October 2003 posts
Hello
Mr Fries (Angel Odyssey 5.1)(sp 5.1) -- Tchaikovsky, 09:53:22
10/06/03 Mon
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.
-William Blake
'Love is sacrifice'
'To sacrifice a loved one or pet, press the pound key'
-Edlund and Whedon-work
Hello everyone.
Oooh, guess what? I've seen Angel 5.1! To explain, I live in England,
and the earliest I've ever seen an episode of Buffy or Angel after
it was broadcast in America is about six months. Until now. A
certain board member named aliera has sent me across the Atlantic
a copy of the fifth Season premiere of Angel, and so I've already
watched it, less than a week after it aired on the WB. And complete
with the WB's extraordinarily lengthy advert breaks. The thing
with those breaks is, they let me write on my envelope. And notes
lead to paragraphs, and paragraphs lead to dissertations...
So I'm feeling a little out of the loop of normal time at the
moment. Maybe it's this feeling of timelessness that led me to
the conclusion that 43 minutes of television held in microcosm
eternity. Or maybe it was those funny mushrooms. Quick, maintain
dignity, a title...
5.1- 'Conviction'
I've managed to remain largely unspoiled for this Season of Angel,
but one evening that I was less successful than most was at the
Board Meeting in London in July. Don't get me wrong, it was a
fantastic (and lengthy) evening. But at one point, a certain yabyumpan,
(who will remain nameless) offered the sides for 5.1. Between
her and Rahael what could I do? In any case, discussing a certain
element in one of the scenes, Rah contended 'It's very Miltonian.
Very Blake-ian'. And the more I saw of the episode, the more those
couple of sentences reverberated inside my head. There's a religious
subtext very close to the text in this episode, and of course,
justice, vengeance, Chosen people, the enemy, and all the usual
Old Testament paraphernalia.
I was reading a preface to Milton's collected works the other
day, and much was made at his time in history of the three events
in Christianity which were considered to shape the whole elastic
band of human existence. These were, I I recall correctly; The
Fall, Jesus' birth, and Judgement Day. In this episode, there
are definite aspects of each of the three, and the interplay of
other religious themes, some of which have been expertly discussed
by scroll, fresne and Valheru, amongst others, led me to attempt
this review tracing through Christian history. Here's an attempt:
In the beginning...
If last Season was 'Before the Bang, Before the Word', then this
Season of Angel also appears to be heading the wrong way up the
temporal highway. At least for a minute or two. Asd in 'City of...'
we start with a helpless girl in an alleyway, saved by Angel in
cool Dark Avenger style-y. The words 'I help the helpless' are
plastered all over the scene. Until it's rudely interrupted by
the present. Angel's view of himself is suddenly overturned, and
we are left with the comparison of him and the helpless blonde
girl herself. Angel ends up gibbering at the bureaucracy of the
salvage operation, as helpless as the girl in front of the vampire.
People are crazy, times are strange, and temptation's on the way.
Falling Angel
It's very interesting how the apple which Eve gives to Angel is
used. There's been a little talk about 'Lilah's' proximity to
'Lilith' as a name, and how Eve was a later wife. This certainly
doesn't say much for the portrayal of early woman, if Lilah and
Eve represent between them two of the first women to walk the
planet. They are both seductresses, wily and disingenuous. The
Lilith-Lilah connection I'm not sure about, but the Eve-Eve is
irrefutable. Although there's also Eve-l, which shouldn't be discounted.
U'd like to put in a word of praise for Eve, who's got rather
short shrift. There's a touch more innocence about her than Lilah.
Whereas Lilah was dangerous and powerful, there's just an element
of simple charm about Eve which was one thing Lilah didn't possess.
I think this could be a valuable weapon, that of primitive temptation.
Of course, her first mission is to challenge Angel as to whether
he's afraid, and he responds by very deliberately, knowingly,
taking a bite out of the Apple. Of course, the apple grants the
Knowledge of Right and Wrong, and the ability to choose. Angel's
decision is not dissimilar to his killing of Jasmine in 'Peace
Out'- it establishes the possibility of free will, and demands
the strength of character from his team that they can both acknowledge
evil and fight it. It's simple to dismiss Angel's takeover of
Wolfram and Hart as the wrong one, but Angel's apple makes the
point that he goes in with his eyes open, aware of the imperfections
in the world, outside the Eden of the Hyperion, in the big, bright
jaguar-filled world of Wolfram and Hart.
The Chosen People
There's a lot of fascinating suggestions about Abraham's tribe
in this episode, mainly covered by scroll and fresne. I think
it's fair to say that the Abraham thing could have been levied
at Angel since 'Amends', but a couple of aspects of this episode
cement it. Remember that Angel survived in 'Amends' because of
the Hope that the Powers that Be sent him. Then Doyle and Cordelia
were chosen to bear visions from them. Angel was truly the God's
chosen, so much so that, were Angehal not compromising the pun
about heavenly messengers, his name might have changed. And now
we see our chosen people, sans Cordelia, in a strange land. And
how shall they sing the Lord's song?
A couple of little visual tricks do beautifully for this symbolism.
At the beginning of the second act we see Angel, Wesley and Fred
in the office, but shot through a trinagular pane of glass. The
distance is exaggerated by the geometric non-tesselation with
the television screen, and we are made to feel very much the outsider.
They were chosen, but what are they doing here, controlling this
office?
Also, we have the long, beautiful shot which has been commented
on extensively. This connects all the members of the Gang. First
we see Fred chatting to Wesley, who's then joined by Gunn, (cricket
reference number two in both series, hooray and cf 'Graduation
Day, One'), and then we see Lorne and finally Angel. They connect
through the shot. And of course we see the bussle of the place.
There seems to be little friction between the group. In particular,
Wesley and Gunn are getting on like blood brothers. We wonder
whether the whole section about Angel's child ever happened, and
how Wesley, in his own mind, has ended up where he is today.
If Connor is forgotten by the rest of the one-time Angel Investigations
though, he's certainly not by Whedon or Angel, and this fact is
demonstrated neatly towards the middle of the episode.
The Immaculate Conception
Well, a vampire gave birth, a Miracle happened, (Angel's second),
and Connor existed. He prematurely aged in a hell-dimension came
back to earth alienated from his other-than-human Father, slept
with his erstwhile near-lover, worshipped a demiurge and was killed
to save his life. You're run-on sentences are getting much
less pointless In this episode, we have all sorts of questions
about Fathers putting sons in danger. And we're made ot ask: for
whom did Angel adjust Connor's life.
God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son
Connor's sacrifice left Angel spritely enough to crack jokes in
Sunnydale, and he seems relatively upbeat if a little uncomfortable
at Wolfram and Hart until he hears about Corbin Fries' son, having
a virus plated on him. Fries would be so irritated by the world
if he lost the trial that he'd use his son to destroy something
he can't bear, the hope of Childhood. And what does Angel think?
'Was I saving Connor's life, or was I sacrificing him to make
me view of a world come true'.
