the modern concept of
sexual identity, of gay community or culture, which has curtailed
this type of expereimentation.
If you believe the theory that most people are actually bisexual,
but predominantly inclined in one direction or the other, this
theory makes sense. The wonderful advances in gay rights and visibility
have had the arguably negative impact that a "mostly"
straight person won't be as likely to explore a same-gender attraction
(no matter how fleeting) because they don't want to be even marginally
associated with the label "gay." But if Spike and Angel
lived before this change in social mentality about sexuality,
there could have been a time when they did have real sexual contact.
Tyreseus
[> [> [> I've personally always seen Spike as acting
too macho for that -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:37:50 05/13/04
Thu
I'm not sure if the stereotype was around back in the 1880's,
but gay men have traditionally been presented as very effeminate.
Considering Spike's attempts to bury his past as a "pansy",
the many layers of bravado he's spent a century building up, and
his "nancy boy"/"poofter" comments, I'd think
Spike would be averse to any sort of homosexual behavior for fear
of breaking down his tough guy persona.
[> [> [> [> The stereotype was very much around
then - think Oscar Wilde -- Bjerkley, 14:57:54 05/13/04
Thu
Although we can distinguish between stereotypical homosexual 'behaviour'
and homosexual acts. The stereotype existed in that period, and
I suppose wouldn't have been desireable for many to be seen in
that way.
However, there was still more men, who wouldn't behave in such
a way, couldnt be considered effeminate, wouldn't define themselves
as gay, yet would still have gay sex - very often with those more
effeminate men. I think this is what Tyreseus is referencing above
- that it was okay to have sex with another man, as long as you
didn't act or behave in a stereotypically gay way. Only in the
last 40 years or so, according to some gay commentators at least,
has there been more rigidity in sexual interaction. In te Victorian
times it would have been no way rare for a tough young working
class man to have sex with another (most likely older, richer
man... but that's capitalism for you). Rough trade and all that.
Spike's merely swapping one stereotype for another.
And that leather jacket? Very suspicious given the decade he acquired
it :-)
[> [> [> [> [> Yes, thank you! Better put than
my reply post. -- Tyreseus, 15:13:56 05/13/04 Thu
[> [> [> [> Re: I've personally always seen Spike
as acting too macho for that -- Tyreseus, 15:12:08 05/13/04
Thu
The point I was trying to make is that the whole concept of exclusively
gay men only really became a part of our social consiousness in
the last 50 to 100 years. I'm not well-versed enough to tell you
when the association between effeminate men and homosexual activity
became linked, but the idea of a person being homosexual
is remarkably new. But for generations, engaging in homosexual
sex (especially if it was only rarely) would not have had a cultural
significance or stereotype associated with it. Instead, it would
have been thought of as nothing more than opportunistic sexual
gratification (and a sin, of course). I suspect, from my understanding,
that people who were interested in same-gender sex to the exclusion
of heterosexual intercourse were associated with being effeminate
around the 1880s, but men who primarily pursued women and occasionally
had sex with men weren't associated with anything unusual whatsoever.
Also, it wouldn't be an impossible read on his character to argue
that his "poofter" and "pansy" comments are
deliberate attempts to disguise or negate an experience or feeling
in his past. Call it over-compensation or a case of the lady protesting
too much.
Tyreseus
[> [> [> [> [> Sexual Trivia comment.....
-- Briar Rose, 01:56:38 05/14/04 Fri
The French term - a manage'a'troi (in other words coming together
of three) - originally referenced sex between a woman, her husband
and her lover. Unlike the common usage today, that identifies
a three-some or menage'a'troi as being two women and one man.
In the factualness of the times in France - they realized that
most men can not keep up with a woman sexually. Therefore, it
was considered only common sense for a woman to be able to have
a lover to satisfy her when her husband was not capable.
This also was considered as a responsible and practical way for
a husband to care for his wife: To allow her to find a lover,
as well as to accept him into their bed at times.
Historically - they also made clear reference that it would be
considered of appropriate protocol for the men in such a situation
to be intimate with each other as well as the woman.
Interesting how things change.....
