November 2002 Archives

November 2002 posts

Previous November 2002
More November 2002

What Do You Think the Problem's With Angelus? -- Darby & Sara, 12:09:57 11/10/02 Sun

First off, what song lyrics have I just ripped off?

Anyway, talkin' with Sara about the Spike and Angel differences, it occurs to me that Angelus may be more the exception than Spike. Of the many vamps we've been shown, many seem to be more than evil incarnate - only the really old ones, like the Master and Kakistos seem to be all about the evil-doin'. And then there's Angelus, who pleasures in torture of all kinds and doing evil on both a small and large scale, who seems to retain zero positive attachment to Angel's great love, or to anyone - does anyone think that his link to Darla represents any level of affection?

Sara here now, - I also wonder if Buffy's inability to deal with her feelings towards Spike are caused more by a fear that Angel won't measure up to Spike, rather than the rejection of Spike because he doesn't measure up to Angel. Darbs and I were talking about the Spike with or without Soul compared to Angel with and without his soul. shadowkat's post about Buffy's fear of what their behaviors represent just keeps going round and round in my little head. Angel without his soul retains the obsession without any of the love for Buffy, is only motivated by evil. Spike's love for Buffy inspires him to try to be a good man, even a hero, regardless of how difficult it is to accomplish it, being evil and all.

Tag to Darby. If the vampire is suggestive of the man still inside, what does Angelus suggest about Angel, versus what old Spike suggest about new Spike? No wonder there are so many Spuffy shippers out there!

- Darby and Sara, taking this togetherness thing way beyond anything healthy.

[> Go marriage! -- Isabel, 13:27:49 11/10/02 Sun

My cats could care less about discussing Buffy. ;-)

How does Angelus reflect on Angel? Hmm? Remember, we could be talking about 2 different Angeluses. The Angelus who was the demonized Liam and the Angelus who was the re-demonized Angel.

Are they different? Spike in 2nd Season comments that the re- demonized Angelus is not playing with a full deck. He was different from before.

Liam was an unrepentant failure to his family, a drunkard and a rogue. Angelus 1.0 would not submit to the Master but went out to become the leader of his 'family.' He treated killing with artistry. There were always new heights of depravity to conquer. He and Darla traveled the world competing in evil. Drusilla was his masterpiece.

Angelus 2.0 was reactionary to having his soul restored and removed. He competed with no one. He remembered the agony of conscience and the horror of loving someone and feeling like a man. He was going nowhere until the former object of his affection was destroyed in as vile and depraved a fashion as possible. That would make him feel good and then he could go on. He settled on destroying the world when it started to become apparent that Buffy wasn't going to cave like Drusilla. He couldn't even kill all her friends. They knew him and took precautions against him. (Dru's family was probably easy because they had no idea what he was.)

It can also be said that Angel 2.0 is different from Angel 1.0. Angel 1.0 didn't know about the happiness clause. He wanted love and didn't know there could be pitfalls after "I love you." Angel 2.0 knows he can't have love and happiness like everybody else. Part of him is afraid of it like Liam and Angelus were. It causes pain. He becomes a monster. But he wants it, with Connor, with Cordelia. He seems willing to take the risk, but he's not innocent about love anymore.

I agree with Sara that Buffy does not want to compare Spike and Angel for fear of altering her perceptions of her 'perfect love.' Plus- guilt. People died because she wanted Angel back and couldn't kill Angelus. It hurts to look back and realize that you were a fool.

I don't know if we can infer much about Souled Spike yet. He seems to be much like Spike, but quieter. William and Spike seemed to be motivated by love. William was a failure, Spike was more successful and he decided to change himself for love. If Souled Spike lost his soul, would he be more like original Spike or Angelus? (I think, if Buffy loved him- Original Spike. If she rejected him-Angelus 2.0.)

Does this help?

[> [> Re: Go marriage! -- Wisewoman, 14:12:57 11/10/02 Sun

Interesting. Just a note, though.

Spike in 2nd Season comments that the re-demonized Angelus is not playing with a full deck. He was different from before.

Did Spike ever know Angelus 1.0? I thought Angel was already souled by the time Dru vamped William. Of course, I don't think the "family" realized it at the time; Angel was still faking it.

I got the impression Angelus 1.0 and Angelus 2.0 were pretty much the same...

;o) dub

[> [> [> Yes he did. -- Isabel, 15:00:44 11/10/02 Sun

Spike knew Angelus 1.0 for 18 years. Spike was vamped in 1880, Angel was souled in 1898. Spike killed the Chinese Slayer in 1900. That's when Angel was faking being evil because he wanted to be in his family again. As far as I know, Spike and Dru did not go off on their own until after 1900 when Darla kicked out Angel.

[> [> [> Re: Go marriage! -- LadyStarlight, 15:01:14 11/10/02 Sun

Did Spike ever know Angelus 1.0? I thought Angel was already souled by the time Dru vamped William. Of course, I don't think the "family" realized it at the time; Angel was still faking it.

IIRC, Dru had 'adopted' Spike by the time of the whole Gypsy massacre deal. I forget the exact dates involved, but when Souled!Angelus showed up during the Boxer Rebellion, I think the souling had happened a couple of years previous to that.

[> [> [> Re: Go marriage! -- rose, 15:08:47 11/10/02 Sun

nope Angelus was still himself for about twenty years after spikes turning.
and im under the impression that Angelus 1.0 stayed far from anything resmbling a slayer or love FFL flashback spike "don't you ever get tiered of fights you know you can win?"
Angelus 2.0 was half in love w/Buffy in an obsessed fasion.
also comparing angel trans to the potential of spike losing his soul isn't fair
part o angeluses reaction was he HATED the idea of being in love or having a soul.
spike sought his soul out it was not a curse and I'm not possitive it even has an esxape clause.
but if buffy cant accept him and at least try to be nice to him now and his soul is removed the big bad might be back and he CAN hurt Buffy shed probly regret that series of events with her life.
not because he is a vampire but 'cause she was a b*tch

Best. Line. EVER! -- Lucifer_Sponge, 19:32:25 11/10/02 Sun

"Got any weed?"

[> Was this a local or a national commercial? (SPOILER above for Angel 4.6, "Tabula Band Candy") -- d'Herblay, 19:47:42 11/10/02 Sun

After the implicit message of "Hey kids! You too can be a wannabe pothead in high school and then grow up to be a top- flight superstring theoretical physicist -- in fact, judging from some of the concepts of quantum physics, it just might help!" I knew all was right with the world when the last commercial before the preview was from the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. Two teens at a concert, sparking up in a toilet stall, getting arrested. The tag-line was something like "Marijuana can get you busted. Now do you think it's harmless?" This, of course, brings out my leftist- libertarian leanings: "Harmless? If you mean our nation's insane war on victimless crimes, then, um, no."

[> [> Now we have metanarration on commercials LOL! (4.6 spoilers) -- shadowkat, 20:09:09 11/10/02 Sun

Yes I noticed that as well. We have the commericial:
"Just say no to big tobacco" - and it was a confusing commericial by the way. I couldn't decide if the kids had started smoking or had decided not to until the tag line.
Then who should show up? Lorne - "Gee great product placements, let's buy some of those shall we?" he says picking up his cigarette. LOL! I didn't know Lorne smoked.

Then all the weed comments. And the comment how you always leave your audience wanting more - never satisfy them.
Methinks Lorne was channeling Whedon in this episode just as Sweet was channeling Whedon in OMWF.

If the devil is in the details then Whedon was truly in top form. This has got to be the funniest episode I've seen. I didn't think anything could beat some of the sight gag moments of HIM turns out I was wrong. (Am I the only one who is enjoying Angel better than any other show on Tv this year? It's riveting me.)

[> [> [> Ironically enough . . . well, if you know me, it's ironic only in an Alanis Morrisette way . . . -- d'Herblay, 20:36:29 11/10/02 Sun

. . . which is to say, not at all. Ironically enough, at that moment I was out having a cigarette, so I missed that commercial (I did catch the "TRUTH!" spot where a 1977 culpatory memo is posted on a billboard). I don't specifically remember Lorne smoking, but it didn't strike me as unusual either, as though he has before and I just don't remember it clearly. It completely fits his lounge lizard persona anyway.

I wonder, though, if Joss can get away with more because he's Joss than, say, Mere Smith (whose name lends itself to a pun which I will forswear). After all, even Mutant Enemy has shown itself not resistant to evangelizing for the party line. (I really want to read the script that the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy rejected; but then I have a taste for "otherworldly nonsense.") Leaving out the usual rote condemnation of marijuana is one thing, but leaving in blatant non-judgmental attitudes towards tobacco use? That takes, in Lorne's phrase, "balls." (I remember fondly the episode of Beverly Hills 90210 in which Dylan helped David flush his stash before the narcs showed up, a montage of illicit material going into a toilet which ended with Brian Austin Greene emptying a pack of Marlboros into the bowl. I can only assume that this is a case negative image- association which earned Aaron Spelling fat checks from both the ONDCP and R. J. Reynolds.)

Anyway, lots of narrative and metanarrative goodness, including a framing device that was a little confusing to me (um, Lorne . . . should the travails of the last bulwark against apocalyptic doom really be part of your stage act?). I haven't counted, but I think this episode had more references to earlier episodes than any since the opening montage of "The Gift." And one of these could explicate why Lorne gets to smoke: if a guy can survive beheading, what's a little cancer?

[> [> [> [> Re: Ironically enough . . . well, if you know me, it's ironic only in an Alanis Morrisette way . . . -- JM, 05:28:15 11/11/02 Mon

Lorne was seen with cigarette in "Fredless," as he grumpily stumbles throught the wreckage of his club. It seems to be a sign of a little indulgent melancholy on his part. Just like his symbolic drinking, since he seems to be actually immune to the effects of alcohol (though not firewater). Lucky demon.

[> [> [> Oh, me too! Me too! -- Masq, 08:08:07 11/11/02 Mon

"Am I the only one who is enjoying Angel better than any other show on Tv this year? It's riveting me."

Definitely. Hope this means the WB will give AtS a shot for 2003-04. Although, supposedly UPN will take it over if the WB doesn't.

So looking forward to the rest of the season!

[> [> Re: Was this a local or a national commercial? (SPOILER above for Angel 4.6, "Tabula Band Candy") -- CW, 20:16:00 11/10/02 Sun

Must have been local. The one we've been having lately is about a girl getting buzzed at a party. In the last scene the guy she's sort of been around starts opening her blouse without her permission.

[> [> [> Boston got both of those... -- dub, 20:37:50 11/10/02 Sun

I watch one of the superstations from the states that shows Angel at 6 pm Sunday my time, it's from Boston, I have no idea what it's called, but we had the big tobacco commercial, the smokin' weed in the boy's room commercial, AND the little girl smoking a pipe and getting groped commercial. Hmmmmm.

;o)

[> [> [> [> Ok . . . what is it with all the PSAs? -- d'Herblay, 20:47:30 11/10/02 Sun

Angel always seems to have a lot more public service announcements than the average show. (Actually, I don't watch the average show.) This is bothers me! I mean, I'm glad that the Powers That Be think Angel has a happenin', hip, young, impressionable demographic that needs to be told these sorts of things, but wouldn't it be if the WB could fill the spots with, I dunno, customers who are in it for the money? People who think that Angel has a happenin', hip, young, impressionable demographic that needs an iPod? (I won't settle for anything less than 20 gigs.)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ok . . . what is it with all the PSAs? -- parakeet, 00:07:40 11/11/02 Mon

Actually, most shows have these in spades right now, at least the ones I've been watching. As I understand it, the current spate of ridiculous anti-marijuana ads (have these people learned nothing from Reefer Madness?) are because of the latest rounds of legalization initiatives. As for the anti-tobacco ads, I'm biased; I'm a casual smoker myself and a bit contrary, so I keep getting the urge to smoke after I see them. I've already deleted and rewritten this next part three times. I've touched on hypocrisy, personal choice, the nature of addiction, and the lure of things that are bad for you. I've decided not to subject you to the details of my rants, except to say that priorities, as usual, are out of whack.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ok . . . what is it with all the PSAs? -- JM, 05:30:45 11/11/02 Mon

Yeah, they always make me a little ashamed, and then have me compulsively reaching for the smokes. The association just isn't working the way it's supposed to.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe they are since the tobacco company must pay for many of them -- Charles Phipps, 00:55:43 11/12/02 Tue

Which was a silly judgement

pay for medicine, don't make a person pay for stuff against their own product

[> [> [> [> [> These are not your Daddy's PSA's. -- Darby, 07:37:37 11/11/02 Mon

Used to be that if a show had lots of interanl promos and PSA's, they were having trouble finding sponsors. But with the "Truth" ads underwritten by tobacco settlement money, and I think the "Partnership" ads with fed money, these are paying customers looking for a certain demographic - which begs the question of whether they'll pressure Joss about content the way the burger joints did last year with the DoubleMeat Palace.