Connor is certainly hinted as being both Isaac and Jesus in this
episode. We get the wonderful, near-throw away line 'For goats,
press one, or say goats'. But after we've stopped giggling, we
get the darker, 'To sacrifice a loved one or pet, press the pound
key'. This, Angel broods, is what he has done. Offered Isaac up
as a ritual sacrifice to the Powers that Be. And unlike the Jealous
God of the Old Testament, they have accepted.
The Second Coming
Meanwhile, towards the end of the episode, we get the return of
a character whose last pose was Messianic, being burnt up in soulful
sunlight, dying so that the world might live. Spike's return is
of course a second coming, and he will be seen be some as Saviour
of the Show, (and perhaps, by others, not so ;-)) Spike is some
kind of a brother to Connor, and so we think about Connor as Jesus
to Angel's Father God. 'Father, take this cup away from me'. You
can't be saved by a lie The reluctant bastard Ishmael returns
to be what Connor can't be. And Angel broods once more.
Judgement Day
Which leaves the end of time. It might have been for some parts
of Los Angeles if Fries hadn't got off with murder. And yet he
is saved, oddly, by a new spiffy-looking Gunn. But just exactly
who is riding into judgement in the scene? With the Judge herself
implacated as incompetent by some fancy legal trickery, we are
left with a question of just who holds our souls in the balance,
and decides whether we are good or bad. It's all to do with Conviction.
Hauser is pure because he believes in something. And yet, as we've
seen from the Merciful God of the Old Testament, there's one thing
stronger than blood and thunder. The one thing that's stronger
than conviction, and that's mercy. The irony as Angel shows his
first signs of noir-ness in his new job is palpable and interesting.
Just exactly who is the boss here? What is our mission, and who
is our God? Where is the enemy?
Apocrypha
And here's the other stuff which didn't fit into the whole span
of Time.
-Angel's answer to the question 'Who are you?', 'Doesn't matter',
is an interesting, propbably unintended echo of the magnificent
'The House Always Wins', where, in a moment of passing
interest, we get Connor's answer to the same question 'Don't know
yet'. Does Angel's response hint not only at his own questionable
identity in his new job, but also to where exactly Connor lies
in all this?
-Science is being played with again, and people's moral neutrality
as scientists in particular. Knox seems taken aback by the idea
that he could be considered morally reprehensible for his actions,
even going as far as to use the utilitarian argument that they've
controlled more virii than they've let loose. Prepare for more
puzzles about just how the morality of science fits into this
heavily Religious Philosophical new show.
-The introductions see the Fang Gang more or less comfortable
in their new environment. Lorne seems happiest of all, for the
moment. The point where the girl sings to the empath is as undoubtedly
a metanarration on 'American Idol' as the other classic metanarrations
in this episode. We see the talentless singing to the talented,
only to be told they're useless. The utter pointlessness of it
all is amply demonstrated in those few seconds.
-There's an excellent piece of camerawork as Wesley is Gunn's
doubling shadow as he walks out of his office at one point. Wes
is the devil on the shoulder, the reflection in the mirror making
him wonder whether his every move is right or wrong.
-There's a moment where it looks like Joss might break with tradition
and give Harmony a moment of pathos, when she hears Cordelia is
in a coma. Cordelia means more to her than anyone else, (except
perhaps Spike), and she genuinely almost breaks down. Then, in
a nod to Disharmony she goes back to her opportunism, reminding
us she is a soulless vampire.
-Spanky was a very fun one-time character who I really enjoyed.
-There's a loss of innocence vibe going through the whole classroom
scenario. Of course, the child isn't innocent at all, he's talking
about the Punisher, but my mind sprung back, particularly after
the Goat Sacrifice line, to 11 year old Isaac being sacrificed
for Abraham's principled devotion to his God. One of the scariest
of Yahweh's games, and weirdly unsquarable with the later God,
to me as an agnostic at least.
-We see Fred getting angry at the science department, and at the
same time there's Hauser subverting Angel's plans. Maybe Fred's
method of leadership, straight out non-brooding anger, is shown
to be the best option here. But then, like all Whedon episodes,
we get the reversal where Angel's forceful commands ends in Hauser's
death.
-Tradition is a word used towards the end, and a fascinating one.
Angel has broken with his tradition, and yet Hauser's blind following
of tradition, his refusal of upheaval, is equally as potentially
damaging, as they almost take out a class of children. There is
no easy answer to Tradition vs Innovation here, other than both
can be dangerous.
-And so we wonder about Gunn. He has the most 'potential' of the
bunch, a sly metanarration on his underuse in previous Seasons.
He seems unperturbed by the operation, certain that it is 'still
him'. But this sudden change, the medical one to Angel's philosophical,
is going to be more complicated than it appears.
-And so to 'The Pirates of Penzance', and back to England, where
the rain falls, and there's no Angel until January for all but
the lucky few. To skip forward timelessly from 1890 to 1960, I'm
singing in the rain.
Great episode, maybe a little behind 'Deep Down', but up there
with 'Judgement' and 'Heartthrob'. Angel remains with a 100% excellent
premiere rate.
Thanks aliera.
In nomine Patris, Filii et Spiritu, Amen.
TCH
Replies:
[> He's back! -- Masq, 10:11:40 10/06/03 Mon
And I managed to get my episode analysis up before he did! All
is once again right with the world.
Off to read TCH's analysis....
[> [> But, but... -- Tchaikovsky, 10:16:48 10/06/03
Mon
It's not fair!
Even with aliera's extraordinarily clinical sending, I can't see
the episodes before Monday of the week after.
You better watch yourself. One slipped weekend and I'll be there
first...;-)
TCH- preserving, preserving, preserving
[> [> [> Re: But, but... (minor 5.1 spoilers)
-- Masq, 11:31:25 10/06/03 Mon
It could have gone very differently, though. I was on the ball
this weekend and had some enthusiasm about the ep, so I did my
analysis. But you remember how traumatized I was by "Home".
If they had failed to mention the "C" word(s) and the
memory mojo, it might have taken me four more months to get my
"Conviction" analysis up.
So the little "Yeah, me!" at your expense was more about
me than you. I'm happy, happy you are able to see the new eps
as they come out and that somehow you don't have a problem with
non-PAL formatted tapes.
'Cause of the salty TCH goodness!
[> That was fab! -- Ponygirl, 10:14:28 10/06/03 Mon
What a treat to see the Odyssey beginning! Wish I was feeling
more coherent so I could comment but for now great work!
[> [> Agree, so glad you're continuing the Odyssey!
-- Scroll, 13:05:58 10/07/03 Tue
I'm just running out the door now but hopefully this thread will
still be here when I get back. Especially love the Judgement Day
stuff. I find I'm actually quite excited about the new season,
which I didn't expect after "Home" and a summer of denial
and avoidance. Reading people's analyses is getting me pumped
up again. Whoo-hoo!