[> [> [> [> [> ...more queer stuff. -- Nino,
10:41:28 05/14/04 Fri
Yeah...I think this is very important to note. When talking about
pre-20th century characters (like Angelus and Spike) it is unfair
to project today's notions of sexuality. The fact is, these characters
would not have sorted out their sexual desires and activities
in 20th century terms...and the term homosexual, as Tyreseus pointed
out, is a fairly new invention. Men who had sex with men did not
think their actions made up their identity. People were simply
not defined by who they had sex with. Anyone was prone to commit
sodomoy, as anyone was prone to commit theft or murder. It was
a crime that did not create a class of people...the world was
not divided into gay and straight.
This is why queer readings can be so helpful. If we know that
Angelus and Spike, for example, did not necesarily deem gay sex
as something only GAY people did, their chances of partaking are
pretty decent. Especially given the hyper-sexualized image of
the vampire, and their disdain for all things in the moral norm,
a queer reading of the Angelus/Spike relationship would be quite
meaningful.
Some people think its reading to much into things (but these same
people refuse the queer reading of Louis and Lestat in "Interview
with a Vampire"...which seems crazy obvious to me). I think
there is a lot to be said for queer readings tho...there is a
great essay in that "Fighting the Forces" book called
"Surpassing the Love of Vampires: Or Why (and How) a Queer
Reading of the Buffy/Willow relationship is Denied." It's
got some good stuff, and is (obviously) geared toward Buffy characters...check
it out!
[> [> [> [> [> [> could you define "queer
reading"? -- anom, 11:24:29 05/14/04 Fri
When I read it in your earlier post, at first I thought it just
meant looking at a relationship as queer or from a queer point
of view. But the capital letters & now the paragraph in your 2nd
post that starts "This is why queer readings can be so helpful"
make me think it has a specialized (maybe academic?) meaning,
w/historical context & other elements I'm not aware of. So now
I'm not sure I really know what you mean, & I'd like to.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> sure thing --
Nino, 22:05:28 05/14/04 Fri
The essay I mentioned earlier in "Fighting the Forces"
is written by Farah Mendlesohn, and offers a good definition of
queer reading. I actually used it for a paper in a class on Literary
and Cultural Theory. She says,
"A queer reading is constructed by a reader who, denied the
obvious manifestation of homosexual desire, in a context in which
heterosexual desire is normalized, seeks to identify the codes
by which authors have indicated passionate relationships between
same-sex members of their texts..."
So, yeah, in this sense it really is just looking at a work through
a queer lens. However, there is certainly an academic element
to queer readings. Any application of Queer Theory (which attempts
to debunk the myth that sexuality is divided into rigid binaries)
to literature, could be considered queer reading. There is a good
introduction to both Queer Theory and queer readings written by
Donald Hall called "Queer Theories" which sums up, much
more eloquently than I, the basics of Queer Theory, GLBT history,
etc. and has lots of suggested reading.
In choosing a text to do a queer reading of, the requirements,
as Mendlesohn describes them, are a loving, passionate or tense
realtionship between same-sex characters. Which, I believe, Angel
and Spike surely fill. Queer readings don't impose sexuality on
to characters, rather they investigate possibilities...for instance
a queer reading i did of the Iago/Othello relationship examined
the homosocial bond of bedfellows in Elizabethan England. By understanding
the sexual dynamics of Shakespeare's time (which include real
sings of physical love between men) and noticing the homoerotic
imagery in his text, a queer reading is readily available. The
signs of sodomites and bedfellows have much overlap, and so to
ignore the possibility of Othello and Iago's physical intimacy
is unfair to Shakespeare's text.
So, yes, queer readings have an academic following. I've read
queer readings from such obvious texts as "The Color Purple"
all the way to "Romeo and Juliet." I think the Buffyverse
is rife with possibilities in this field.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: sure thing
-- s'kat, 20:07:16 05/15/04 Sat
I've seen several queer readings done on Shakespearen texts: Mercutio
and Romeo is the most famous, some literary scholars even believe
the reason Mercutio commits suicide on Tybalt's blade is because
Romeo fell for Juliet and abandoned him. (That's one of my favorites.
Don't ask me to point you to a reference though since I can't
remember cites and references, just content. ;-) )
I've also seen a queer reading done on stage of Midsummer Night's
Dream. Where the people who are smitten by magic dust are Demetri
and Lysander. It was a nude version, with dance. Very interesting.