Got to admit, I'll never understand how anyone could be convinced to set something on fire and suck on it. But my PSA is, smokers and potential smokers, you're looking at one of the areas of prejudice that will be around for a long time without much resistance - how many jobs will not be offered or promotions denied to people deemed deficient in judgment? Right or wrong, it's definitely one of my knee- jerk responses, and I know from Sara's banking industry experiences that, as the elder smoking management was replaced by younger non-smokers, smoking employess were looked on more and more as slackers and medical-coverage headaches.

- Darby, clambering off the soapbox now before someone lights it up.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Warning: Contains Anti-anti-smoking Rant -- Wisewoman, 08:46:31 11/11/02 Mon

There's absolutely no way to explain to a non-smoker just how hypocritical, arrogant, and judgmental the whole anti- smoking movement comes across. And paradoxically, there's nothing that makes a smoker feel more justified in lighting up than being subjected to an anti-smoking diatribe of any sort.

I smoked over a pack a day for almost 30 years. I loved smoking; I enjoyed it; I had no intention of quitting, ever. (Yes, I do see that this attitude could be said to fly in the face of my board name; no need to go there.)

When I finally came to after ten days of aneurysm-induced unconsciousness, I found I was no longer a smoker. I have no explanation for that. I've been in hospital many times before and always recovered extra-quick, spurred on by the desire to get the hell outta there and have a cigarette. Not this time. It was just gone, as if I'd forgotten that I ever smoked. Not only no physical craving, which is understandable, but no psychological addiction either. No problem with what to do with my hands when tense; it was as if they'd never held a cigarette.

What I'm saying is the fact that I am now not smoking is in no way attributable to any conscious decision or effort of will on my part. I considered going back to smoking when I got out of the hospital just for the sheer enjoyment factor, but I couldn't justify the enormous expense any longer. My self-image is still that of a smoker.

Several family members, friends and co-workers have postulated that my recent brush with death has some sort of cosmic meaning; that I was spared because I have some noble purpose to accomplish (oh, please!); that the cerebral event itself had a noble purpose. But my own mother admitted that she felt I had suffered the aneurysm as a warning to quit smoking. Do you have any idea how infinitesimally insignificant your entire life can be made to feel in the face of a statement like that? On the six month anniversary of the event she sent me a card congratulating me, not on six months of survival, but on six months as a non- smoker.

And despite the insistence of my neurosurgeon that the cause of cerebral aneurysm is bad luck, there are those around me who will always assume that smoking contributed to it, and that I am now somehow forbidden or prevented from smoking by edict of medical authority.

And the kicker to all of this? What have I gained as a non- smoker (aside from saving almost $300 per month)? You would think that after thirty years I'd feel some physical benefit. More energy? Increased lung capacity? New lease on life? Not a bit of it. In fact, there's a good chance that I have now developed asthma.

As most rants do, this one fails to address it's main purpose, which is to say that the statistics, the horror stories, the medical photography, the wizened old lady dragging on a butt through a tracheostomy tube, don't have anything to do with why someone does or doesn't smoke. So don't bother. Really. It's a waste of time. And there's no way not to come across as self-righteous. Non-smokers own the world now. Be content with that and leave the rest of us to our fate.

:o<

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OT - Diet, Exercise, Abstain - Die Anyway -- Brian, 10:00:49 11/11/02 Mon

Just because I've given up some vice,
Doesn't mean that I don't believe in it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Warning: Contains Anti-anti-smoking Rant -- LadyStarlight, 11:38:00 11/11/02 Mon

Right there with you, dub.

The other thing that drives me up the wall is the assumption that we don't know the dangers. Hell, even when I started smoking, there was media stuff that said quite baldly 'smoking is bad for you, don't start'.

I'm thinking of putting it in my will that if any of my heirs try to sue the tobacco companies, a letter will be sent out saying 'I knew the dangers and did this of my own free will'.

Sorry, but it's a button.

ps
smoked through 2 pregnancies & both babies were over 8 pounds. Hell, my second was 9 and a half! Low birthweight, my ass.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Warning: Contains Anti-anti-smoking Rant -- LadyStarlight, 12:27:44 11/11/02 Mon

It wasn't until I posted the above & logged off that I realized that I was pretty flippant about a fairly serious medical issue.

Hopefully I haven't offended anyone and I apologize.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Would like to point out. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:02:49 11/11/02 Mon

You said when you first started smoking, you knew all about the stuff in the media that said it was dangerous. Well, how were those any different from the current ones?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Would like to point out. . . -- LadyStarlight, 17:29:43 11/11/02 Mon

Okay, casting my mind back here a good ways... but if I remember correctly, it was a gestalt kind of knowledge. I can't remember any PSA's about it.

Of course, we only had 3 TV channels, so maybe I just missed out. ;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Warning: Contains Anti-anti-smoking Rant -- mrfh, 12:47:27 11/11/02 Mon

Since health promotion is the subject I am about to get my master's degree in (and on Friday, we'll find out if I actually know anything), I feel compelled to weigh in.

Several of my teachers are on committees or directing programs to use some of that tobacco money to fund anti- smoking initiatives, and the programs are nearly all directed toward teenagers, not current adult smokers. I'm almost positive that the TV ads against smoking and drug use are also directed towards teens. This may be why they anger you...they aren't meant for you. The assumption in the health field is that adults know what they are doing and understand the risks, and if they want to quit, our job is to have programs available to help them do that. I don't know anyone who designs programs to make adults feel guilty (although, there are probably people in the field who do, I just haven't run across them).

The reasons for keeping teenagers away from drugs (including tobacco and alcohol) are myriad. Teens have a greater tendency to abuse them, don't always unterstand the risks, and with tobacco, tend to believe that quitting is easy. The reality is that billions of tax, insurance, and other health dollars are spent in our country to cure or keep alive people who are ill largely due to various lifestyle choices. I am FULLY in favor of choice, and the reality is that cigarettes (or any recreational drug) are not guaranteed to kill you. But with choice comes the need to fully know what you are choosing. Abuse of tobacco, marijuana, alcohol, and fatty foods all increase your risk for various diseases, and tobacco is one of the most addictive substances in the world. By preventing teens from smoking early, health educators hope to 1) keep them alive longer, 2) help them feel better and stay healthier longer, 3) lower insurance and medical costs for everyone, and 4) give them the information they need to make an informed choice. To do that, they have to combat the message in lots of arenas that smoking is cool. It�s a tough gig, and no health educator thinks that everyone will give up smoking, no more than everyone will give up fatty foods. NOT everyone who smokes will get sick, NOT everyone who smokes will feel terrible, and NOT everyone who doesn�t smoke is free from lung cancer or emphysema, or any other of the number of diseases that smoking is implicated in. But, the reality is that smokers are more LIKELY to be out sick from work, die earlier and be sick longer before death. All we want to do is give people the information so they can make an informed choice. If we�ve done our jobs right, more people will make the healthy choice, but we NEVER assume 100% will, and that�s ok.

That said, I do think that misleading drug ads (the current marijuana ones, for instance) that hype up the bad things that *can* happen to you are futile. Teenagers aren�t stupid, and they know that most people who light up a joint don�t end up date raped, or arrested. Just like most people who smoke don�t get lung cancer. You get to choose what you want to do, but at least you should know if you are choosing something bad for you. You are still free to do it.

I promise we are not trying to make you feel bad!!

mrfh

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> My biggest pet peeve is I was raised a fascist -- Charles Phipps, 01:06:06 11/12/02 Tue

My brother abused pot, cocaine, and probably worse in his lifetime and he was a angry, stoned out, and often dangerous individual who would probably be worrying he killed a man still that he doesn't remember were he not dead because of the breakup of his marriage (thanks to drugs) leading to a retirment on a farm...

Were a tractor fell on him

My entire life I supported the war on drugs but I truly loathed with every fiber of my being the idiots who offended me not because they did drugs but because they REFUSED TO OBEY THE LAW.

As I've grown older and accepted more responsibility for the matters, I've let my bitterness somewhat pass and realized that no matter how hard a person tightens the grip on the throats of people they arn't going to stop doing drugs.

For years I actively campaigned every time someone said loosen the grip thanks to former drug users coming to power....

I said SQUEEZE HARDER

Since apparently the message wasn't getting through. OBEY OBEY OBEY DON'T USE DRUGS! Institute the death penalty for drug use even if you remove it for rape and murder (I'm against it in all forms now being a pacifist but even then I verged on the edge of madness with the issue)

Now I survey the remanents of an attempt to try and prevent more families suffering what I felt was the result of a system that my brother was too weak to resist....

Not a bit better thanks to hatred.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 2 things they *should* be telling smokers (plus) -- anom, 12:50:34 11/12/02 Tue

1. If you want to quit, you have a much better chance if you work with your doctor. (OK, not necessarily your doctor, but a doctor, one who's good for you to work with.)

2. Most smokers who quit have to try 3-4 times or more before they quit for good. If you go back to smoking, it's not a failure, it's just part of the process. A lot of people get discouraged when they start smoking again & give up trying to quit, & they needn't (give up, that is).

That's what I'd like to see in the ads. Practical, useful, hopeful info (says anom, who learned it from being a medical editor).

Of course, there are always exceptions. My aunt, who died a month ago at age 88, smoked for decades & thought she was hopelessly addicted. When she started getting a cough that scared her, she quit cold turkey. I think she lived after quitting almost as long as she'd smoked.

In response to Sara's & dubdub's posts below, I just have a story. Unfortunately, there are some smokers who don't care about the effect their smoking has on others (not saying they're typical, WW). I can't remember where this happened--it was a long time ago, on a subway system where smoking hadn't been outlawed yet, maybe even the NY subway. Anyway, someone I know in science fiction fandom was standing in front of a man who decided to light up. She asked him--nicely--not to, explaining that she was very allergic to cigarette smoke. He responded w/something on the order of "Tough noogies" & continued to puff away. It was too crowded for her to move away from him, so she stood there w/this smoke getting in her face...until she threw up on him. I'm not saying all smokers deserve such a comeuppance, but this one did!

PS: mrfh, good luck on Friday!

PPS: Masq, thanks for bringing the thread back so I could post this--it got archived as I was writing!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree completely, anom! -- dub ;o), 15:19:13 11/12/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Anti - Anti Anti Smoking Rant -- Sara, 14:17:07 11/11/02 Mon

Warning this is going to be emotional - we've hit a big button of mine - really big.

Every couple of months I make my son promise me not to smoke and the reason is as much for my future grandchildren as for him

its not fun to watch your father on a ventalitor, making jokes with hand gestures because, hey he's got a tube he really doesn't want shoved down his throat

it wasn't fun seeing him die at 67, knowing his parents lived to be 98 and 100

it wasn't fun watching his wife, (my mother), spend a year starving herself almost to death, until she realized that if she just pretended he was on a business trip she could somehow cope

its not always about the smoker

how about giving up a saturday morning ritual of sharing a bagel at a favorite bagel place with your daughter, because the smokers (in the smoking section of this one small room) won't put out a cigarette which drives you into an asthma attack violent enough to break a rib, but they have rights. I guess my dad didn't have any rights to leave the house.

Let's not talk about law, let's just talk about morality, and behavior in society. If you were in public spouting hate speak, racial slurs, religious insults, in a loud voice, I think everyone on this board would consider that totally unacceptable behavior in public. And they would be right, you would be poisoning the environment of those around you. Why do smokers think it's a moral right to physically poison the environment around them?

So be polite in public, but feel free to smoke a cigarette in a crowd, there will be someone who's quality of life you will negatively affect, but we all have rights.

- Sara, who's life got a lot emptier and quieter 4 years ago

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ah, here we go... -- Wisewoman, 15:02:05 11/11/02 Mon

Why do smokers think it's a moral right to physically poison the environment around them?

So be polite in public, but feel free to smoke a cigarette in a crowd, there will be someone who's quality of life you will negatively affect, but we all have rights.

Who are you talking about? Talk about button pushing. It goes without saying that it's never fun to watch a loved one die, whatever the cause. Calm down and take a step back from this.

No smoker I know feels it is his or her moral right to smoke around non-smokers (at least not since my Mom and Dad did it with three kids in the back seat of the car complaining non- stop, back in the 1950s). No smoker I know feels free to do that.