[> [> All I can say is wow.. -- jane, 22:20:02
10/07/03 Tue
What a fascinating thread this is! Thank you,TCH,Diana, Masq.
for sharing your insights with us. I think this season is going
to be very, very interesting. Your analyses promise hours of lovely
post episode reading. I look forward to it with much anticipation.
[> The human heart, its hungry gorge (Spoilers, Conviction)
-- Rahael, 11:48:54 10/06/03 Mon
Brilliant analysis, TCH, brilliant.
I have lots of incoherent thoughts bubbling up after reading your
review. Needless to say I'm very excited about seeing this ep
now. I thought I was going to be apathetic about this Season.
Glad you are going to be doing your Odyssey (thanks Aliera!).
(You know, a lot of my incoherent thoughts keep going back to
Merchant of Venice. Law courts and Lawyers. (Portia pretends to
be a lawyer when she gives her speech. Her invocation of Mercy,
to me at least, is tinged with irony.) The Pound of Flesh, the
blood that is not part of the bargain. But perhaps it's not relevant
at all).
Angel rejects Jasmine. Steps into an uncertain world. He has lost
conviction. Unpredictable, lost, accepting temptation. Has left
the Eden of of Jasmine's Garden. Is his sacrifice of Connor an
act of faith? Or does the parallels between Abraham and Angel
simply highlight the disjunctures. An act born out of despair,
disillusion. Connor, who never believed the lie, who died fighting.
Cordelia, laid out on the alter - Connor's despairing, haunting
speech.
Angel does not kill Connor for truth, but for another kind of
Lie. Will this season show him truth? Milton says that he did
not respect untested virtue, cloistered, unbreathed. It must sally
out. It must be tempted. It must choose. Because God exists in
Trial, in choice. Reason is but choosing, and God is reason.
Milton likens God to Light, in Samson Agonistes. But the darkness
is a metaphor. The blindness of the mind, not physical blindness.
What does it mean, that Angel rides about now, in daylight? It's
almost a paradox, that Angel, that thing of Darkness, that outcast
of God, now emerges into the light, while seeming, to sin. Samson
scorns Dalilah (when reading the actual poem, the name has to
be pronounced Da-le-lah, not Da-ly-la btw), saying that compared
to the temptation she offers, the grand future, the prison he
lives in is a House of Liberty.
Has this Samson accepted the temptation that Milton's did not?
Or, is this Samson, going to bring down the house, just taking
longer to do it (well, AtS S4 will have to cover 22 eps, after
all)?
One might note that while Milton wrote of the blind hero who never
yielded, never crumbled, never accepted temptation, he himself,
blinded and scorned, similarly, paid a ransom to the monarchy
he detested, and lived.
"It's Joanie loves Chachi meets the Sorrow and the Pity.
It's Joanie loves pity!"
Lorne
Innocence....and Experience... The Apple, the loss of Eden, may
perhaps also stand for journey between Innocence and Experience.
Blake seems incredibly apposite, and Angel, is something that
belongs neither on earth or heaven. He is a thing, tortured in
the space in between. The deep ambiguity. I sometimes quote poetry
because it seems like a nice thing to do. This time, it's because
it's the entire point of my post:
The Divine Image
To Mercy, Pity, Peace and Love
All pray in their distress;
And to these virtues of delight
Return their thankfulness.
For Mercy, Pity, Peace and Love
Is God, our father dear,
And Mercy, Pity, Peace and Love
Is man, his child and care.
For Mercy has a human heart,
Pity a human face,
And Love the human form divine,
And Peace the human dress.
Then every man, of every clime
That prays in his distress,
Prays to the human form divine
Love, Mercy, Pity, Peace.
And all must love the human form,
In heathen, Turk or Jew;
Where Mercy, Love and Pity dwell
There God is dwelling too.
Blake
A Divine Image
Cruelty has a Human Heart
And Jealousy a Human Face
Terror, the Human Form Divine
And Secrecy, the Human Dress
The Human Dress, is forged Iron
The Human Form, a fiery Forge.
The Human Face, a Furnace seal'd
The Human Heart, its hungry Gorge.
Blake
[> [> One question -- Tchaikovsky, 06:06:26 10/07/03
Tue
Hooray, the board's back.
The two poems you quote. Is one from the collection 'Innocence'
and one 'Experience'. I should remember, but I don't have a copy
of the two collections on me. They seem like Blake's usual duality.
'The Tyger' against 'The Lamb', and 'Little Girl Lost' against
'Little Girl Found', and indeed the occasional (deliberate) naivety
(or just simple-ness?) of Auguries of Innocence against the much
more confused, French-Revolution-Crushed Auguries of Experience.
And thank you.
TCH
[> [> [> Yes; first from Songs of Innocence, the second,
Experience -- Rahael, 06:25:35 10/07/03 Tue
[> Apples, Epiphanies and Promises (spoilers 5.01) --
Diana, 05:56:53 10/07/03 Tue
The Apple
Eve's apple in "Conviction" is a bit different from
the apple that Eve gave Adam in Genesis and to me this difference
is very important. Eve, in the Bible, gives Adam the fruit of
the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They eat from it and they
develop shame. This apple, in essence activates our conscience,
because once we know what is good and what is evil, we begin to
judge things accordingly. They feel shame for the first time.
In "Conviction" Eve doesn't offer this apple. It is
figuring out what is good and what is evil that will keep the
gang from being corrupted. Instead Eve gives them the apple of
the Knowledge of Evil. She is giving them evil's secrets, but
and here's the catch (and I'm letting you know the catch so you
don't wonder what it is), they have to let some of it slide. This
reminded me of "The Ring" when Lilah offers a deal to
Angel. The difference now is that there is no external restriction
imposed on Angel by Wolfram and Hart. He has to use his judgment
to decide which cases to squash and which to let slide.
We can take this back to the story of the Original fall in the
Bible. Per the Catechism "The tree of knowledge of good and
evil symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits of man, being
a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man
is dependent on his Creator and subject to the laws of creation
and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom." (paragraph
396) In the atheist Buffyverse, where a real God (not the faux
one like Glory) in essence betrayed us, there is no Creator to
depend on. Angel has insurmountable limits (he's not omni anything),
but has to find a way to deal with those. The gang is given the
secrets of evil without the corresponding secrets of good. They
will have to figure those out for themselves.
Fries was dealt with using the knowledge the firm provided, BUT
Hauser was dealt with by Angel figuring out one of the secrets
of good, namely the power of mercy. I can see future episodes
following this trend with the knowledge gained from evil solving
the case, but their experience giving them a greater understanding
of good and applying that to not save the day, but their souls.
It is the reverse of BtVS, where she would have the psychological
revelation and then slay the demon that represented this. Instead
the gang will deal with the problem and then have the psychological/spiritual
revelation. It is in learning that the problem isn't the real
problem and how to deal with this that their evolution will be.
Who are you?