Particularly since I saw it with a class and we had to write a
paper on it. In fact our assignment in writing the review was
how much this version was revisionist or the queer reading.
Nino is correct on Spike/Angel - of the relationships, Spike and
Angel, and Darla/Drusilla certainly lend themselves for queer
readings. I think thebratqueen on livejournal did one a while
back. Not sure. I know scroll posted last year on the use of it
- and referenced thebratqueen's essay on Celluide Closet and Queer
subtext in ATS and BTVS (check the archives). Another one that
does is Lindsey/Angel to some degree. Some have proposed Wes/Angel.
But I'm not sure those relationships work nearly as well as S/A
partly due to how the writers wrote it. It's a fascinating topic
at any rate - I'll be interested to see your post on it, Nino.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> thanks, nino
-- anom, 19:47:14 05/16/04 Sun
That helps clear it up. I've heard/read some things about the
history of attitudes toward/concepts of sexuality (incl. the famous
Bible verse often quoted as being "against gay people,"
which actually prohibits specific behavior), but I hadn't
seen the term "queer reading."
And it's amazing how pervasive attitudes can be. It's taken a
long time for the medical community to talk in terms of higher
risk of STDs in terms of what people do that puts them at risk
instead of who they "are." Now that they do, the same
approach is used for other types of diseases & what puts people
at risk, which is much more accurate.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Biblical
requirements of prohibited sex.ual behavior.... -- Briar Rose,
17:18:35 05/18/04 Tue
There is nothing in there that says anything BROADLY against homosexuality
between men (and homosexuality between women is not even mentioned),
except for the remonsteration that "No man shall lie with
a male Temple Prostitute. . . ." Lying with a male Temple
Prostitute would be accepting/submitting to a "pagan idol",
since the Temple Prostitutes were in the service of this pagan
idol. (The problem is they never mention which pagan idol,
and I am pretty positive that many now believe it to be Dianic.
This also puts an interesting spin on the theories that Jesus
might have spent part of his 30 odd missing years in service to
a Dianic religion.
I am not a Biblical Scholar - so I do not have the specific book
and verse reference to male Temple Prostitutes memorized or handy.
However my SO has detailed it many times in discussions, and in
written form, in his Leather Community 'zines and blogs.
Times do change in how society views sexual relations. It wasn't
that long ago that oral sex was considered one of the most depraved
acts that one could commit. In some US states it was accorded
sodomy status. It "wasted the seed" that was supposed
to go into procreation. But now it's seen as as common to sexual
health as kissing. And in some people's opinions as "un-sexually
related" as a kiss between friends.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> gotta
dispute this -- anom, 18:55:03 05/18/04 Tue
"There is nothing in there that says anything BROADLY against
homosexuality between men (and homosexuality between women is
not even mentioned), except for the remonsteration that 'No man
shall lie with a male Temple Prostitute. . . .' Lying with a male
Temple Prostitute would be accepting/submitting to a 'pagan idol',
since the Temple Prostitutes were in the service of this pagan
idol. (The problem is they never mention which pagan idol, and
I am pretty positive that many now believe it to be Dianic."
Leviticus 20:13 says (in as literal a translation as I can give),
"And a man (ish) who lies with a male (zachar)
the lyings of a woman, the two of them have done an abomination;
they shall surely die; their blood is upon them." Translations
may vary, but none of them specifies "a temple prostitute"
(&, as I said when I originally referred to the Biblical prohibition,
it mentions only the sexual act, not any "sexual identity").
There are prohibitions against lying w/both male & female temple
prostitutes elsewhere in the Torah. I couldn't find where in the
limited time I have; the index in the version I'm using is kinda...obscure.
But it's not connected w/the general prohibition of sex between
men; it's not even in the same chapter.
But maybe I shouldn't call the prohibition "general";
this, like most of the laws in the Torah, applies only to Jews.
And the wording is interesting: although often translated as meaning
"as with a woman," the words I translated as "the
lyings of a woman" more accurately mean "as a woman
does"--which is anatomically impossible! Of course, women
can lie w/men in the same ways men can...but I'm reasonably sure
that ain't what it means.