Maybe your world hasn't changed as quickly as mine has, but it certainly will if you're in North American. There is no smoking allowed in any public building, any where in BC, hasn't been, for years. Smokers don't have the right to pollute any else's environment. So be specific--I certainly didn't contribute to your father's death, nor did my personal smoking habits, and I resent the implication.

It's one thing to chastise someone for taking risks with their own health. It's quite another to accuse them of blatant disregard for the health of others.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well Wisewoman... -- Charles Phipps, 01:15:04 11/12/02 Tue

The link between lung cancer and smoking has been for the longest time brought about with individuals who suffer from it....well quite a few. They're to my knowledge has never been a study on what exactly is a 'safe' amount of cigarettes.

But to touch on a personal issue loved ones who are non- smokers (just as I was to my brother with his problems) are often terrified for their loved ones that they are going to do irrepairable harm to themselves.

Basically smoking isn't to them a harmless habit but basically every time you put in the tube, instead of enjoying a euphoriac less dangerous than drinking...

You are setting for your family watching you die in one of the most painful agonizing ways possible.

It may seem tacky and tasteless (My mother believes God killed my brother in order to prevent him from going back to drugs....can you imagine that? That I as a minister am supposed to accept God killed my brother with a tractor accident because there was an off chance he'd go back to it?) but to people, they try and find good in disasters that may seem...deeply disturbing.

You may not think that you were in any danger because of smoking and maybe you weren't but she obviously thought it was the equivalent of russian roulette....not hard with all the adds against it

[> [> leftist-libertarian? I didn't know those two words could go together! -- Robert, 20:31:37 11/10/02 Sun

[> [> [> Well, leftist-libertarians hate to go to meetings . . . -- d'Herblay, 23:01:51 11/10/02 Sun

. . . so I may well have sought out a political affiliation which I alone claim!

[> [> [> [> check out... -- parakeet, 00:34:51 11/11/02 Mon

Sorry if this comes up twice, but the post doesn't seem to have taken the first time (is there a long delay, sometimes?). However, I thought you might be interested in checking out www.politicalcompass.org. It's an academic test/survey site on political orientation, and Leftist- Libertarian is, indeed, there. In fact, that is what the site's analysis decided I was (in a big way).
Again, sorry if this ends up as a double post.

[> [> [> [> [> I'm a left libertarian too -- Rahael, 08:41:25 11/11/02 Mon

Quite left wing, even more of a libertarian than I thought. Must be all that social freedom stuff.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Me too -- matching mole, 11:08:37 11/11/02 Mon

Although I found some of the questions difficult to answer.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Me Three -- dub, 15:39:09 11/11/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: not me -- Ronia, 18:12:55 11/11/02 Mon

I was libertarian..but smack dab in the center, not right or left...perhaps..conflicted will be a new category? Also, the way that some of the questions are phrased makes them a tad difficult to answer without wanting to add a note at the bottom.. :-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, no kidding :) -- Pilgrim, 04:21:06 11/12/02 Tue

Never thought of myself as a libertarian, but a regular moderate-to-liberal social democrat who thinks government in service of the people is a good thing. I think the questions were rigged.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Me Four (and panicking) -- Caroline, 13:53:28 11/12/02 Tue

I was even more left and more libertarian than Ken Livingstone and Tony Benn. What does this mean????!!! Maybe now I have confirmation of what Sister Gerard (8th grade maths teacher and a Josephite nun) told me - I am going to burn in hell as a brazen hussy!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm sensing a trend -- Sophist, 14:31:27 11/12/02 Tue

We're going to have to start deconstructing the posts here for the political bias of the posters. What we need now is for each poster to include the x and y coordinates of his/her affiliation at the end of each post.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL Caroline and Sophist -- Rahael, 15:16:09 11/12/02 Tue

I actually worked for Tony Benn once. I don't know that we always agreed in terms of politics, but he's a very good speaker and an even lovelier man. Personally kind and generous. (Talking of famous noncomformist families - he comes from one - the Wedgewoods. Of the Wedgewood pottery fame).

As for his politics, he's actually moved along the political terrain. At one point he was really quite moderate (that was when he was in Government). Now, he's very much to the left of the mainstream of the Labour Party. Though that's not saying much at all.

As for Ken Livingstone, I regard his politics as quite pragmatic and opportunistic, though he was once 'Red Ken'. I don't think he's that any longer!

I don't think that using Ken or Tony are that helpful as markers because their political utterances and views often have to be put into current political contexts. Actually they kind of acknowledge this by showing how much Tony Blair has moved since he got into power!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm a lefty leftist! -- Sara, 15:47:05 11/12/02 Tue

Who'd have thunk it? I can't even spell libertarian without carefully copying it from the page. This will relieve my very liberal mom, who has become convinced I turned into a republican after hanging with Darbs too long. Maybe this explains why I'm having such a negative reaction to Plato and Socrates as I attempt to learn some history (lousy fascists!)

-Sara, who'd go look for a good demonstration, except the libertarian side of her says "ah, let 'em eat cake"

[> [> I liked it when... (4.6 spoiler) -- ZachsMind, 20:33:41 11/10/02 Sun

I liked it when we came back from commercial break and Lorne was saying something like, "those were great products, eh? Give those commercials a hand. ...Yeah, maybe we should think about buying those, but you know kids I wanna take things down a notch..."

I was on the floor. Though it was a bit rough going at first, this is one of the funniest Angels I've seen so far, and though not one of Joss Whedon's best works (seemed almost a retread of Tabula Rasa) it definitely was him at his stride.

[> [> [> Headboys & HoYay! -- Apocryphal, 01:37:30 11/11/02 Mon

This episode was great, if only for the one-liners. The bit about Wes being 'headboy' and how it 'took a lot of effort' was hilarious. Oh, and Wes/Gunn HoYay!

Identity Through the Prism of Adulthood: (Spoilers for Spin The Bottle) -- AngelVSAngelus, 20:30:32 11/10/02 Sun

Don't hate me if this isn't terribly succinct and revelatory. I'm kind of prematurely reacting to the episode I've just watched, having loved another Joss Whedon installment, and really I hope to explore for myself what it was about in textual dissection. If this ends up being not terribly coherent, well know that I was searching rather than pointing out in this diatribe.
That having been said, I feel the need to share whatever I find with someone else.
To the casual observer Spin the Bottle may have seemed a retread in plot devices. Once again, we have a group of our favorite characters who, through the fumble of magic, lose large portions of their memories, and revert to basic manifestations of their true identities. And it is true that it is, in fact, reusing a facet of an idea. But there are important factors that create a difference, and the most prominent of them to me seems to be thematic perspectives.
Buffy has always been about adolescence, and its pain, and now as the characters are growing up (or grown up) begins to deal with adulthood. But Angel, however, has always come at that perspective from the opposite direction, with a hindsight, retrospective gaze at what one's done in the past.
What, then, does it mean when Joss Whedon takes one of his previously used metaphoric containers, identity loss and rediscovery, and places it in the context of the adult (or in Angel's case, old man) looking back and coming to terms with the past?
Each of the characters didn't, as in Tabula Rasa, completely lose their memories of who they have been, but simply the portion of who they presently ARE, reverting, as in Band Candy, back to a younger self, prior to all of the development through trials that they've undergone over the past four years. Cordy is once again rendered a self centered air head, Gunn is a psuedo-racist black-and-white impetuoso, Wesley is the bumbler straight out of Watcher's academy and green, Fred is a mousy pot-head, and Angel is seemingly a pre-drunken, but still disgruntled with his father, Liam of Galway.
I found it odd and interesting, to the point of seeming like a prolific point that I was missing, that during their battle Angel and Connor totally identified with each other on the resentment of fathers and not asking to be a freak. Maybe the episode was about what they've all learned to move past or integrate as they've matured.
I haven't been able to grasp anything tangible, being faced with abstract and floating ephemeral elements that just won't congeal into a capitalized and defined THEME in my head. Yet. So I leave it to someone else to help me do so. I just loved the episode so much that I felt the need to spill the glass fragments upon the ground for others to scrutinize with me.
Oh, and p.s., to whoever posted before about the usage of windows and framing on Angel to indicate family, was it just his father, Angel, that Connor threw out that window? Or was it Liam? Or Angelus?

[> Did anyone else get a queasy feeling about "Liam's" last comment about Cordy? (spoilers 4.6) -- cjl, 21:47:17 11/10/02 Sun

Horndog Liam says to Connor that he wanted to avoid all the smash-'em-up and he would have rather spent the night having his way with the lovely Miss Chase. Connor immediately reacts as if a depraved beast was threatening Cordy.

Um...

Was Connor right?

Remember Angel's dream about Cordy in "Deep Down"?

Angelus vibes, anyone?

[> [> Interesting that . . . (SPOILERS for AtS 4.6 "Spin the Bottle" and BtVS 5.8 "Tabula Rasa") -- d'Herblay, 22:57:16 11/10/02 Sun

. . . though he admits that he's not that filled with the bloodlust, it never crosses Liam's mind as it does Randy's that he is a vampire with a soul. So perhaps as Randy's speech delineates (and parodies) Angel's condition, Liam's parallels Spike from last year, who was definitely not much for the fighting and much more with the sinning.

Oops! This thread led to Spike!

[> [> [> Liam Is A Sex Fiend -- Nic, 05:50:14 11/11/02 Mon

Sometime lurker delurking here.

Re AngelvsAngelus: Who did Connor throw out the window? Doesn't matter to him. He knows nothing about Liam, has never met Angelus except through the incredibly vivid (and gruesomely graphic) stories that Holtz must have raised him on in that hell dimension, and has never bothered to get to know Angel.

Re cjl: Liam is definitely a sex fiend. I always got the sense in the flashbacks that when he followed Darla down that dark alley, he assumed she was either an unescorted lady or a high-class prostitute, but either way he was going to have a good time without paying for it.

Re d'Herblay: All threads lead to Spike, which eventually lead to Angel, (both of who I adore, especially the latter when he's putting a beat down on that cocky brat of his).

Any episode with tons of Lorne and the return of Queen C from season 1 is fantastic.

[> [> [> Urrpp . . . -- d'Herblay, 06:12:05 11/11/02 Mon

"Tabula Rasa" is, obviously, episode 6.7 rather than 5.8. I can finally rest easy now that I've fixed that.

[> [> You bet! Really Queasy!(spoilers 4.6) -- Sara, 18:37:33 11/11/02 Mon

I was wondering if we were actually finding out something really ugly about Liam? Based on the exchange he had with Cordy before Connor showed up, where he was certainly not making any attempts to charm his way into her affections, I was wondering if his plan to return to her, tells us that Liam is just as happy with rape as he is with consensual sex? Maybe even more of Angelus' evil is pulled right out of Liam then we thought. Could that be why Angelus is unusually cruel, and incapable of love? Could the personality of the person, not just influence the vampire, but expand or limit the vampire's emotional range?

[> [> [> I disagree -- Masq, 21:14:57 11/11/02 Mon

I don't think Liam was expressing any kind of urge to force himself on Cordelia against her will. Cordelia showed that she was very much interested in him, and I think Liam, raised by a puritanical father, was taught to see his own lustful feelings as "bad".

When he got a chance to talk with another boy about it (Connor), he felt freer to express his feelings than he would have in front of anyone else. He expressed them as "satisfying my sinful urges" because that's the way his father talked. He was being a rebellious teen-ager, mimicking his hypocritical father.

He did get off a little on scaring Cordelia when she first ran from him, but in the end, he wasn't the big scary Wesley made him out to be. He was angry at all of them for treating him like a predator before he ever acted or felt like one.

[> [> [> [> Expanding my point a little... -- cjl, 21:34:15 11/11/02 Mon

I found Liam's comment interesting, because it displayed characteristics we would see developed in both Angel and Angelus.

First of all, Angel--whether he's Liam, Angel, or Angelus-- doesn't like to fight. Liam would rather spend the evening cavorting with beautiful women or downing a couple of tankards of ale. Angelus would rather psychologically torture a poor hapless victim, and Angel--well, Angel would rather brood over Angelus torturing a poor, hapless victim. Fighting is a necessity, not a pleasure, the way it is for a certain bottled blond vampire we know.

Second, we get a reminder about Liam's view of women. He likes 'em. A lot. But he doesn't respect them very much-- it's more about how much pleasure he can get out of the evening, and I doubt giving them pleasure ever enters his mind. This is reflected in both Angel and Angelus' obsessional nature. Angelus went for the pain rather than the kill in BtVS S2 because he wanted to reassert his power over Buffy after his "unfortunate" period of emotional weakness.