I saw this echoing not Connor, but Angel's original Epiphany where
he learned about what matters. He is trying to return back to
that in order to insulate himself against the temptation he will
face. It is clinging to the epiphany, in which there is no big
picture and all that matters are small acts of kindness that will
save him. He isn't the one that saved California from the plague.
His small act of kindness in not killing the other Operative guy
did prevent him from going down the path to darkness.
Isaac and promises
God doesn't ask for the sacrifice of a human being. He asks for
Abraham to give up his miracle and trust that God will still fulfill
his promise to him. It isn't about what Abraham is willing to
give up, but what sort of Faith he has in God's promises. That
is why we speak about the Faith of Abraham. Jesus, like Isaac,
is the vehicle that God uses to fulfill a promise. In the case
of Isaac the sacrifice is made by Abraham and once Abraham has
demonstrated that he is willing to make the sacrifice, the death
of the child is not necessary. In the case of Jesus, the sacrifice
is made by God himself. There is no point, short of death, that
God can demonstrate what he needs to. As such, Isaac could live
and Jesus had to die.
[> [> Interesting stuff (sp 5.1) -- Tchaikovsky,
06:14:10 10/07/03 Tue
Are you saying that Angel killing Hauser was in itself an act
of mercy? Or merely that letting the second operative guy go was
an act of mercy. The latter I can see- the former I'm having trouble
grasping- I took Angel's 'mercy' line as being ironic to his action
rather than complementary.
As to Isaac, I agree. I still find it marvellously incongruous
that the God of the New Testament would make Abraham make himself
ready to sacrifice the one thing he wanted more than anything.
It's almost like an old-style 'Who do you love more?' thing. And
while, as some scary religious self-help books I've read proclaim
'God first. The family second. Yourself third,' it's interesting
to see just how wrenching this prioritisation can be when two
are put in direct conflict.
TCH
[> [> [> Re: Interesting stuff (sp 5.1) -- Diana,
06:42:52 10/07/03 Tue
Are you saying that Angel killing Hauser was in itself an act
of mercy? Or merely that letting the second operative guy go was
an act of mercy. The latter I can see- the former I'm having trouble
grasping- I took Angel's 'mercy' line as being ironic to his action
rather than complementary.
I saw it as the second. The line that follows is "You just
saw the last of it." Some people are seeing this as Angel
giving up on Mercy in general. Instead I see that line directed
to *you* that one guy. He has seen the last of it. Next time he
screws up, it will be his brain splattered all over the wall.
This line is a correction of an earlier one, "If they wanna
see how I handle running Wolfram & Hart, they're gonna find out.
Everything must go!" At the end, this guy in Angel's act
of mercy isn't going. I didn't see it as Angel's impression of
Gandhi, but rather how Angel learned to deal with his circumstances
and still maintain who he is. Saved by an Equalizer.
I still find it marvellously incongruous that the God of the
New Testament would make Abraham make himself ready to sacrifice
the one thing he wanted more than anything. It's almost like an
old-style 'Who do you love more?' thing.
Depends on how you view the sacrifice. Being willing to sacrifice
Isaac proved Abraham's Faith and Love, but who was he proving
it to? An omnisicent God would already know. Abraham was the one
that didn't and I'm sure it left quite an impression on Isaac.
Per "Hero" we don't know how strong we are until we
are tested. Isaac saw first hand just how strong his father's
devotion to god was, what this meant and that God loved him enough
to save him.
[> [> [> [> Excellent -- Tchaikovsky, 03:51:20
10/08/03 Wed
The story of Abraham's proposed sacrifice of Isaac has puzzled
me for ages, and this is the first time I've found an explanation
which I can understand- of Abraham showing his love and trust
in God for Isaac's sake. Thank you.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks -- Diana, 09:07:05
10/08/03 Wed
When I look at Biblical myths, I ask why is this story included.
Not just what lesson is taught, but why is that lesson taught.
The story of Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac is given to show
the strength of his Faith. It forms the very foundation of the
religion and is so important that the updated version, the sacrifice
of Jesus, forms the foundation of Christianity (which completely
fits because Christianity takes the promises God made to Abraham
and reorders them to an afterlife, so as Abraham educated his
heir on earth, this is reorded to heaven by Jesus unlocking the
Kingdom). The story of these sacrifices were stories that were
passed down from witnesses. In this case, the witness is Isaac.
It isn't just a story that happened, but one that got passed down.
It got passed down because it made an impression on that witness.
Abraham cutting off his genitals before Isaac was conceived wouldn't
have had the same impact. Hey, Isaac guess what your old man almost
did? Abraham wasn't asked to sacrifice infant Isaac. Isaac was
of an age where he understood somewhat what was going on. Wouldn't
you have loved to hear the Father/son conversation that followed?
When Abraham is willing to sacrifice Isaac, the Angel of God tells
him "becaue you have done this, and have not withheld your
son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will make your
offspring..." The key to the promise of God is offspring
and those offspring will flow through Isaac who just got quite
an education. Abraham just gave Isaac his Faith, a Faith that
sustains the Children of Israel to this very day.
Isaac was both sacrifice and witness. Comparisons of Connor to
Isaac fail at this point because Connor isn't a witness. He isn't
in the line of Patriarchs who pass the stories down to the next
generation, perhaps a father's most important job. This isn't
just because of the memory wipe, but because of why the memory
wipe was necessary. There is no bond between Angel and Connor
where on the way home, Angel could explain to Connor why he had
to give him up and Connor would accept and understand. How can
Connor be in the line of Patriarchs if he doesn't understand the
Faith the stories are built on?
[> [> [> [> mercy -- Miyu tVP, 12:28:04
10/08/03 Wed
Some people are seeing this as Angel giving up on Mercy in
general. Instead I see that line directed to *you* that one guy.
I'm sorry, but I still see this scene as the end of Angel's mercy,
not an expression of it. We are not shown Angel pointing a gun
at the 2nd guy and then choosing not to fire. The 2nd guy does
not express relief that Hauser was killed instead of him - he
expresses terror at seeing Hauser's brains blown out by a guy
who just a moment before was spouting mercy.
The name of the ep is Conviction. In the climactic scene, conviction
and mercy are set up in a sort of dichotomy. Then we see Angel
perform a dramatically violent act of conviction, explicitly state
that mercy is over, and then back in his office begins to assert
his conviction that they *will* handle W&H.
That plus the Punisher tie in tells me that conviction is winning
out over mercy.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: mercy -- Tom, 20:18:43
10/08/03 Wed
I think the beauty of the line is that it could be taken either
way. Joss is being delibrately unclear about Angel's meaning.
Tom
[> [> [> [> [> [> Stepping in to agree with
Tom, the meaning is unclear and unsettling..........;) --
Rufus, 22:36:03 10/08/03 Wed
[> Re: Hello Mr Fries (Angel Odyssey 5.1)(sp 5.1) --
aliera, 08:23:44 10/07/03 Tue
I think you underestimate how much this was my pleasure since
I didn't have to wait six months to get your review of it, but
you're very welcome. I haven't been lucky enough to access the
board until just now, and I knew this was coming... so, yesterday
was pretty well... let's just say my anticipation has peaked.