If "Dianic" refers to the worship of the Roman goddess
Diana (or the Greek Artemis), I don't see how that's possible;
the Torah--even if it wasn't handed down at Mt. Sinai--was written
before the Israelites had contact w/the Romans, or even the Greeks.
If it can also apply to counterpart goddesses in other pagan cultures
(Astarte in Canaan?), that's more plausible.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thanks anom! But I have a question on wording too.... --
Briar Rose, 00:25:13 05/20/04 Thu
"And a man (ish) who lies with a male (zachar) the lyings
of a woman, the two of them have done an abomination;...."
That doesn't quite make sense for the reasons that you already
mentioned as well as a very pertinant one: the man (ish) could
also mean a lesbian, or any woman with a phalus, if that is an
English translation of man-ish, am I correct?
We also have the problem with wether they mean that word for man
= "ish" and the word for male = "zachar".
In which case, what exactly does each word mean? This word, "zachar"
could be male prostitute, as well as any other word, if ish is
indeed the word for man? Unless the language has a very unusual
way of constructing words from root words, it would apper to be
a completely different root word.
I must say, this is a very confusing line. The one outlying the
laying with a male Temple Prostitute is exquisitely clear.
I also wonder if this is one of the many printings that have reversed
or mis-translated the text, as the wording seems to be murky,
as you stated.
You are correct.... The "Dianic" religion I am talking
about is not about Diana, the one and only. It is about a Goddess
religion that existed along with Jeudia, and appeared to be similar
to many others; Dianic, Isisic, Artemisian and etcetera.
Normally the term Dianic is used to explain the theory as Diana
and Dianic religions are fairly well known to many in the intelligencia
as well as lay people. It's easier than using Mare or Artemis
as an example, I guess.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> "ish" isn't a suffix... -- anom, 14:55:36
05/20/04 Thu
....it's the Hebrew word for "man" (that's why I made
it italic, to indicate it's a foreign word). So it couldn't "mean
a lesbian, or any woman with a phalus" (um, how could a woman
have a phallus? & as Nino mentioned, the concept that the practice
of having sex w/someone of the same sex meant it was someone's
identity didn't exist in that culture at that time, & ish
definitely couldn't mean what we now call a lesbian); it means
"man"--not specifically a prostitute--& zachar
means male, of any species--not specifically a prostitute (& that
doesn't appear in the context, or I'd have mentioned it), or even
specifically human. The 2 words do have different roots, just
as in English "man" & "male" have different
roots.
I reading the verse in Hebrew, so any mistranslation is mine,
but I think it's accurate. I don't see how the line is confusing,
& I said the index is obscure, not the text; that's why
I couldn't find the other verses, the ones that do speak of (male
and female) temple prostitutes. They're separate verses,
in a different part of the Torah. The Hebrew for "temple
prostitute" is a different word (kadesh) w/yet a different
root from the words for "man" & "male"--the
same root as the one for "holy." The word is also a
place name, & that's what the listings for that entry in the index
referred to.
My turn: I'm not familiar w/"Jeudia" or "Mare."
And how different is "Diana, the one and only" from
Artemis? Did the Dianic religion you mentioned exist in the same
place where the Israelites lived, so they'd have contact w/each
other?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Biblical requirements of prohibited sex.ual behavior.... --
Phoenix, 17:21:34 05/19/04 Wed
I promised myself I wouldn't post here again after the last time
which witnessed the truly spectacular kicking of my arse. I always
was an idiot. :) *waves at any arse kickers still around*
[quote]This also puts an interesting spin on the theories that
Jesus might have spent part of his 30 odd missing years in service
to a Dianic religion.[/quotes]
Since the discovery of the Qumran texts (Dead Sea Scrolls) scholarly
opinion seems to veer more towards 'he was likely part of the
Essenes' - the very opposite of a Dianic cult.
Also since the translations of the Sumerian texts (as they are
in cunnieform branded into clay tablets, they have survived far
longer than any other 'documents' from the past) it is clear much
of the Bible is a straight rip off from the older Sumerian belief
system, especially the early books. Everything goes back to the
Sumerians (the later Egyptians appear to be a mere scraggy rump
of Sumerian civilisation).
"Times do change in how society views sexual relations. It
wasn't that long ago that oral sex was considered one of the most
depraved acts that one could commit. In some US states it was
accorded sodomy status. It "wasted the seed" that was
supposed to go into procreation. But now it's seen as as common
to sexual health as kissing. And in some people's opinions as
"un-sexually related" as a kiss between friends."