Angel clearly learned a lot from his relationship with Buffy, but there's still a bit of "it's all about me" in him, when he zones out and focuses on "the woman" as an object of obsessional desire, or his tendency to make important relationship decisions that should be mutual. Let's run them off, shall we? His decision to turn back the clock in IWRY; his Darla phase in early S2; and his slightly patronizing attitude toward TabulaRasa!Cordy in Slouching Toward Bethelem. (I probably missed a half-dozen others.)

So, no--I didn't think there was the possibility of rape in Liam's comment in Spin the Bottle. But I did notice traces of what we came to know to as Angel AND Angelus peeking through.

[> [> [> [> Well, I think I agree with both you and cjl -- Sara, waffling and wishy washy, 05:22:57 11/12/02 Tue

There isn't anything you're saying, Masq, or that cjl says in the post below that I disagree with, so I guess you guys are probably right. There was just this little tinge of the way he said it to Connor, that made my radar go up. And it wasn't that I thought he would be looking to rape someone, just that the consent might be immaterial. ...Yet, he really doesn't like to fight, so I am probably wrong, because I expect he would back down against any real resistance. By the way, there was a really nice kind of vulnerable, hurt feelings, reaction in his response to being treated as a predator. Good point Masq!

- Sara, who gives up on her point, even though she kind of liked the implication to the person/vampire emotional range, ah well, better luck next time...

[> Angel the Series in Miniature -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:05:35 11/11/02 Mon

Think about it: what happened in Spin the Bottle? A variety of people, all wildly different, are thrown together into a situation by forces they don't really understand, and they must form of sort of team in order to survive (or at least, that's what they presumed they needed to do). Wesley even brings up that they're all from different cities and different backgrounds. This could describe the entire run of Angel the Series in a number of ways.

Liam's political background and conflict with his father, Angel 4x06, 1x15 SPOILER -- Steve, 20:31:56 11/10/02 Sun

In tonight's episode, Liam!Angel displays a deep resentment to Wesley for being English; he considers a member of the English natian to be quite different from himself, and gives a sort of "Brits go home!" speech.

However this has continuity problems with what we've seen of Angel's life and death in 1753. In particular Angel's family is well to do (they have a maid), his funeral is conducted openly in a well maintained graveyard (there is a groundskeeper) and Angel speaks English (he certainly has no problem understanding Darla. Darla's background in the colonies and subsequently in Europe may well have given her a familiarity with several international languages such as French or German, but she is extremely unlikely to have been taught Gaelic).

This all points to Liam being a member of the Anglo-Irish protestant elite (which would create continuity problems with regard to his tirade against Wesley) OR having a complex family history which may explain the friction with his father.

Why? In 1753, Ireland was subject to the anti-Catholic Penal Laws, which pretty much drove Catholicism underground. Admittedly, by 1753 these laws were not often in practical abyance (although they were not all finally repealed until 1829, with the first Catholic Relief Act being passed in 1778, following the foundation of the activist Catholic Committee in 1760). However, Catholicism was likely to be practised discretely, and a catholic graveyard would be extremely unlikely to have a groundskeeper. These laws, and the general political structure of Ireland at the time (basically run as an English colony) means it is unlikely that Liam's family could be practising Irish catholics and still be doing well enough to employ a maid and keep Liam in booze. At this time such a family would almost inevitably be a member of the protestent ascendency, the de facto ruling class who settled into Ireland from Britain, and which only ever amounted to a few percent of the population outside Northern Ireland.

So, Liam is a) not ethnically Irish, in which case he still could possibly have hostility towards an Englishman (many of Ireland's greatest champions of freedom came from the protestant asendancy, most notablly Charles Stuart Parnell, but these appeared more often in the 19th and 20th centuries, not the mid 18th). But this doesn't fit with his dialogue which clearly shows that he considers himself not an Englishman, nor does he have an English name, which we might expect a transplanted protestant family to give their son. Also, when he gives Buffy a Claddagh ring, he refers to it as a item given among "his people."

Or, more interestingly b) ME didn't screw up the continuity and Liam is ethinically Irish and his family are protestant.

But haven't I just spent most of this post showing how those two things don't fit? Ah, but part of the intent of the Penal Laws was to encourage conversion to the Protestant faith. So here's my theory:

Liam's great grandfather is a prosperous Catholic merchant in Galway. Then the hammer drops and the Penal Laws come in with a brutal bang - public executions of priests, the whole nine yards. So Liam's great grandda makes a pragmatic choice and converts the family and adopts English as the family spoken language in an area which would be overwhelmingly Irish speaking. Tempus fugit, but then Liam's dad marries a Catholic, who also converts, at least publicly. However, she insists on giving her son an Irish name, and who knows, maybe even secretly had him baptised in the Catholic faith and teaches him to speak some Irish. However Liam's father, having grown up in a much more dangerous age for Catholics, insists the family maintain its efforts to assimilate into the ruling elite.

So, here's the perfect thing for a rebellious Irish teenager to latch onto; Irish nationalism was on the rise at this time (and would erupt in a particulary bloody revolution in 1798).

Liam hates his father for selling out, not seeing that his assimilationist efforts are part of how he protects his family. The perfect issue to feed that self righteous streak we see in young Liam, so he goes down to the pub and talks big anti English talk with other lads, ingoring the fact that the only reason he has money to spend on ale and "wenches" is because of the pragmistism of his family's choices.

Or, of course, c) ME did screw up and just stuck a stereotypical anti-English rant in their young Liam's mouth based on hazy memories of seeing "Michael Collins"...

Just my 2 pence!

[> It still amazes me how, no matter what, if schools teach it, someone here is an expert. :o) -- tim, 21:10:20 11/10/02 Sun

[> Re: Liam's political background and conflict with his father, Angel 4x06, 1x15 SPOILER -- parakeet, 23:29:06 11/10/02 Sun

Thank you! I knew just enough about Irish history for bells to be going off in my head when Liam began insulting Wesley, but not nearly enough to figure out the logical possiblities. I like Option B the best; it also brings the metanarration (hopefully I'm using this right:)) of ME's acknowledgement of Boreanaz's lousy irish accent in Becoming back into the narrative as a possible fleshing out of Angel's history. Hopefully that last sentence came out as meaning something.

[> Actually, I don't think they screwed up -- Rahael, 03:31:06 11/11/02 Mon

The penal laws were attached to Land. It was possible to be Irish, prosperous and Catholic as long as you pursued commercial ventures.

There was an Catholic Irish middle class, but this was mostly found in Dublin.

Plus, one servant? you don't have to be that prosperous. I'd think that a comfortable middle class family could happily have 2 to 3 servants, simply because in those kind of societies people are cheap.

This picture bears out in England with regard to Noncomformists, who also went around penal laws by educating their children in establishments other than Oxford or Cambridge, and making money in business - why companies like Cadbury's, Wedgewood etc had their roots in noncomformism.

[> [> Hmm, more than land. What about.... -- Steve, 03:58:28 11/11/02 Mon

The penal laws affected more than land, and directly affected the ability to publicy practice Catholhicism. Also they were used in Ireland as much as a tool of colonial power as anything else (somewhat distorting the equivalance to English nonconformists who were (a) not members of an overwhelming majority of the population and (b) of the same ethnicity as their English protestant neighbors). For example, I'm explicitly thinking about such acts as (cut and paste magic follows. What, you think I can quote this stuff off the top of my head?). The 1703 Act is particularly relevant for my hypothesis:

The 1695 Act "For the better securing the government, by disarming papists...Sec. 10. No papist shall be capable of having or keeping for his use, any horse, gelding or mare of five pounds value."

The 1697 Act "for banishing all papists exercising any ecclesiastical jurisdiction and all regulars of the popish clergy...Sec. 1...all popish archbishops, bishops, vicars- general, deans, jesuits, monks, friars, and all other regular popish clergy shall depart out of this kingdom before the 1st day of May, 1698, and if any of said ecclesiastical persons shall after that day be in this kingdom, they shall suffer imprisonment, and remain in prison until transported out of his Majesty's dominions, wherever his Majesty or the chief governors of this kingdom shall see fit, and if any person so transported shall return, he shall be guilty of high treason."

The 1703 Act "To prevent the further Growth of Popery. Sec. 23 and 28. No papists shall take or purchase any house or tenement or inhabit the cities of Limerick and Galway, or the suburbs thereof, and all papists now inhabiting said cities or suburbs, shall before the 24th of March next ensuing before the chief magistrate become bound to her Majesty with two sufficient sureties, in a reasonable penal sum to be set by the chief magistrate, sheriff or recorder, with condition of faithfully bearing himself toward her Majesty, and in default of giving such security, such papists shall depart from the said city before the 24th of March, 1705."

The 1727 "Act For the further regulating the Election of Members of Parliament.. Sec. 7. No papist, though not convicted as such, shall be intitled to vote at the election of any member to serve in parliament, or at the election of any magistrate for any city or other town corporate."

The 1715 Act "Act to make the Militia of this Kingdom more useful... Sec. 4. Whereas the number of papists are very considerable in this kingdom, and it has been found that they have occasioned frequent rebellions, papists shall pay double the sum paid by protestants for support of the militia."

The 1733 Act "For the Amendment of the Law in relation to Popish Solicitors... Sec. 2. No person may be admitted as an attorney or licensed as a solicitor who has not been a protestant from 14 years of age...."

The 1733 Act "to prevent Persons converted from the Popish to the Protestant Religion, ... from acting as Justices of the Peace....Sec. 1. No convert from the popish to the protestant religion shall be capable of acting as a justice of the peace if his wife is papist, or if he causes his children under the age of 16 years to be educated in the popish religion...."

[> [> [> Off the top of my head -- Rahael, 05:04:52 11/11/02 Mon

I'd need to consult again the penal laws against non comformists in England, but they were also not allowed to take up offices like JPs etc. It did extend to more than land in England too.

As for Catholics, they were the majority in Ireland, thus making it harder to stamp out religious practice there then it had been in England - after all, the protestantisation of England took a very long time, and it was also inextricably linked to English national identity, patriotism and loyalty to the crown over the centuries.

And for ethnicity - there were *English* Catholic families in Ireland. And they were not only wealthy, but aristocratic - Ireland was the place to go for Catholic families escaping from the reigns of Edward and Elizabeth. That was why Charles was able to summon up an army of English Catholics in Ireland during the civil war, which is why the brutal Cromwellian adventures in Ireland are more complex than at face value.

I'm mainly going on the knowledge that there were Irish middle class Catholics in Dublin. Let me look it up and get back to you.

[> [> [> [> Re: Off the top of my head -- Steve, 05:30:13 11/11/02 Mon

I agree there were English Catholic families in Ireland, and even prosperous Irish Catholics but, as you say, these were prinicipally located in Dublin, where the urban setting made it possible to operate more easily in a purely mercantile manner. Nor did they practise publicly in the early to mid 1700's (hard to do when all the clergy has been exiled).

Also, an English Catholic background is inconsistant with a name like Liam, the identification of the Claddagh ring as at item exchanged among "my people" and Liam's anti-English rant in 4x06. Also, the minister at the funeral looks like someone who is going home to relax afterwards, not hiding out until the next hedge mass.

An Irish Catholic background is inconsistant with a graveyard with a groundskeeper (which is how he's described in the shooting script) -- who was paying for his services? The outlawed Catholic clergy? Or the Anglican church, care of tithes?

So, is it theorectically possible for Liam's family to have been a prosperous middle class Catholic and ethnically Irish family in Galway in 1758? Possibly. But a family history of being enthically Irish but converted to Protestantism fits much better with both the political environment of the time and what we've seen of Liam.

[> [> [> [> [> Oh, yes I agree he isn't English -- Rahael, 05:43:25 11/11/02 Mon

And you are right, being a recent convert adds nicely to familial tension, ideas of a hidden identity, guilt etc.

Just wondering if Joss is aware of the historical subtleties! After all, Darla emigrated to Virgina at a rather improbable date.

Actually, something I'm really interested in is the kind of ideological values that cluster around geography - centre and periphery etc. In Britain, while power lay in the centre, and the peripheries of Scotland, Ireland, America were disadvantaged (even the English countryside as opposed to the metropolis) there was a whole strand of thougth which ascribed to the oppressed periphery ideas of liberty, freedom and purity.

And, the French Revolution didn't have much of an effect in terms of the radical movement in England, but in Ireland, there was nearly a revolution.