[> Responses and thoughts -- Masq, 10:42:22 10/07/03
Tue
1. I like your thoughts on Angel's biting the apple; mind if I
quote you on my site?
2. Offered Isaac up as a ritual sacrifice to the Powers that
Be. And unlike the Jealous God of the Old Testament, they have
accepted.
Are you sure it's an offer to the PTB's and not the Senior Partners?
After all, Angel cut the deal to give Connor a new life with Lilah,
the SP's liason, not the PTBs. And it was W&H who gave Connor
the new life. Rahael and I were speculating the other day that
if Angel did leave Wolfram and Hart, W&H might reverse the new
life/memory mojo spell and put Connor right back where he was,
emotionally (if not physically) when Angel invoked the spell.
3. Prepare for more puzzles about just how the morality of
science fits into this heavily Religious Philosophical new show.
This is one of the more fascinating philosophical aspects of their
new situation (Fred's in particular) that I comment on briefly
in my ep analysis. The science division's whole "I was just
following orders"/opportunistic approach to their jobs. The
bosses tell them what to produce, they just do the producing.
Is there any real soul-searching here? I just recently rewatched
the movie "Real Genius", a comedy, but one that really
puts the question forth. Science nerds doing research that is
one step back from actual engineering application, just doing
what their prof asks them to do without thinking about how it
will be used, "loving the puzzles" of science for puzzle-solving's
sake, until they are hit squarely in the face with what the finished
puzzle is sent into the world to do.
Crunchy philosophical goodness might ensue.
4. The introductions see the Fang Gang more or less comfortable
in their new environment.
I saw just the opposite going on. I saw a huge veil of discomfort
hanging over all of them, and as they got deeper into their jobs,
a kind of heavy despair hung between them, some hope, but a lot
of doubt--about what they were doing there in the first place,
about what they could hope to accomplish there, about whether
they could accomplish it. It gets worse as they see the odds they
are up against. The Senior Partner's expectations, the employee's
loyalities. The sheer evil of the clients.
[> [> Ow...Now there's a badly written sentence for you
-- Tchaikovsky, 03:59:07 10/08/03 Wed
The introductions see the Fang Gang more or less comfortable
in their new environment.
What I meant to say was: 'The introductions see members of the
Fang Gang at different degrees of comfort in their new environment'.
In other words, we go from Lorne at one end, to Gunn to Fred to
Wesley. So, yes, I agree with you about all the discomfort lying
over them, to a greater or lesser degree.
Are you sure it's an offer to the PTB's and not the Senior
Partners?
That would be an excellent twist- not one that I'd considered
for some reason. And yes, if Angel did walk out on the firm, maybe
Connor's spell would be reversed. I'd be fascinated to see a well-written
Connor/Spike episode comparing the treatment their father had
given them. Preferably written by Steven DeKnight. Not that I
want wither of them dead, but he's just such an interesting writer.
mind if I quote you on my site?
I would of course be honoured.
TCH
[> [> [> Connor as sacrifice -- Diana, 09:26:40
10/08/03 Wed
Angel gave up Connor, sacrificed him, but to what? To whom was
Angel proving something? The answer to that comes in "Home."
Angel did it to prove his love for Connor. It was Connor that
needed to see this, but Connor with the memory wipe will never
see this. Connor is both the sacrifice and the one he is sacrificed
to, much as Jesus was. This makes Angel, God the Father; Connor
becomes God the Son (the miracle child whose conception was impossible);
now all we need is Holy Spirit/Ghost and the Trinity will be complete.
Because Angel's friends don't remember his sacrifice of his son,
they don't know the depth of his love or what he is capable of.
Why else would Wolfram & Hart not want them to remember this?
Even Cordy and Doyle knew about IWRY. Now there is no one that
knows that day other than Angel.
[> [> [> [> How was Connor a sacrifice? --
sdev, 10:41:17 10/08/03 Wed
Redeemed, rescued, rehabilitated, but how sacrificed? To what?
For what?
Is the sacrifice that Angel had to give him up? Then that is Angel's
sacrifice.
Can someone please explain this view.
Also Muslims who claim descent from Ishmael might take issue with
his portrayal as a bastard son. Concubines had legitimate standing
in those days.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: How was Connor a sacrifice?
-- Miyu tVP, 11:49:33 10/08/03 Wed
sacrifice:
1. Forfeiture of something highly valued
2. Something so forfeited.
Connor *is* the sacrifice, in that he is the "thing highly
valued" that Angel is forfeiting from his life. Connor is
the person to whom the sacrifice is made in that Connor is the
one who benefits from Angel's loss. Angel gives up having a relationship
with his son, so that his son will be happy. This is how I understand
it.
Which is different that saying Connor *made* a sacrfice. As he
has no choice in the events, it wouldn't work to say that he has
given up anything. Some (cough-Masq-cough) might say that something
was *taken* from him (potential for redemption) but that is not
something he consciously decided to give away. So, no he didn't
make a sacrifice, but yes, he is a sacrfice, and was also the
benefactor of said sacrifice.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Sacrifices------And a SPOILER
for tonight's episode after spoiler space. -- Arethusa, 12:15:13
10/08/03 Wed
But in the Biblical sense, Connor wasn't a sacrifice, unlike Isaac,
who definitely was.
1 : an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially
: the killing of a victim on an altar
2 : something offered in sacrifice
3 a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something
else
(Mirriam Webster On-Line)
Also, according to the angel of God, God wanted proof of Abraham's
fear of God. I don't think that's quite the same thing
as faith. For example, someone who followed Hitler out of fear
wouldn't necessarily share his beliefs in white supremecy. Although
one might say Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac in return for
something else-immortality of a sort-countless generations of
descendents.
"11": And the angel of the LORD called unto him out
of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
"12": And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad,
neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest
God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from
me.
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/kjv2www?specfile=/texts/english/religion/kjv/kjv-pub.o2w&act=text&offset=3001797&textreg=0&query=+Isaac
Spoiler Below for tonight's episode:
Does this Trinity theory mean Spike's the Holy Ghost?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sacrifices (with
no spoilers) -- Diana, 12:43:07 10/08/03 Wed
Fear didn't mean then what it means now. (I only learned this
because of a class I took with Father DiLella, O.F.M. Etymology
is fun ). Abraham doesn't do it because he is scared what God
will do to him if he doesn't. It is more a sense of reverence
and awe. That is a cornerstone to Faith, so much so that it is
one of the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit (per Isaiah 11:2) In
the Vulgate and the Septuagint, fear of the Lord is even translated
as piety.
The NAB translates Gen 22:12 "I know now how devoted you
are to God."
As for who will play the Holy Ghost, that is probably where ME
will put their own spin on the Trinity. Have to see what they
do first. Then I'll post until my fingers bleed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sacrifices
(with no spoilers) -- Arethusa, 12:51:54 10/09/03 Thu
So fear doesn't mean fear, except when it does. Does this mean
that when the Bible says
"2": And the fear of you and the dread of you shall
be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air,
upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of
the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
it really means reverence of Adam, and that reverence and dread
are the same thing?