Yes, times change, but you will never get religions to change.
Maybe the 'modern' branches, but they don't have much of a following
outside of the US. Remember the whole uproar about gay priests.
That has split the Anglican Church right down the middle, and
though the modernist may think one has to move with the times,
most of the African branches and others outside the US and Britain,
will not contenance this.
It's a great mistake to think it is only the Judaic/Christian
tradition which is against "homosexuality", and that
this was merely because these beliefs arose in more primitive
times. *Every single major religion* condemns homosexuality. Kind
of amuses me in the recent gay marriage kerffufle to see Christians
denounced as intolerant in this matter - guess the Muslim stance
is conveniently overlooked, because it's politically correct to
do so. Not a cat in hells chance that they'll ever accept gay
marriage. Mohammed specifically condemns homosexuality in the
Koran (male homosexuality of course) - I can't be arsed to look
it up for you but I'm sure someone could.
There is actually a very profound reason that all legitimate religions
have this stance and it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with "morality".
It's to do with ENERGY. Not that religions understand this of
course - though to be fair, most of the occult traditions (which
every religion has) do have a decent grasp. Often though, that
understanding can come within the *context* of that religion,
so can skew the understanding a little. What should be a temporary
paradigm, instead becomes The One Truth. Yoga is currently the
only 'pure' way to get at an untainted understanding - though
quantum physics is shaping up nicely. I'll try explain what I
mean.........
If I told you the "power" that fuels it all (every single
thing known and unknown in the universe) - the Lifeforce - has
been within you all this time, you likely wouldn't believe me.
The power that some call "God" and choose to worship
- in spite of the fact that time and again all religions stress
a variation of "God is within". Course they don't really
understand what they mean by that, but their esoteric/occult traditions
do.
What is it, this great "Universal Spirit", this "Lifeforce",
that can do some staggeringly jaw dropping things once it's utilised
properly?
It's SEX!
Sex is far more than a groovy feeling in the genitals and an expression
of luurve. Not that there is anything wrong with that of course,
but it keeps mankind distracted from his birthright, and little
more than a domesticated chimp.
It's the exact same energy which fuels every cell in your body,
and which keeps the Universe ticking along.
"Sex" is merely the expression of Universal ENERGY in
concentrated form. Like all energy it is polarised, and used properly
it's your ticket out of the prison. Who would believe it though?
A look on the internet alone will show you how debased sex has
become. Having smashed all the taboos of old, we are gorging ourselves
like children let loose in a sweet shop. They eventually become
ill if they overdo the gorging, and likewise so will we.
No one understood the concept of this energy - and it's natural
expression in humans via sex - better than the Tantrists and Taoists.
Marriage is called "Holy" matrimony because the union
of male and female mimics the Divine Marriage of Shiva and Shakti,
the positive polarity of the universe (male) and negative (female).
On the larger scale Shiva and Shaktis' ''union'' gives birth to
the Universe and the things in it. We give birth to the next generation
and the continuation of the species - at the most mundane level.
'As Above, So Below'. Doesn't matter whether one has children
or not, the *potential* is there, in a biological sense. (State
legalised unions between homosexuals probably wouldn't cause such
an uproar as the pretence that it is a "marriage". 'Marriage'
is a union of opposites, period.)
In a "spiritual" sense (word's a bit poncey but it'll
have to do) something far more interesting becomes possible.
The Tantrists are very clear that when a society promotes and
accepts homosexuality to a high degree, it ceases to be a "real"
civilisation and begins to decline. Nothing to do with any moral
judgement but purely to do with an imbalance of energy, which
affects all sorts of things I won't bore you with. IMO - and I
may be wrong - I don't actually think it *is* homosexuality per
se, which is the problem. Female sexuality doesn't carry the same
stigma, and was often encouraged in the absense of males. This
is because the nature of the female polarity - it is ostensibly
passive, but is viewed as *transforming*. Two negative polarities
don't seem to cause as much damage to the organism as two positive
polarities. However, female homosexuality is not viewed as healthy
if it's the butch kind of lesbianism that one often sees in the
West. That is viewed, again, as evidence of imbalanced energy.