Just thinking about this and the Watcher's Council - DarrenK did a great post about the Watcher's Council and the Colonial Bureaucracy, spreading through out the empire.

Thanks for giving me the chance to put on my history geek hat! Nice posts btw.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe a Firefly fan could tell me -- Rahael, 05:47:48 11/11/02 Mon

I remembered why I was thinking of core and periphery with relation to Joss. I can't yet see the series, but I was struck by the fact that the Firefly crew have lost out in political terms and they exist on the outer edges of society. There definitely seems to be a correlation with physical geography and political virtue there. Of course, I'm only getting this through other people's posts which are slightly confusing since I don't have a clue what's being talked about.

Maybe I should take it over to that board?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Maybe a Firefly fan could tell me -- Darby, 07:08:29 11/11/02 Mon

The impression I'm getting is that, although there is the contrast between the more prosperous Alliance centers and the more "backwoods settlers" leftovers of the Independent movement, there isn't a general theme being applied like what you would suggest. In some ways, Joss is using the classic science fiction approach of examining known Earth cultures by showing them recognizably in the future. Unlike a lot of science fiction, though, the cultures have mostly been a way to propel a fairly unrelated plot rather than hold a mirror up to human practices. The crew itself has only the simplest of political ideals, at least so far. "freedom good, slavery wrong," that sort of thing.

It does show why Joss was confident that he didn't need latex-faced aliens for his show to work. I'm not certain that he was right - it feels more like historical fiction than science fiction most of the time, and that's a very different perspective.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Simple political ideals -- Rahael, 07:26:34 11/11/02 Mon

Well, that was kind of what I was suggesting. The most attractive ones tend to have an emotional power that contains a lot of contradictions within.

I mean, Joss can show his crew as having simple political ideals but that doesn't mean his show is simplistic and unsophisticated..........unless Firefly is both and then I'm just very disappointed. I thought I'd found a hook for developing an interest in watching the show!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Simple political ideals -- Pilgrim, 08:04:00 11/11/02 Mon

I think the show is reaching for complexity in a lot of different ways, including its exploration of political structures and institutional power. Is centralized power a good thing or a bad? or both? Are the frontier societies freer, since they are less controlled by the central government and further removed from corporate headquarters, or are they less free, since they seem to be _very_ poor? I _think_ the show is going to explore these contradictions and hopefully come up with no absolute answers.

The characters, I think, struggle with the contradictions of idealism and pragmatism in a way that mirrors the contradictions in the political situation. If freedom is your ideal, as it is at least for Captain Mal, imo, how do you implement that ideal in your life when you also have to make a living and protect your crew? What compromises do you make in your own freedom, and how often and in what ways do you impinge on the freedom of others so you can get what you need/want? All this stuff has really great possibilities for thought-provoking drama, but, imo, the show has yet to really deliver. Still giving it a chance, though.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Maybe a Firefly fan could tell me -- leslie, 09:20:24 11/11/02 Mon

"The impression I'm getting is that, although there is the contrast between the more prosperous Alliance centers and the more "backwoods settlers" leftovers of the Independent movement, there isn't a general theme being applied like what you would suggest."

Ooooh, I would disagree mightily here--Joss has explicitly state he is making a Western in space, and the whole genre of the Western is all about center versus periphery--in fact, it's the classic locus of the theme.

(Tangential comment--anyone else ever read Flann O'Brien's _At Swim-Two-Birds_, with its wonderfully surreal episode of a traditional Irish cattle-raid--as in the Tain Bo Cuailgne- -told as a Western? Hilarious.)

Getting back to Liam's Irishness, I also think the converted- Catholic-sell-out-father scenario is the most reasonable. In terms of the language, however (and admittedly, my expertise is in the earlier stages of Irish history), although Gaelic was banned officially, it certainly persisted not only as a peasant language but also in the "elite" classes, as there were Gaelic manuscripts being copied *and* new literature being composed in Gaelic right up through the nineteenth century--I'm thinking here especially of Brian Merriman's Cuirt an Mhean Oichte/The Midnight Court, written in 1780 (see http://www.homesteader.com/merriman/ for a translation and background material). My sense is that, much like the situation in Wales at the time, there were an enormous number of people in the middle classes who were bilingual, with English being the language of polite and official society (and thus the language in which one expressed politically correct views) and Gaelic the language of private and subversive discourse (which was, of course, why the English wanted it banned: a) people could talk treason in it, and b) the English wouldn't have the slightest idea what the hell they were saying).

If we're going to get back to the whole colonial/imperial thing, I'd just point out that everything the English did in Africa and Asia in the 18th and 19th centuries was stuff they had test-driven first in Ireland and Wales in the 12th- 18th centuries. (Did you know that the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge--SPCK--a missionary organization dedicated to bringing the word of God to the heathen, was originally founded--at the end of the seventeenth century--to send missions to the WELSH?)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh cool! -- Rahael, 10:07:58 11/11/02 Mon

Thank you for reminding me of the Western. From my (admittedly very sparse) experience of Westerns, they seem rife with political and social depth, not to mention the whole epic, Greek-drama-y thing going on. Both Dedalus and Lachesis have mentioned Richard Slotkin now, and he's definitely on my to read list - doesn't this match up well to Joss' aims in BtVS? and it seems natural that he would be interested in Westerns. In "Innocence" he talked about how he liked Westerns, and how he tried to imitate some of that style in the encounter between the Scooby gang and Angelus in the dark school corridor.

In fact the only bit of film I've ever analysed is in a high school English class where we watched a bit of a John Wayne/John Ford film (The Seekers? Searchers?) which was certainly contained a very resonant imagery - I can still remember it.

And I love High Noon and Bad Day at Blackrock. In fact I should watch more good westerns only I'm lazy! I'm really bad at sitting down to watch films.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The SPCK -- Sophist, 10:43:22 11/11/02 Mon

Did you know that the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge--SPCK--a missionary organization dedicated to bringing the word of God to the heathen, was originally founded--at the end of the seventeenth century-- to send missions to the WELSH?

Not according to the official history on the website. The SPCK was not a missionary society; that was the SPG (full title Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts). Anyway, the SPCK was an educational project aimed mostly at the American colonies (quoting from the website):

On 8th March 1698 a group of five friends met at Lincoln�s Inn to prepare for the departure of one of their number for America. Thomas Bray, an Anglican priest, was to visit the colony of Maryland on behalf of the Bishop of London. The time for which he would be away was uncertain, and the friends resolved to form a society to ensure that the many good works with which he was involved could continue in his absence.

The primary concern of the Society's founders was to "counteract the growth of vice and immorality", which they ascribed to "gross ignorance of the principles of the Christian religion". The main ways in which they felt the situation could be tackled were through encouraging education and through producing and distributing Christian literature. Through the work of SPCK, they hoped to build up a more learned clergy and to find ways of communicating the basic principles of the Christian faith to a wider audience, both in Britain and overseas.

At its foundation, SPCK's overseas focus was upon the British colonies in the Americas. Thomas Bray was particularly concerned about the quality of the clergy available to serve in new churches being established in the colonies and plantations. His solution was to establish libraries for the use of clergy and their parishioners, giving them access to a range of theological and other books with which to support their ministry and ensure that good learning and teaching were available. Frequent shipments of books were sent across the Atlantic throughout the eighteenth century establishing and maintaining a substantial network of libraries.

Of course, such organisations are perfectly capable of retconning their purposes....

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The SPCK -- leslie, 12:18:10 11/11/02 Mon

Yes, and my information comes from the Welsh--it comes up in all the discussions of the Bible in Welsh, because the SPCK was busy disseminating Bibles in English, English, English just at the time when the speaking of Welsh was going into decline.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There is no question -- Sophist, 12:28:51 11/11/02 Mon

that a determined effort was made to impose English as a language on the "Celtic fringe". I would tend to see the distribution of English Bibles as a part and parcel of this effort, rather than as a symbol, by itself, of colonialism. After all, the distribution of vernacular Bibles had a long tradition within Protestantism, and it would have been contary to well-established religious propaganda for Protestants to force someone to read a Bible in a non-native language. IMHO, it was the political goal of language uniformity that took advantage of well-intended religious efforts here, not the other way around.

I think this supports your basic point; it just blames a different set of people.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> O/T hijack re. politics and language -- Arethusa, 13:58:42 11/11/02 Mon

I frequently see language used for political gain here in Texas. Governer than President Bush famously peppered his speeches with Spanish, trying to extend his good-old-boy image to the previously politically excluded Hispanic voting population. (He also made lots of mistakes, but since he did the same thing in his English speeches, it wasn't a big deal.) Now many state politicians do the same thing. The (only) local newspaper has been printing sports and political articles in Spanish. My church bullitin is in English and Spanish. Diversity, rather than uniformity, has the political advantage, here and now.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: There is no question -- leslie, 14:11:04 11/11/02 Mon

Oh, that is not the only example possible of English (in fact, when it starts, it's actually Anglo-Norman) colonialism of the Celtic Fringe, it's just one that generally cracks me up. This *was* the point where Wales was still, at heart, Catholic--Wales didn't get ardently Protestant until Nonconformism hit in the 18th century--so the SPCK "mission" was similar to the English attempts to suppress "papacy" in Ireland at the same time, it's just that, given the later religious history of Wales, it tends to be forgotten unless you are dragged into the morass of Welsh language politics.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh, yes I agree he isn't English -- Steve, 06:04:31 11/11/02 Mon

"Just wondering if Joss is aware of the historical subtleties!"

Probably not ;)

It's a pity, this could be an interesting way for ME to talk about questions of identity and so on, contrasting Angel's experiences with Gunn's.

(Thanks for adding some shades of grey to my initial post BTW)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Off the top of my head -- CW, 06:21:24 11/11/02 Mon

One line of my ancestors were Irish Catholics. The members of one branch of the family (not mine) were famous converts to Protestantism. They became very wealthy, owning much land in Ireland as well as huge tracts of land in the US in the 1800's. They were roundly despised by all Irish Catholics, and completely 'disowned' by their closest relatives. While that's an extreme case, I would image that every convert family faced some of the same isolation. If his family were converts it would partly explain Liam's dissipated life. He'd have very few friends, even if he were sympathetic to the plight of the Catholics. Indeed, his friendship's with most other Irish might last as long as his money did at the pub.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Did they originally live in Swamp Castle? -- 'erbert - um, Darby, 07:12:50 11/11/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Off the top of my head -- CW, 07:40:28 11/11/02 Mon

For all I know, they could be the original knights who said "nih." ;o)

[> [> [> Okay, Penal Laws are harsher -- Rahael, 05:33:01 11/11/02 Mon

Especially because they explicitly forbid participation in trade as well.

Jeez, this kind of stuff starts my blood boiling. I knew there was a reason why I didn't study much colonial history. The essays I wrote would just have been indignant tracts against racism and injustice. Anyhow.

in the 1780s, there is a movement abroad to grant some relief to Catholics. Yeah, it is grudging - prejudice runs deep - however, there is a small group of middle class Catholics who are out there articulating the case for reform. The 'Defenders' were able to join with Protestants who were not happy with English rule imposed from without Ireland. The United Irishmen were able to survive for a little, before internal contradictions and outside pressures made it crumble. To think that in the 18/19th Century Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants were enlightened enough to join together, and yet the situation is still so intractable in the 21st!

Sigh.

But I'm really glad Joss picked up on English-Irish tensions, because I've commented before on the 'Other' in BtVS, and how even Angelus is even more 'other' than Spike, after all. Despite Spike putting on a working class accent, Angel/Liam/Angelus is still the one who faces prejudice even today. "No Irish" is still in the dim generational memory still.

[> [> [> [> Re: Okay, Penal Laws are harsher -- Steve, 05:52:57 11/11/02 Mon

"To think that in the 18/19th Century Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants were enlightened enough to join together, and yet the situation is still so intractable in the 21st!"

Weeeell, careful now. Catholic/Protestant tensions only exist now in Northern Ireland. South of the border, in the Republic, there just isn't any tension. And even North of the border, enlightened Catholics and Protestants can work together on common ground: witness the (Catholic) SDLP and the (Protestant) UUP parties working together in the Northen Ireland Assembly.

Tensions between England and Ireland have also diminished considerably as the decades have passed, and both governments have learned to try to work together in dealing with their "problem child" of the North.

Also the post-colonial impact on the Irish psyche has finally begun to clear, thanks in large part to the psychological shift in Ireland's generation X, who defined themselves as Irish Europeans instead of "Not English"

What I'm saying is to be careful in juxtaposing the politics of 18th century Ireland to the present day - which is exactly why Liam's rant against Wesley is so shocking in comparison to the older and wiser Angel's attitude to his English colleague.