How about when God says to Abraham:
"1": After these things the word of the LORD came unto
Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and
thy exceeding great reward.
Does that really mean Abraham shouldn't reverence God? After all,
this is the same time as before, so the meaning should be the
same.
And when Abraham said Sarah was his sister so the local ruler
would sleep with her without killing him first, did he really
mean he reverenced to say?
"7": And the men of the place asked him of his wife;
and he said, She is my sister: for he feared to say, She is my
wife; lest, said he, the men of the place should kill me for Rebekah;
because she was fair to look upon.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And again
with the correcting -- Arethusa, 14:56:20 10/09/03 Thu
The last quote was re. Isaac and Rebekah, not Abraham and Sarah
(although the exact same thing happened with Abraham, twice I
believe). You can really see the oral tradition (repetition to
aid memory) with Genesis, can't you?)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That
is what context is for, that and Hebrew -- Diana, 08:08:04
10/10/03 Fri
We can debate how fear was used in regards to Abraham in this
particular instance. I was taught by various biblical scholars,
including Father DiLella, O.F.M. who oversaw the NRSV, that in
this instance fear meant awe and reverence, not scared of. Just
because fear means scared of in other places doesn't mean it does
here.
We can play dueling Biblical scholars if you want (sound of banjoes
heard in background). I'd be willing to stack up anyone from the
Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, such as Father Lawrence
Boadt, C.S.P. and John Dominic Crossan, S.S.L.
I'm sure that our Jewish posters could give their interpretation
of this event and the actual words used as well.
Abraham obeying God because he is scared would destroy the story.
From the Catechism 144-146
144. "To obey (from the Latin ob-audire, to 'hear or listen
to') in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard,
because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself. Abraham
is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture.
The Virgin Mary is its most perfect embodiment."
145. "The Letter to the Hebrews, in its great eulogy of the
faith of Israel's ancestors, lays special emphasis on Abraham's
faith: 'By faith, Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out
to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went
out, not knowing where he was to go.'[Heb 11:8 ; cf. Gen 12:1-4
.] By faith, he lived as a stranger and pilgrim in the promised
land.[Cf. Gen 23:4 .] By faith, Sarah was given to conceive the
son of the promise. And by faith Abraham offered his only son
in sacrifice.[Cf. Heb 11:17 .]"
146. "Abraham thus fulfils the definition of faith in Hebrews
11:1: 'Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction
of things not seen':[Heb 11:1 .] 'Abraham believed God, and it
was reckoned to him as righteousness.'[Rom 4:3 ; cf. Gen 15:6
.] Because he was 'strong in his faith', Abraham became the 'father
of all who believe'.[Rom 4:11, 18 ; Rom 4:20 ; cf. Gen 15:5 .]"
Not by being scared. By FAITH. If he was scared, his submittance
wouldn't be free and the entire religion would be built on not
love, but the boogie man. Perhaps that is your God, but it isn't
the one I was raised with nor am teaching my children.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Tribes
-- Arethusa, 09:41:48 10/10/03 Fri
Abraham obeying God because he is scared would destroy the
story.
Yes. That's the point.
Surely you know by now I don't have a god, so I don't worry about
whether it's benevolent or malevolent. My perspective is not that
of a Catholic priest-it's closer to that of Joseph Campbell. Coincidentally,
I just read this passage from Transformations of Myth Through
Time.
"...Martin Buber was talking about the Phoenicians and what
terrible criminals they were in sacrificing their older sons to
Moloch. Aour fifteen minutes later he comes to Abraham about to
sacrifice Isaac. Well, you can't let a thing like that go by and
I raised my hand. He looked at me...and I said, "Dr. Buber,
how do you distinguish between a divine and a diabolical invitation?"
He said, "What do you mean by that?" I said, "Well,
only fifteen minutes ago you were excoriating the Phoenicians
for killing their oldest sons and now you're celebrating Abraham
for having been about to do the same thing with his oldest son.
So what is the answer?" Dr. Buber said, "The answer
is We"-that's a capital W-"We believe that God spoke
to Abraham." That's all I got from that man.
So things that are done by us are different from things that are
done by others and that's another characteristic of our whole
tradition. Moses is not the hero. The tribe is the hero. Ours
is a tribal mythology, and the only god of the universe is ours.
This is very important.
What about the plagues and all that kind of thing? What kind of
deity is that? He sends the plagues for the fun of it; he hardens
pharoh's heart so that he won't let the people go so he can send
another plague. This is what it says in the book, which is a good
thing to read, you know."
So what is the point of all this religious debate? It's really
Angel vs. Spike, unsuprisingly. Angel thinks he's in control-or
will be. But he's the one being controlled. He's being yanked
around by W&H, playing catch-up while trying to maintain the
illusion of control over his clients and employees. How do I know
Angel is being portrayed as not in control? Look at who the bad
guy is in the episode-necromancer Magnus Hainsley, who easily
controls him. Angel's the tribal leader now who has to be concerned
with the continuance of his tribe, and is committing terrible
acts (Hauser's murder, etc.) to maintain status.
But outside the tribe, not buuying the mentality for a minute,
is Spike. It is Spike who figures out how to control Hainsley.
Spike states he knows he's not in control, and he isn't going
to stand for it. He sees the Powers as callous, manipulative and
capricious, with little respect for humanity. And he doesn't give
a piss about destiny or atonement. Angel's attempts result in
bucket-o-lawyer and a very battered client. Spike's attempt results
in success.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
You want to destroy the story, though -- Diana, 10:29:43
10/10/03 Fri
I see no reason to do this. There is truth and beauty in all stories.
Rather than destroy them, I'd rather uncover this. I'd rather
heal the wounded divine spirit, even as an I-really-don't-care-theist.
You're just wounding it, stuck on a word that isn't even translated
properly to justify this wounding.
sdev even posted
"for I know that thou fearest God"
The word used is "Yerah" and has two meanings-fear or
awe. It is commonly understood to mean awe when applied to God.
Awe encompasses much more profound beliefs than fear.
How was Connor
a sacrifice
I have given three biblical scholars that have studied the text
probably more than either of us (no probably about me, they have.
I've met them). We were debating the motivation for Abraham's
actions, not the morality of it. I made no mention of whether
I found it to be moral or not. I don't see how the passage from
Campbell has any bearing on what I said about the meaning of "fear
of the Lord." If the only rebuttal is "That's the point"
then it means you want a definition that destroys the story, rather
than one that sees something of truth and beauty there. There
is no search for truth, either in the grander scheme of the story
or on a lesser level about what that word actually means.
I don't see how Angel v Spike in terms of control has anything
to do with the story of Abraham? The story of Abraham is about
Faith and trust in God's promises. As episode 5.02 is called,
it is about getting your "Just Reward." What does that
have to do with anything you said?