I'll stress again, there is *no* moral judgement here at all -
these traditions couldn't really give a stuff about such trivial
matters, that have biggers concerns in mind. It's purely the use
of energy that is of concern and just as if you misuse electricity
you are gonna have problems, so too the belief that the misuse
of 'sexual' energy brings major problems for the organism involved.
While the balance of energies is undoubtedly important, I'm of
the belief that the real reason for the condemnation of male homosexuality
is because of it's propensity for anal sex. Simply because this
is condemned for male/female unions too.
All Occult traditions - or Esoteric if you wanna get prissy about
the word occult (and that'd be a general 'you', not personal of
course) involved with any form of study of the Lifeforce as it
manifests via sex, knows that the most IMPORTANT, the most SACRED
part of the body, is The Anus. Yep, that waste disposal unit which
causes Western society to become acutely embarrassed at the mention
of it, is a Holy Orifice in esoterica.
Now biologically, the anus is a very delicate part of the body
that tears easily. It simply isn't designed to have anything inserted,
hence anal lesions are very common amongst homosexual males and
females who engage in such. It's even more delicate 'spiritually'
Outside of 'sex' - (and to get this right during such a union
requires discipline and experience in breathing exercises), there
are various 'yoga' type exercises to raise it. The one thing they
have in common is that the anus must be kept scrupulous clean,
and it must be strengthened before any serious attempt to raise
the energy. It is the premier "lock" in the body that
enables the pressure to force the energy upwards, with no chance
of it going elsewhere. You cannot raise this energy with flaccid
anal muscles.
During male/female genital sex this energy - variously called
Kundalini, The Serpent/Serpent Goddess, The Great Dragon etc,
rises up *inside* a channel in the spinal column (in a spiral)
fueling energy centres known as the Chakras in the Eastern tradition,
Hvels in the Nordic (both mean Wheels). Interestingly the latest
discoveries in molecular biology show that our cells have 'spiraling'
energy within them that rotates around a little 'rod' at so many
revolutions (can't remember how many). IIRC the oscillation causes
them to heat up and the more they oscillate the better they function.
It is no coincidence that the Caduceus of the Greek God of Healing
(Asclepius) became the symbol for the Medical Profession. That
coiled snake around the staff is an acknowledgement of the importance
to the organism (both physically and spiritually) of this energy.
Not that I expect the medical profession has any conception of
why this was the symbol for Asclepius.
I digress....
Usually one has to be trained to get the energy to rise naturally
during coitus, but sometimes if there is great chemistry between
the man and a woman, it can rise spontaneously during the act,
like 2 magnets pulling toward each other. If the energy is rising
properly, it will connect with it's opposite polarity at the base
of the skull. This is where the tiny reptilian part of our brain
lies (known as 'The Gatekeeper' in various traditions - it's the
place of our most Primal Self and our State of Grace). If the
energy connects with that 'socket', you will quite literally -
in modern parlance - enter the quantum universe, and your consciousness
will temporarily 'merge' with it. Whether the connection of this
energy releases certain substances in the brain that facilitate
this experience, or the energy blocks chemicals that usually prevent
one from seeing the "illusion of reality" (Maya) nobody
really seems to know.
What often happens however, is the energy fails to connect when
it gets there and you have a violent 'shock' and black out for
a moment. This is the so-called "little death", which
is often seen as desirable. It's not. If it happens too often,
it's viewed in the same way as if you short circuit electrical
energy - not a good thing. Most people don't even manage the Little
Death though, and their energy never gets beyond the genitals.
The only important difference between animals and humans is that
we are the only ones who can deliberately raise this energy to
the brain. The more often you raise it, the more of it 'stays'
until eventually it stays permanently flowing to the brain. Then
you have so-called 'Enlightenment' where you become permanently
and intimately connected to "God", "The Universe",
call it whatever you will. You become "as a god under God"
Other ways to raise it include excessive spinning. This is why
the Sufi mystics known as the Whirling Dervishes spend their days
just spinning and spinning. Unfortunately when you spin excessively
you merely get a psychic 'rush'. The energy rushes up so fast
that it causes one to experience what one is emotionally bound
to at that time. At that level, they are still viewing via the
paradigm of Islam so Mohammed will likely appear to them. 99%
of them will forget the warnings that these are all "illusions"
and should be ignored, and it merely validates the paradigm for
them. Islam then become the Truth. If a Catholic did it, they
would likely have The Virgin appear before them, and all but the
strongest would be convinced that Christianity - in this instance
the Catholic perpective - was the Truth.