[> [> [> [> [> good point! -- Rahael, 06:09:47 11/11/02 Mon

Thanks for injecting some optimism.

Civil conflicts just make me unduly depressed.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry, this was meant for KdS. Not that you don't make good points either! -- Rahael, 06:11:34 11/11/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> I'm going mad -- Rahael, 07:20:29 11/11/02 Mon

That response was meant for you. I for some reason thought KdS had written it. Yeah, good points!

Irish Europeans - Joyce also saw himself as European too, didn't he? So perhaps that strand of thought has also been present for a while? Or was he the exception that proves the rule?

I work for an organisation that has a very strong presence in Northern Ireland - in fact we are probably more powerful there than any other part of Britain. We have a non sectarian base, and were at the forefront of that whole mess where schools got attacked by sectarian violence.

Complex.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Way OT, but based on Rah's post... -- Darby, 08:11:53 11/11/02 Mon

Was it here that I read a discussion of the expression about exceptions proving the rule? From Sophist, maybe? If it was, I'm expressing my gratitude for clearing up something that had been bothering me for years.

If not, and if it bothers others, let me know and I can swipe the explanation from wherever I did read it and post it here...

[> [> [> [> Re: Okay, Penal Laws are harsher -- leslie, 14:19:45 11/11/02 Mon

"But I'm really glad Joss picked up on English-Irish tensions, because I've commented before on the 'Other' in BtVS, and how even Angelus is even more 'other' than Spike, after all. Despite Spike putting on a working class accent, Angel/Liam/Angelus is still the one who faces prejudice even today."

See my now-archived report on the Buffy conference from this weekend. None of the academics at the conference wanted to deal with the Irish question, although I was sure asking! In fact, although I know that the episodes were filmed long before airing, and written even longer before that, the instant those words started coming out of Angel's mouth (especially since I had been raising the question of Angel's change of *national* accent at the conference), I swear to god, I was wondering whether Joss had some kind of mole at the conference picking up issues to address on air!

[> [> [> [> [> Yeah I saw that! -- Rahael, 14:48:14 11/11/02 Mon

That surprises me too, since, it kind of hits you in the face! That whole torturing nuns in churches, accent, starting out in Ireland.

And also, when Angel starts out on his own, in LA,guess who he hooks up with? Doyle! Who has his own issues of otherness to deal with.

[> [> This ties in to something that intrigued me in "Somnambulist" -- KdS, 05:56:38 11/11/02 Mon

In Somnambulist, there's a casual reference to Penn's family being "Puritans" (definitely with the capital P). This seemed intriguing to me as it would point to Penn's family being Protestant at least and probably Nonconformist (at the moment the really extreme/bigoted Protestants in Northern Ireland are mainly not Anglican but members of various Presbyterian/Nonconformist denominations). Certainly sparks interesting thoughts about the relationship between Angelus and Penn (Catholic or thinly-disguised Catholic Irishman siring a Protestant Irishman and converting him to evil).

I did wonder about ME's religious knowledge though, as I thought Puritanism (with a capital P) was largely a 16th/17th rather than 18th-century phenomenon. Perhaps someone better up on religious history could enlighten me...

Of course, the well-known William Penn was a Quaker, which given Quaker pacifism adds a whole new layer of irony to Penn's character.

[> [> [> Good question - 18th Century Puritanism -- Rahael, 07:54:21 11/11/02 Mon

I think the Interregnum had a huge effect on British religious culture. As the Church of England was officially de-established (but still functioned in many places, however), and the "toleration act" was passed, many different denominations were given the oxygen of toleration.

Also, the interregnum split whatever cohesiveness the puritan movement may have had. The whole period of the Republic saw conflict between conservative puritans and radical puritans. Toward the end, they came to have very different political aims.

With the restoration, the effects of the Interregnum were papered over. All the constitutional legislation was reversed, and the later Stuart monarchs attempted to rid the Church of radical puritan elements - The Act of Uniformity (1662), among other legislation led to about 2000 ministers leaving the Church - they became known as the Noncomformists.

More legislation followed, i.e - The Conventicle Act punished anyone attending a service not conducted with the Book of Common Prayer.

The culture and world view of Puritanims has always been a protean beast. It changed in tone from Elizabeth's reign to James' (became more introspective) and changed under the freedom of the Interregnum, and changed under the renewed persecution of the Restoratin.

The radical religious elements of English society, which had originally been called puritan, grew and grew during the 17th C, and during the 18th Century, took on new identities.

But I should think there were still many who could and would call themselves "puritans".

[> [> [> [> Thanks, clarifies a lot -- KdS, 08:33:26 11/11/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> I'd be surprised -- Sophist, 09:03:31 11/11/02 Mon

if people in the 18C identified themselves as "Puritans". Not saying it didn't happen (I really don't know for certain), but the term was originally one of abuse imposed on more radical Protestants by their opponents. After the Restoration, I think both sides moved on to other terms. FWIW, my dictionary (the only reference I have here in the office) describes the term as one used in the 16 and 17 C.

Fascinating thread. I'd have to agree with Steve about the status of Irish Catholics in the 18C and the inconsistencies in Angel's family scenes. However, I'm inclined to attribute those to ME's usual historical carelessness (viz., Darla's arrival in VA) rather than to construct an elaborate explanation about conversion for the sake of convenience.

[> [> [> [> [> Puritans or precisionists -- Rahael, 09:57:22 11/11/02 Mon

Which was another variant.

A term of abuse yes, but often used by puritans to describe themselves. Though they did prefer "Godly" etc.

It gets a little complex. How are we using puritan? as a word historians use to label and define a certain distinctive world view and mindset? Or a self description?

Can you remind me - does Penn describe himself as a Puritan or does he get called one?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Puritans or precisionists -- Sophist, 10:14:37 11/11/02 Mon

Sorry, I don't know whether Penn (I assume you mean Angel's friend and not William Penn) described himself as a Puritan or got called that. Never saw the episode.

I rarely (never?) see historians use the term "Puritan" to describe anyone in the 18C. Occasionally I'll see, for example, Cotton Mather or Jonathan Edwards described as the "last Puritan", but even that use is clearly not intended literally.

I could easily see someone in the 18C using it as a term of abuse.

Do you know if the Cromwellian colonists in Ireland were mostly Presbyterian? It was my impression that they were, but I'm not sure. I doubt, even in the 1650s, that many would have described those colonists as "Puritans", but again I don't know for sure.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Possibly historians don't -- Rahael, 10:36:14 11/11/02 Mon

But now I'm genuinely curious how quickly a self conscious puritan world view died out. I mean, religious faith was fervent enough to cause enormous upsets in the fabric of English society - where did it all go?

How much of a backlash was there to the Interregnum? Pepys doesn't like Cromwell even though he was a youthful supporter, and yet he displays a grudging respect, and a feeling that such a man's body should not receive the treatment it did.

For the 18th C, I think historians have new words to describe those who are not in the mainstream, and basically since they were driven out of the church of England, they were defined by their fate. Also, I think with the whole "history of mentalites", the term puritan has found new favour, as a useful category of religious culture as opposed to simply doctrine.

Also, puritanism is not just for radicals - I think it really was more a part of the mainstream than a fringe element. (But this is the subject of huge historical debate - you could even contest the existence of puritans in the Church under Elizabeth and James until they almost vanish, inexplicably. Turning puritanism into the invisible dog that barked, imho) There is a lot of conservative puritanism out there. I see the virulent anti-popery sentiments, the deposition of James as all showing signs that the secularism gains ground in the 18th C is not all conquering.

Cromwell encouraged colonisation of Ireland, and I think most of those who went over were pretty radical. Especially his pest of a son in law. Fleetwood was inept and more 'hard right' than Cromwell. The fact that the more illiberal sort of Protestant would be attracted to moving to Ireland I think, sowed seeds of conflict. An interesting case is Cromwell's second son, who seemed a promising politician - he made alliances with rich Catholics, and tried to reach agreement between Catholic and Protestant. But he had a difficult time always getting London to back him.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Radical underground -- Sophist, 11:01:49 11/11/02 Mon

Oh, the religious radicals were still there after 1660. Many were caught up in the Fifth Monarchy plot. Others fled to Holland, where we still find them plotting in the 1680s. They were Locke's associates when he fled. Many were involved in the Rye House plot and others in Monmouth's Rebellion. Others left for America (at least one regicide -- Vane -- was taken back from America for execution).

I think the fervor died out due to the combination of exhaustion and the settlement of religious affairs under William and the latitudinarian attitudes of the Whigs thereafter. Reform efforts focused on Parliament rather than revolution.

And you're quite right that religion remained much more important than secularism at least through the first half of the 18C and probably long after.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's a good ep! I just checked btw, and it's Wesley who calls him... -- Rahael, 10:47:01 11/11/02 Mon

a puritan. No one else. Okay, I did a skim read, but I'm pretty sure that was it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It's a good ep! I just checked btw, and it's Wesley who calls him... -- yabyumpan, 16:37:31 11/11/02 Mon

Penn does. In the AI office, just before Wesley walks in

Penn: �What? You don�t drink, so now no one gets to?�
Angel: �I don�t expect you to understand.�
Penn: �Oh, I � I understand. I was a Puritan, remember?�

from psyche's site

[> [> [> [> 18th Century Puritanism -- in America? -- Fred the obvious pseudonym, 19:00:29 11/11/02 Mon

IIRC some members of the Mather family were self-identified Puritans in Boston until the second quarter of the 18th century.

[> [> [> I checked a timeline -- Rahael, 10:58:00 11/11/02 Mon

And now I'm leaning more toward Sophist's sceptism that Penn would have been a 'puritan'. I think 1760s is now getting on too late.

However, it was Wesley who called him one, and it seems a pretty off hand and quite a jocular comment.

So that's okay! I've explained that away to my satisfaction.

[> How would Angelus' attitude towards the Church fit into this? -- Arethusa, 07:14:47 11/11/02 Mon

We know he was fascinated with convents and nuns, and often fed there. He waited until Dru took her orders until he turned her into a demon. Does this demonstrate a resentment against or a fascination with the Church? If Liam's hated father converted to Protestantism, wouldn't he be resentful of his father's new religion, and see Catholicism as purer by contrast? He would be much more likely to try to corrupt the Chuch and its representitives if his father were Catholic.

[> [> Vampires and Christianity -- KdS, 07:48:25 11/11/02 Mon

Good points about Angelus's hostility to the Church. (He also went through a period of carving crosses into his victims' faces as a defiance of the Church and God [Somnambulist]). This could support any theory about his family background, depending on how you interpret his motivation. He could be attacking the Catholic Church because he didn't believe in it as a human, or alternatively because he did believe in it as a human and vampirically resented the way he'd been taught to be moral. We can also note that when Angel was faced with a case of demonic possession in I've Got You Under My Skin he and Wes immediately went to a Catholic priest rather than a Protestant Deliverance Minister.

It's interesting that this exaggerated hostility to the Christian religion doesn't seem to be a general characteristic of Buffyverse vampires. The only comparable case was the Master, who constantly blasphemed Christian ritual and liturgy. (I'm ignoring Spike's references to the Crucifixion in School Hard, which seemed primarily driven by the desire to make fun of vampire pretension rather than human religion.) Could this be related to the original human's spiritual beliefs? Would a vampire who'd been a devout Muslim go around drinking booze, eating ham sandwiches and setting fire to mosques?

[> [> [> Re: Vampires and Christianity -- Darby, 08:20:33 11/11/02 Mon

It'd be hard to reconcile this with the established Buffyverse history, where vampires are much older than Christianity, perhaps older than religion itself (how long between the first vamp and the First Slayer?). There could be a great story there - perhaps a powerful Catholic attempted to eradicate vamps magically, but only succeeded in instilling a physical reaction to Christian trappings (which we know includes Holy Water and Communion Wafers, which is why I said Catholic) - or maybe it was a much more powerful version of the protection spells used by the Scoobies. Something for Tales of the Slayers (another issue of which was released recently), maybe.

[> Question - how necessary is historical accuracy ? -- shadowkat, 09:37:22 11/11/02 Mon

I have question - If you design your own fantasy universe where there are vampires, werewolves, portals, etc - is it important or vital to include historically accurate tidbits from the real world? Or does this depend on the story you're telling? Or the universe you've created and whether you've already consistently planted items from "our reality" into the one you have created?

This question has been bugging me for a while, actually as far back as the fanfiction round robin for well partly selfish reasons, being a writer myself - I'm wondering how much I can get away with ;-).