Since when does Angel like the PTB? You said "He sees the
Powers as callous, manipulative and capricious, with little respect
for humanity," he being Spike. How does this differ from
how Angel sees them? Since when does Angel "give a piss about
destiny or atonement"? That was dealt with back in Season
2.
If anything the Angel v Spike debates boil down to people who
have watched the show for 4 years, watched Angel grow and know
that he is different now and those that are stuck back on "Amends.
"Wonder how much exposition ME will have to write to convey
that that isn't Angel any more.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> That would not be possible. -- Arethusa, 11:36:35
10/10/03 Fri
The story is faith, as you point out. I, with my little doubts
and words, can't destroy anyone's faith. Faith can move mountains,
and certainly can cope with opposing points of view. The existence
of other religions or lack of religion can't threaten those who
believe, only those who doubt. Just as I am certain in my belief,
and therefore feel no threat from others' beliefs, or feel the
need to change them.
As far as Angel vs. Spike, we will have to declare a truce. We
both see the show through our own particular prisims, and I have
little desire to change that either. As I said before, I enjoy
reading different points of view. So, pax? And let the best vampire
with a soul win. ;))
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: That would not be possible. -- Diana, 18:33:37
10/10/03 Fri
The story is faith, as you point out. I, with my little doubts
and words, can't destroy anyone's faith
But your own. THE story resonates with each of us. Why defend
the improper usage of a word, if not to destroy that story to
yourself? Why not see the beauty that is there? Then again that
is my belief. I look for beauty everywhere and I tend to find
it.
Just as I am certain in my belief
That is called faith and that faith will not allow for correction
of that word. That is what we were debating, the meaning of one
particular word in one particular instance. You may feel no need
to change your beliefs, but why cling to erroneous information?
Seems rather dogmatic to me.
but pax it is, though they have some really crappy shows on.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Last post. Really. -- Arethusa, 05:31:17
10/11/03 Sat
It just kills me to do this, LOL, but I won't present my counterargument.
See, the point of declaring a truce is that the arguents stop!
It will have to be enough that you are happy in your beliefs,
and I am in mine.
Agree with you about the crappy shows on.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
A different interpretation of the story -- sdev, 17:02:01
10/10/03 Fri
Hope you don't mind if I step in with a different take that integrates
questioning of authority with faith.
Abraham's almost sacrifice brought into play a fundamental precept
of religion-- doing something on faith, because you are told to
by a higher being, even though you may not understand why you
are being asked to do such a thing. Abraham's example was a terrible
extreme, and should give rise to anger, fear and questioning.
I think that was the point.
The people of those times did perform human sacrifices on a regular
basis. The OT God was sending a message. I don't require that.
Stick to animals.
It is understandable (IMO correct) to distrust blind faith that
commits atrocities in God's name as has happened throughout history.
Abraham did not commit the atrocity, but stopped. Maybe the lesson
is the opposite of what it initially suggests.
I found an article by a Rabbi that related this story to the tragedy
of 9/11. I excerpted this:
"How could God call for his sacrifice? The question is not
a challenge of God. The question is the greatest statement of
the Omnipotence of God. When we question, we recognize the chasm
that exists between us and God. And God's answer to Avraham was
that Avraham was mistaken - God never ordered a sacrifice. If
a chasm exists between Man and God, how can Man ever be sure that
he has heard God correctly? We are called upon to listen to God
but as human beings - and that must demand confusion. Are we ever
sure? As human beings the answer must be no even as we strive
to act in accordance with the Divine command. Thereby, we recognize
the Awesomeness of God.
The problem of belief lies in the need for the human being to
be sure. He thinks that his belief is sure when he ignores all
other voices - within himself and within humanity - and gives
himself up to his "beliefs." He thinks he then hears
the true voice of the deity. But he in fact only hears his own
voice - exactly because he is sure. Reliance upon our Divinely-given
human perceptions is how we approach the world - they are necessary.
They cannot be forsaken. But in recognition of the Divine, they
also cannot be relied upon totally. When there is collision -
there is confusion. It is at this point of confusion that we truly
find God. Dogma and fanaticism believe that they find the deity
in certainty - a certainty that declares normal human perceptions
incorrect. Torah (Jewish Law) declares that we find God in our
own recognition that we do not understand. We wonder, we question,
we challenge, we strive for synthesis of our internal perceptions
and the external directive; we wish to make sure that we truly
hear God's voice - and we doubt. Not because we doubt God but
because we doubt ourselves and our ability to hear God. "
It is also interesting to note that many stories and events in
the bible are repeated at later points, paralleled. This has none.
The lesson was given once powerfully and that was sufficient.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> What Diana said
-- Scroll, 18:54:22 10/08/03 Wed
The "fear" of the Old Testament isn't "fear"
the way we understand it today. Abraham's fear is about respect
for his God's sovereignty and reverence for God's holiness. Of
course, if you're an anarchist or atheist, that kind of fear isn't
going to mean much :) I know that one of Joss' trademarks (in
Buffy moreso than Angel) is subverting authority
and finding loopholes in destiny. And I really do enjoy his themes
of growing up and becoming independent and throwing off authority...
But still. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I just don't see respect
and reverence to be bad. There's nothing wrong with having
respect and reverence for someone -- as long as you're sure that
someone is worthy of it. Abraham obviously thought God was worthy.
His actions proved his faith in God's worthiness. (Hence the whole
Abraham was saved by faith thing.)
Angel, on the other hand, doesn't seem to think the Senior Partners
are worth much at all -- even though one might interpret his actions
in "Home" as sacrificing Connor to the SPs. (That's
not my preferred interpretation, but it's still got some validity.)
So yeah, Angel isn't like Abraham in that respect.
Feel free to disagree with me, though. I don't mind. I know this
is a tricky subject.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not disagreeing.
-- Arethusa, 21:00:59 10/08/03 Wed
I agree with you that respect and reverence are not bad. I just
have a problem with authority, from the top on down. My faith
lies elsewhere, guess. I just have to figure out where.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Correction-'
I guess' -- Arethusa, 21:02:19 10/08/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How was Connor a sacrifice?
-- sdev, 20:09:40 10/08/03 Wed
"he is a sacrfice, and was also the benefactor of said sacrifice."
That is my problem. I don't think Connor can be both and fit the
Abraham/Isaac metaphor. Isaac, as all sacrificial lambs, was supposed
to die. No benefit there.
Also the biblical concept of sacrifice, both the Abraham and Jesus
versions, involve altruism not self-interested love. Abraham showed
his love in and faith for God, and Jesus showed his and God's
love for humankind. They were not acting as individuals protecting
their own. In fact in that sense Angel's act can be seen as the
opposite of Abraham's who was willing to give his son up to die
for the sake of his relationship with God. Angel's deal which
saved Connor can be seen as selfish in a very human way, protecting
his son. This may turn out to be the problem, this bargain he
made with the devil's of W &H, not to save the world or bond
with God, but for the all too human connection he felt for his
son.