Aside from stretching the anal muscles, anal sex can cause a phenomenen
known as Reverse Kundalini, where instead of flowing upwards,
the energy gets blocked and pools at the base of the spine, and
often starts to flow downward. This is a *very* bad thing. The
same would obviously apply to heterosexual men/women who engage
in anal, and not just homosexuals. It obviously isn't the sexual
inclination of the person that is the problem, but the *method*
of expressing that sexuality.
Sexual energy is *the* most powerful force available to mankind
- even in it's physical expression. It's the individuals passport
to Godhood - or entry into the 'quantum realm/frequency domain'
if one wants to be scientific. If man can make 'direct contact'
so to speak, then organised religion has no place anymore.
Religions have always been afraid of sex. Not unnaturally they've
mistaken it for something to do with "morality". They
know 'homosexuality' is a no-no, but again they don't know why
(though a look through their esoteric traditions might have clued
'em in). It's like, the real reason for the taboo for incest,
for example, was to do with biological inbreeding, and the damage
this does to the evolution of the species. Over time that original
understanding became lost and it became all about "morality".
Or possibly they never understood that, and thought it was always
only about morality. The original premise is correct, but the
*reason* was wrong IYSWIM. So, from this perspective, the original
reason for the condemnation of homosexuality (that anal sex for
both gay and straight was not a good thing because of imbalanced
energy, physical damage to an important orifice, Reverse Kundalina
blah de blah), over time became about 'moral' condemnation of
homosexuality per se. As anom said, it became about a type of
person/group of people (homosexuals) instead of a particular form
of sexual behaviour that was undesirable for both gay and straight.
The spiritual leader Gurdjieff believed homosexuals (one presumes
males) had an actual advantage in spiritual growth, once they
understood the concept of polarised energy. If they stopped 'practising'
homosexuality they could progress quicker than heterosexuals because
they would no longer be distracted by the flesh. I personally
think they could get away with doing everything *but* anal without
affecting their organism too much. I do agree with the importance
of balanced polarities but, I dunno, I'm still convinced it's
*purely* the anal factor rather than a combination of both which
is the real problem.
A bastardised form of Tantra has become quite popular in recent
years. They show how little they have understood by including
anal sex within it. The whole point of Tantra is the development
and use of two *opposing* energies to bring one into a 'different/higher'
state, and the way to do it is to get that energy raised if only
for a short while. Anal sex prevents this occuring.
You certainly can't come out in public these days and float the
possibility that occasionally a widely held taboo might be there
for a damn good reason, not in these politically correct times.
Some jackass will accuse you of homophobia if you urge caution
for gay men, and heterosexuals will accuse you of being repressed
and having hang ups if you don't think anal sex is a good thing.
It's very tiresome.
Shit, this is long and rambling and probably makes not a lick
of sense to anyone, but whatever. If I spend too much time tidying
it up, I'll probably not post it.
Which likely would have been the wisest choice. :)
Merely another perspective tossed into the pot for consideration.
I'm not gonna defend my stance.
Phoe, disappearing back into cyberspace.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Pheonix - I AM a Witch.*L I understand you..... -- Briar
Rose, 00:37:47 05/20/04 Thu
Believe me, it is not about morality that I (as many Witches,
of many different schools) see homosexuality as out of balance
in the Universal Harmony. And that also includes lesbianism, not
just homosexual males.
However, that does not mean that it is not a tolerated life choice,
and even treated as respectfully of the choices a homosexual makes
as a Witch hopes others will to the Witch's religious choices
to be.;)
The point being that many pagan religions DID see homosexuality
as okay, as long as it wasn't causing procreation to cease.
Some Native American tribes saw a homosexual male as a good omen
and the warriors who most needed to be protected spiritually would
initiate sexual union with the homosexual male to gain added power
for battle. Hermaphrodites were seen as even more spiritually
blessed and an unbelievably good omen to be born within the tribe.
The two halves of all Universal, male/f