If Whedon's verse did not include references to our own popular culture such as Britney Spears, George W. Bush, or Warren Harding, could he have gotten away with greater latitude when it comes to historical data? Even with such references - can he still get away with it?

It's obvious I think that the Buffyverse is not our verse nor meant to be ours. So does that give the fantasy/scifi/etc writer more latitude than someone who is say writing West Wing? Or ER? Or American Dreams?

How much does it matter if Whedon screwed up the date to the Russian Revolution? Darla's arrival in Virginia? Liam's religious background and political leanings with respect to what occurred in our history regarding these events?

It probably matters a little - since Whedon and Company appear to make a point of commenting on these events. I remember reading in FFL's commentary that it was important to Whedon that the class distinction between Spike's cockney and Angelus' Irish brogue was made clear along with the costumes each wore. He wanted Spike to look like the working class man of the time and Angelus to look like the aristocrat of the time. But I also know as both a reader and writer - that fantasy/sci-fi/horror is often more effective if it is grounded in something real to me, or a world that is identifiable in some way. I also have been told that if you are dealing with suspension of disbelief, ie existence of vampires, etc - it's a good idea to be as accurate as possible on things like historical events, etc. Or the audience will scoff at you and turn the channel.

That said:

My question then is how much can Whedon get away with before he breaks our suspension of disbelief? Or makes us scoff? Or causes us to spackle in the gaps to preserve it?

[> [> Re: Question - how necessary is historical accuracy ? -- Rahael, 10:17:21 11/11/02 Mon

Well, I'm pretty laid back about historical mistakes. I just like to discuss them here because it means I get to talk about history.

The story is important, and little inaccuracies are fine.

But, I definitely think that the Buffy universe is meant to be our universe - I don't think it's some SF parallel universe.

And if you're going to make jokes about historically based tensions, and if you have characters who have lived centuries, and you do flashbacks to past eras, you definitely have to get the spirit of the law, rather than the letter correct.

In Fool For Love, Petrie said that Joss was very specific about the changes Spike was to undergo in his accent. That seems to me to be trying to achieve a certain social accuracy no?

Finally history is powerful. It informs who we are, it tells us about why we live in the world we do live in. In a show about power, about questioning authority, about politics (since Joss says it's a feminist show, it is necessarily political also) surely history is important. And we don't just need to think about 'traditional' history. There is also a history of narrative that it's clear that Joss taps into. Even his oft quoted statement about wanting to create a blonde heroine who actually fought back in the alleyway is a statement and awareness of popular cultural history.

[> [> [> I agree - this has relevance to contemporary politics, and so it should be right -- Steve, 11:09:24 11/11/02 Mon

I would say that the question of how much weight to place on historical accuracy depends on the current political climate the show is operating. As Rahael pointed out, the Buffyverse is an explicity politicised one.

The fact that the issues we've been discussing are relevant today show quite clearly in that ME was able to use Liam's little rant and know that a contemporary audience would get it. ME are unlikely to bother to have e.g. two Italian vampires trading insults based on which particular city- state they came - because as far as today's Buffy watching audience is concerned that's a dead issue (no pun intended).

So as for details which don't materially impact on the current story line or political climate - that's just window dressing and I don't worry too much about historical accuracy with regard to those. Who cares if the characters say a particular scroll is written in Sumerian when any archeologist worth his or her salt would know that based on the other evidence it would have to be written in Babylonian?

But this was a plot element, and points to a political situation that is still problematic today and even more to the point, a problem which has been exacerbated by all the parties involved continually dredging up various bits of history and painting everything in black and white. When you do that you've painted yourself into a corner, because any kind of rapprochment becomes a form of betrayal, and the cycle is perpetuated.

It is precisely because of such stylized, absolutist, versions of Anglo-Irish history that the IRA was able to receive considerable funding from Irish-Americans in the US, long after the citizens of the Irish Republic itself had turned their backs on these butchers in digust. So that's why I hope that ME puts a little more thought into any knee jerk "Brits out!" speeches, however correct it might appear to be to a modern US audience.

I say this because I've experienced situations in NYC where Americans have expected me, as an Irishman, to have some sort of automatic hostility to the British people I might run into, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth (when it comes down to it, Irish and English ex-pats have more in common than not, e.g. we both understand what a real cup of tea is!).

[> [> Re: Question - how necessary is historical accuracy ? -- luna, 13:13:57 11/11/02 Mon

To me, it's fine to play games with history, as long as it's done deliberately (as many, many writers and movies do-- everything from The Name of the Rose to The Knight's Tale). The original historical problem (Angel's Irish past) was worrisome because it seemed to suggest that ME possibly was just wrong about the history--and that is greatly worrisome because we're always reading them as taking great care with continuity and other details, and depending on that in turn to support our analyses.

Quick Question on Spin the Bottle.... *spoilers* -- trebor, 00:17:43 11/11/02 Mon

Quick question.... for those that saw the episode.

Why didn't 17 yr old Cordy remember Angel?... she seemed to believe she was in Sunnydale at the time. Looking for theories on why they made her forget that, and why she seemed to be naive towards demons and vamps.

[> Re: Quick Question on Spin the Bottle.... *spoilers* -- Apocryphal, 00:30:59 11/11/02 Mon

Erm, she mentions that she's a sophomore. It can be assumed that this is Cordelia during her sophomore year before Buffy came to Sunnydale.

[> Re: Quick Question on Spin the Bottle.... *spoilers* -- luvthistle1, 01:02:52 11/11/02 Mon

Well, at that time she didn't know about vampires and wasn't involved with the scoobies. she was in her own little naive world . That was before Buffy came into her life, after that when ever a vamp would attack or something weird would happen she would just blame it on Buffy.It Makes me wonder did they ever see a vampire before Buffy came to sunnydale. Oops, I'm having a "Normal Again" flashback.

Camera Technique in Angel 4x06 (spoilers) -- Williamson, 02:00:10 11/11/02 Mon

This may be previously covered ground but Angel and Buffy have often seemed inconsistent. It occured to me while watching this episode that part of it is due to constantly changing directors and consequentally, changing filming technique and composition. Joss' direction of the episode was quite unique, compared to the rest of the series. The freeze frame hasn't been used much if at all nor the jumpcuts between narrative and story. Now, if only he'd direct all the episodes. Of course, despite the inconsistency, both shows can be said to have some of the best direction on television, in general.
I especially loved the scene where Wesley enters and the situation between he, Fred, and Gunn is explained through Lorne. In particular, the shot of Fred and Wes facing each other, with Gunn looking on in the background was nice. The abrupt change in the direction of motion leading into that scene was somewhat jolting but felt appropriate for the awkwardness of the scene.
I have a new appreciation for camera technique after my last class and am probably being disgustingly enthusiastic and/or pretentious. Many apologies, just had to get my thoughts out.

[> you might also know a familiar framing theme this year -- neaux, 04:37:34 11/11/02 Mon

As someone greater than I has mentioned about this year's Angel. There are lots of framing scenes. In particular in this episode. The framing of Gunn by Wes and Fred. and the framing of Connor.

would the frame expert please stand up and elaborate on my simple thoughts.

The Uncontrollable Penis and Sexual Innuendo (Spin the bottle spoilers!) -- neaux, 04:45:30 11/11/02 Mon

Not that I am the greatest penis master (and not that I want that title, which I dont), but I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on Wes' operational malfunctioning of his own.

Of course its straight up laughable, as it should be, but the fact that this is a very very deadly weapon, did anyone else get a little squirmish (pun? doh!)

Fred's tight grip on her big wooden stake was a little disturbing too, but again funny.

And as I could go on and on the oral sex references from head boy to Fred's mis-inflection of her Pylean speak... is all this sexual hoo-ha just really for laughs?

I would like to believe that re-entering the mind of a high schooler is all about oral sex jokes and weed.. which I'm sure is a surface analysis. But what is the deeper meaning?

Was Wes in his younger days really unable to control his manhood?

Someone take over this monster topic please!!

[> Re: The Uncontrollable Penis and Sexual Innuendo (Spin the bottle spoilers!) -- JM, 07:00:06 11/11/02 Mon

Also Connor's revving engine, and Angel in the bathroom. Since vampirism is often a sexual metaphor. And I'm sure that Cordy was pretty suspicious of the "I'm almost finished" comment. I think the implication was about how sexuality, especially male sexuality, feels pretty erratic and awkward and possibly a little inconvenient during adolescence.

PS Great title!

Ten things I loved about "Spin the Bottle" (4.6 spoilers galore) -- Masq, 06:21:46 11/11/02 Mon

With a tip 'o the hat to Rob's "Him" list from last week...

And no, this is not a reminiscence from my adolescence.

1. Lorne as narrator. Lorne doing The Host thing was a good way to frame the story, a nice, familiar way to lead us all into this weird perspective on our heroes (and doing the narration during the flashbacks. *snerk*). I'd forgotten how much I missed Lorne on the small stage.

Plus, fun metannarration moment as we come back from the commercial and Lorne quips, "Those were some exciting products. Let's all think about buying some of those."

2. Angry Gunn: they've been building up this boy's 'tude this season. From Fred's "You're the alpha male" comment in Deep Down to Gunn's "I'm not a sidekick" insistence a couple weeks ago, it looks like Gunn is building up some big-time resentments of his not-the-leader "I'm just the muscle" position at Angel Investigations. Glad to see they're giving Gunn some real meat to chew on.

3. "Hello Salty Goodness!": continuity goodness! One of my favorite all-time Cordelia lines. The return of snippy Cordy can only be a good thing, although did anyone else think CC's performance was a bit off, maybe, not edgy enough? I remember Cordelia being a much bigger bitch. Oh, and a new Cordelia line to go on the long list of favorites, "I know who's president... and I sort of wished I didn't."

4. The return of dorky Wesley. AD's physical comedy was pryceless. And Princess Charles' attempts to lead the gang with Gunn stealing his thunder were a crack-up. "Head Boy" indeed! I did wish we'd gotten more of a glimpse into his own daddy-issues, though.

5. Proof from the pen of his royal Jossiness that Liam wasn't such a bad bloke. I knew that dorky!Angel stuff had to come from somewhere besides just broodiness over centuries of evil. Yes, the clueless dorky!Liam did become a useless "18th century frat-boy" by the time he was in his mid-twenties, but I think a lot of that was acting out and bravado over daddy issues.

Also, did anyone notice that some of Liam's first lines were straight out of 18th-century Buffy in "Halloween"? And I still think an 18th century person would realize a car was some sort of weird carraige, not a demon.

6. A twist on a favorite Joss theme: the helpless blonde in the alley turns out to be a hooker. Poor horny!Connor. And he was being all heroic and surly and stuff, too!

Plus Liam and Connor bonding ever so briefly over bad fathers! You know, between their respective right and left hooks.

And why is it that Connor is starting to remind me of Buffy? Is it the nightly slaying? The scraggly blonde hair? The self-righteous attitude? The punching-matches with Angel?

7. Fred the "something's out there" geek. Who wants to bet she spent more time asking people if they had weed than actually scoring any?

8. Liam actually enjoying the vampire thing once he realizes he has power over the others. I don't think that, with a soul, he actually would have hurt any of the others (besides pounding on Connor), but he did like scaring them a little.

9. What.Cordelia.Knows. And she knows stuff. Agh! Do you think they'll tell us next week, or will we have to wait a month and a half to find out??!! Or longer?

10. Beginning and ending the episode on the same note. Most folks here know I'm not an Angel-Cordy shipper, but I'm always for frustrated, unconsummated love in the name of angsty drama. In the beginning, we only get Angel's confusion over the "Are we in love?" question. At the end, Cordelia's answer is "Yes", but why do I get the feeling she knows it can't go any further than that?

[> and one more "love" -- neaux, 06:31:04 11/11/02 Mon

How bout that Trailer for next week!!! THAT looks downright Awesome!

[> One more thing to love......Angel Season one DVD news -- Rufus, 06:33:06 11/11/02 Mon

Yahoo News

FOX SET TO SPIN DVDS OF "NYPD BLUE," "ANGEL"

HOLLYWOO (Variety) - Fox will release the first season of "NYPD Blue" in a six-disc set March 18. Set will feature audio commentaries from producer/co-creator David Milch, director Brad Silberling and others. Also on deck is a six-disc set of the first season of "Angel," which includes four featurettes and audio commentaries by co-creators Joss
Whedon and David Greenwalt and writer Jane Espenson.

[> [> Hurray! -- Masq, 06:42:06 11/11/02 Mon

I've had those things pre-ordered at Amazon for a year now.

Obsessed, me? Never!

[> [> [> I'll finally get caught up.. -- DickBD, 14:17:50 11/11/02 Mon

I'll finally get caught up from the beginning with Angel, as I did with Buffy. Those FX episodes were like gold to me (or artifacts to an archeologist). One of the things I have noticed about Joss's offerings is that they can hit you emotionally. (I have more than once been glad I was alone when watching Buffy because I had tears streaming down my cheeks. "Passion" gets me every time, as does "Innocence" and "Becomming." I'm looking forward to that whole thing about Doyle that you guys discussed.)

And, yes, I particularly liked Cordie's comment about who the president was, too!

[> [> [> [> Re: I'll finally get caught up.. -- DanTheMan, 17:11:08 11/11/02 Mon

Some Additional Info on the Angel Season One DVD
$59.95 retail
Release Date of Feb. 11th

[> Re: Ten things I loved about "Spin the Bottle" (4.6 spoilers galore) -- CW, 06:34:57 11/11/02 Mon

I also enjoyed the fact that, when Liam discovered that he was a vampire, he didn't turn evil. He was still the same likable guy with a severe social problem, that he was getting picked on for.

[> [> Re: Ten things I loved about "Spin the Bottle" - Connor is BuffyJr.! -- Nic, 06:49:28 11/11/02 Mon

You're definitely right about Connor and Buffy showing some strong parallels. He's neither human nor a vampire. With all the drama Angel's gang is going through right now, Connor's become LA's resident Slayer.

If they do go through with the crazy idea of continuing Buffy without SMG, Connor should move to Sunnydale and hook up with Dawn. How about a male Slayer and a female Watcher (or eventual goddess-in-the-making)?

[> Oh god no!!!!!!!!! -- Rufus, 06:43:16 11/11/02 Mon

And why is it that Connor is starting to remind me of Buffy? Is it the nightly slaying? The scraggly blonde hair? The self-righteous attitude? The punching-matches with Angel?

He starts sleeping with Spike and I will puke...;)

Also, did anyone notice that some of Liam's first lines were straight out of 18th-century Buffy in "Halloween"? And I still think an 18th century person would realize a car was some sort of weird carraige, not a demon.

I sure did....Demons!!shiny ones....and to think he didn't like the noble women of his day...

The return of dorky Wesley. AD's physical comedy was pryceless. And Princess Charles' attempts to lead the gang with Gunn stealing his thunder were a crack-up. "Head Boy" indeed! I did wish we'd gotten more of a glimpse into his own daddy-issues, though.

When he kept reacting to the probing conversation from Fred capped off with the ejected stake I flashed back to the Bob Dole erectile dysfunction ads.....:):):):):)

Beginning and ending the episode on the same note. Most folks here know I'm not an Angel-Cordy shipper, but I'm always for frustrated, unconsummated love in the name of angsty drama. In the beginning, we only get Angel's confusion over the "Are we in love?" question. At the end, Cordelia's answer is "Yes", but why do I get the feeling she knows it can't go any further than that?

Yup, it ain't just Connor that is all revved up and stuck in Park....:):):)

[> [> LOL -- CW, 06:48:17 11/11/02 Mon

He starts sleeping with Spike and I will puke...;)

Wouldn't that make him more like Willow? Just kidding. ;o)

[> Re: Ten things I loved about "Spin the Bottle" (4.6 spoilers galore) -- gds, 06:58:13 11/11/02 Mon

At the end, Cordelia's answer is "Yes", but why do I get the feeling she knows it can't go any further than that?

I got the same impression due to the way she said WERE not ARE. I think your theory of why she was taken may be correct. Now that she's back and remembers everything, I think she is trying to avoid Buffy's mistake. Her vision also seems to be a part of her answer.

[> [> Re: Baker's dozen (4.6 - Spin the Bottle spoilers) -- Brian, 07:09:01 11/11/02 Mon

The final shot as Lorne exits, and we realize that he has been performing to an empty room. Ah, memories of his own place, of Las Vegas, of the glittery quiet before the storm.

[> More to Love-mucho spoilers for episode -- Arethusa, 08:26:17 11/11/02 Mon

More continuity: Bad hair and chess club mention (Nightmares).
The mention of the Crucianarium (sp?)-Helpless.
The bit about psychological tests and florists (What's My Line).
Tiny people singing/Buffy watches tv in Beer Bad.
Cordy is mean, selfish, a little lazy, and danger gets her horny. And people miss old Cordy!

Liam's father issue: tired of being bullied, the whole speech with Connor-it must be freaky to Connor to hear his own thoughts come out of his father's mouth re. his grandfather. Liam's father rode him because he was different- this fits in with the theory that Liam's artistic abilities were suspect to his father. Teenage Liam thinks vampires are cool-more criticism of immature people romanticizing vampires?

Metanarration: referring to Gunn as the muscle of the group, as fans sometimes do. Comments about DB's lack of Irish accent.

Crossover/Non-crossover: Another reference to mazes.

Loved the Ravi Shankar music accompanying the bad LSD trip. Lorne makes a reference to "transitive nightfall of diamonds," which made me think of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

Wesley Wyndham-Price is quite a bit like Percy Weasley, prefect at Hogwart's. Notice at the beginning Wes used the last name of Price, and that his crew members don't seem overly impressed by him.

Fred evidently watched horror movies with her dad as a kid, and might have been smoking pot while watching the X-files devotedly. There's not a lot to do in San Antonio. (Closed caption people? It's spelled San Antone, usually, when abbreviated.) And she confuses a cross with a metal detector!

Great episode, full of jokes and dread and tasty characterization.

[> [> And did anyone notice... -- Rook, 23:11:45 11/11/02 Mon

Fred's mentioning being asked if she wanted to be a florist on her "personality disorder test"?...a reference to Willow and Buffy's conversation from "What's My Line"

[> On alleyways and beautiful blond hookers -- alcibiades, 10:37:06 11/11/02 Mon

6. A twist on a favorite Joss theme: the helpless blonde in the alley turns out to be a hooker. Poor horny!Connor. And he was being all heroic and surly and stuff, too!

Actually it is more interesting than this -- this scene with the beautiful blond in the alley who turns out to be a hooker really parallels Angel's scene with beautiful blond Darla who turned out to be a hooker and a vampire.

Angel however pursued the blond into the alley with the explicit hope of sex, whereas Connor went into the alley to kick vampire ass and to save the beautiful blond and work at being a champion for which he did not expect a thanks.

[> [> Well that, and he was just pissed and working off steam -- Masq, 10:52:40 11/11/02 Mon

Which is what got me thinking about my Connor = Buffy parallel.

There's another blonde in the alley way scene, from "City Of..." where Angel the loner hero saves a blonde and then is tempted by the sight of her blood.

[> [> [> Re: Well that, and he was just pissed and working off steam -- Tess, 11:12:01 11/11/02 Mon

And there was another blonde in 'Innocence??' who was the first victim of Angelus' return.

[> [> [> [> Re: Well that, and he was just pissed and working off steam -- Masq, 11:26:38 11/11/02 Mon

She was probably a hooker, but I think she was brunette.

And that sinking his teeth all the way into her trachea and blowing out smoke. Ewwww!

[> Uhm a quick, albeit nit-picky but important correction. (Spoiler Tomorrow and Spin) -- shadowkat, 10:43:16 11/11/02 Mon

No one else seemed to pick this up, but it haunted me and I think it is important. And is one of the things I really loved about this episode.

"In the beginning, we only get Angel's confusion over the "Are we in love?" question. At the end, Cordelia's answer is "Yes", but why do I get the feeling she knows it can't go any further than that?"

Actually it was : "Were we in love?"
Cordy: "Yes. We were." Emphasis on the "WERE". Not "are", "were".

Very important distinction. Because if you compare with Tomorrow, Cordy couldn't wait to convey she loved him. Now?

The dialogue is also cleverly backended. The episode almost ends and begins with the same dialogue.

Lorne starts the episode, with the song "The Way We WERE" then goes into a monologue - It all started with a kid.
We start with Connor. Then he corrects himself and says actually starts with: Cordy asking Angel if they were in love and Angel not knowing the answer. He knows he had feelings for her but not her's for him. His explanation leads to two possibilities;
a) she'd say she loved him
b) she wanted to give him a restraining order and file sexual harrassment charges

This in turn reflects the two sides of Liam we see in the episode and the two sides of Cordy, it also is reflected in Connor.

Cordy leaves Connor's hideaway because Connor is beginning to want a bit more from their working relationship than Cordy is comfortable providing.

Cordy comes to Angel - asks what their relationship is. Angel states that whatever it was becoming - he misses the friendship most of all and wants that back. (Which btw felt like a parallel to Spike/buffy in Beneath You and other episodes, but was more out in the open.)

Later we see her in a towel and asking him why he feels he can just barge into her room.

What I get from Cordy is actually oddly similar to what I got from Buffy in HIM with respect to Spike, a combination of attraction and repulsion, fear and desire. Which works with the vampire metaphor. Connor plays a similar role in this episode as does Dawn in HIM, both are reflections of the adult's behavior or rather past behavior patterns.

Throughout the episode, Cordelia and Angel engage in an odd teenage dance of flirtation and chase. Cordy chases Liam.
Then when Liam discovers he's a vamp, Liam chases Cordy.
Liam's son saves Cordy by throwing Liam outside the family unit and through a window. The two men or boys engage in a fight, it does not feel like one to the death, and Cordy wisely escapes.

Later when Cordy regains all of her memory - there are three people present: Lorne (who knows her vision), Angel and Connor. The first thing she sees when she looks at Angel is the devil's face. She runs. He follows. He stops her, she begs him off. He pleads that she answer the question he's been yearning for.

Were we in love? - it is the exact same phrasing she uses at the beginning of the episode.
What did angel say? I don't know maybe, I was...
What does Cordy say? Yes. We were. (But it's changed now, whatever she's seen coupled with what she experienced, has made it clear to her that what she felt last year? Isn't
possible now.)

So what did she see in Angel that makes her say we were?
Again the chase.

In first portion of the episode Angel chases Cordy
When they lose memories of each other - Cordy chases Angel
When Angel realizes what he is and accepts it - he chases Cordy and she is repulsed and terrified.
When Cordy regains all her memories - she flees from him again, also repulsed and terrified and saddened.

And remember the song Lorne starts with? Memories...the theme song to the classic movie The WAY We WERE.
(It THE SUMMER PLACE theme music is about first love, The WAY WERE is about the adult love that couldn't work, the end of the romance, where we can only look back on the beauty and wonder wistfully why it never came to fruitation.)

My heart went out to them both in that scene and like you?
I'm not a A/C shipper either.

[> [> ugh. Spoilers for Him (Btvs 4.6) also longer than I thought. -- shadowkat, 10:45:31 11/11/02 Mon

[> [> Well, there is the thing.. (4.6 spoilies) -- Masq, 11:00:58 11/11/02 Mon

That Angel asks in the past tense, so Cordelia replies in the past tense.

Why does Angel ask in the past tense? Because Cordelia asked at the beginning of the episode in the past tense.

Why did Cordelia ask in the past tense? Because she has no memory of it, and it would just sound odd to say, "Are we in love"? when she doesn't have those memories.

I'm not a C/A shipper, but I think the whole "are/were" thing might just have that simpler explanation.

[> [> [> Although I prefer your explanation... more angsty : ) -- Masq, 11:10:06 11/11/02 Mon

[> [> [> The way we were.. (4.6 spoilies) -- shadowkat, 14:23:22 11/11/02 Mon

Maybe but what about the whole use of the song "The Way We Were?" which is also emphasized by taking the gang back to who they once were, then back again, with the memories of that innocence intact in the older more cynical minds?

I'm not positive about this - but I think Joss was doing a humorous (black humor) as well as angsty take on the idea of reflecting back on who you once were and what you once felt.

There's Fred/Gunn - who we see lying in bed, not together exactly, not apart, just side by side, in a state of pained shock and remorse/regret, possibly reliving the days prior to Seidel, reliving who they thought they were.

when Angel comes to the door, Fred is not pleased to see him and somewhat pointedly and irritably states: "What do you want."

Gunn has realized in his scene with Wes that he has little purpose outside of muscel in this group and hates it. But I also saw a regret for the passing of his friendship and light banter with Wes. In their highschool states they are harmlessly fighting each other. But before they lost their memories and regressed - Wes showed Gunn he had no compunctions about killing him and unlike Gunn felt no need to hide what he was capable of. Gunn does hide it from Wes.
Gunn seems to miss what once was. "What happened t