"for I know that thou fearest God"
The word used is "Yerah" and has two meanings-fear or
awe. It is commonly understood to mean awe when applied to God.
Awe encompasses much more profound beliefs than fear.
[> Knox, anyone else less than comforted by.........spoilers
for Angel 5.1 -- Rufus, 18:34:14 10/07/03 Tue
Science is being played with again, and people's moral neutrality
as scientists in particular. Knox seems taken aback by the idea
that he could be considered morally reprehensible for his actions,
even going as far as to use the utilitarian argument that they've
controlled more virii than they've let loose. Prepare for more
puzzles about just how the morality of science fits into this
heavily Religious Philosophical new show.
KNOX
I think you were right, boss. These guys specialize in quick-fire
disease scenarios: Sarin gases and viruses.
FRED
(stands, backs away)
Which you all built.
KNOX
Hey, no. We've contained more plagues than we've ever designed.
(shrugs)
I'm not all about destruction here.
How long will it be before Fred is able to seperate herself from
the results of what she does, after all it's just an experiment?
Now to the apple. I found an interesting bit on the apple in the
Penguin Dictionary of symbols...
Apple(-tree): The apple is employed symbolically in
several senses which, however apparently distinct, are in fact
interconnected. There are 'The Apple of Discord' awarded by
Paris; 'The Golden Apples' from the Garden of the Hesperides,
the fruit of immortality; the apple eaten by Adam and Eve; and
the apple mentioned in the Song of Solomon, which, according to
Origen, is the image of the richness, sweetness and savour of
the Word of God. In each case we have a key to knowledge, but
on which is on the one hand fruit of the Tree of Life and on the
other fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, of
a unifying knowledge which grants immortality or of a disjunctive
knowledge which initiates the Fall. In the language of alchemy,
the 'Golden Apple' is a symbol of sulphur.
The Abbe' E. Bertrand (quoted in BOUM p.235) states:
The symbolism of the apple is derived from its core, formed in
the shape of a five-pointed star by the compartments which hold
the pips...This is why adepts have made it the fruit of knowledge
and freedom. Thus, the phrase 'to eat the apple' meant to them
abuse of the intellect to gain knowledge of evil., abuse of the
senses to lust after evil and the abuse of freedom to commit evil.
However, as is always the case, the mass of the uninitiated mistook
the symbol for the reality. Furthermore, the inclusion within
the meat of the apple of the PENTEGRAM, the symbol of spiritual
man, symbolizes the entanglement of the spirit in the flesh.
Robert Ambelain makes much the same observation in Dans l'ombre
des cathedrales. 'Contemporary adepts regard the apple as the
icon of knowledge. Cut breadthwise it reveals a pentegram, traditional
symbol of knowledge, formed by the emplacement of its pips.'
In Celtic folklore, the apple is the fruit of knowledge, magic
and prophecy. It also provides miraculous food. The woman from
the Otherworld who comes in search of Condle, son of Conn of the
Hundred Battles, gives him an apple which provides him with food
for a month and never grows less. Among the marvels which the
god Lug set the three sons of Tuireann to find, in atonement for
the murder of his father Cian, were three apples from the Garden
of the Hesperides. Whoever ate of them would never again feel
hunger or thirst, sorrow or sickness, nor would the apples grow
less. In some Breton folktales, eating an apple is the prelude
to a prophecy (OGAC 16: pp.253-6)
If the apple is a miraculous fruit, the apple-tree ('abellio'
in Celtic ) is and Otherworld tree. It was a branch of an apple-tree
which the Otherworld woman who came in search of Bran gave to
him before carrying him across the seas. The Isle of Avalon -
Emain Ablach in Irish, Ynys Afallach in Welsh - also known as
'The Orchard', is the mythical resting place of dead kings and
heroes. Here, according to Cornish tradition, King Arthur took
refuge until the day comes when he will free the Welsh and the
Cornish, his compatriots, from the foreign yoke. It is written
that Merlin taught under an apple tree (OGAD 9: pp. 305-9, ETUC
4: pp. 255-74). The Gauls regarded the apple tree as being as
sacred as the oak.
Warding off old age, the fruit is a symbol of renewal and eternal
youth.
Gervasius tells how Alexander the Great, in his search for the
'water of life' in India, found some apples which the priests
there took to extend their life to four hundred years. In Scandinavian
mythology, the apple is the fruit that regenerates and rejuvenates.
The gods eat apples and stay young until the ragna rok, until
the end of the present cycle of the universe. (ELIT p295)
If one follows Paul Diel's analysis, the rounded shape of the
apple symbolizes Earth-bound passions or their fulfilment. Divine
phohibition was meant to warn mankind against being mastered by
those passions which would lead through a species of regression
to a materialistic way of life, as opposed to the spiritualized
life with is the direction of progressive development. This
divine warning makes man aware of these two directions and the
necessity of choosing between the way of the Earth-bound passions
and that of spirituality. The apple
is therefore the symbol of that knowledge and of being placed
under the obligation of making a choice.
I'm with what Paul Diel says, the apple may be more symbolic of
the problem that faces not only humanity but specifically will
become the trial that Angel is to deal with this season.
[> [> Apples -- angel's nibblet, 23:36:38 10/07/03
Tue
mmmmm all that talk of apples made me go get one :-P
[> [> Well, the summary pretty much says it all --
Tchaikovsky, 04:06:18 10/08/03 Wed
The apple is therefore the symbol
of that knowledge and of being placed under the obligation of
making a choice.
I think that's exactly what Angel finds himself doing when taking
a bite out of that apple. One of the more interesting lines in
the premiere was when Eve reminded them pragmatically about how,
when they were back in the Hyperion, they were letting the evil
people get away with what they were doing just because they didn't
know what was going on. Nowadays, they have to turn a blind eye
to their' mostly evil' clients, but they're not doing any more
bad than they were before, it's just passive evil done by choice
rather than passive evil committed through ignorance only.
Therefore, in one more simple sense, the knowledge that Angel
has inherited is the knowledge of the inner workings of Wolfram
and Hart, and this is why he bites the apple- to show that he
is ready to make the choice he needs to, that he is not turning
away from his mission just because his modus operandi has
changed.
TCH
[> Free will didn't come from eating the apple -- Scroll,
18:20:27 10/08/03 Wed
Okay, I'm coming at the creation story from a Christian perspective,
so if the Torah tells a different account, please let me know.
I don't read Genesis 3 as stating that Adam and Eve needed to
eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (henceforth TKGE)
in order to gain free will. The fruit gave them "knowledge
of good and evil" and was a way to make Adam and Eve "like
God, knowing good and evil". But in no way did eating the
fruit give them free will.
I'd like to point out that making the choice to eat the fruit
already demonstrates Adam and Eve's free will. Even before they
met the serpent, they had freedom of choice. Adam choose
the names of all the different animals. Eve choose to listen
to the serpent and take the fruit. Adam choose to listen
to Eve and take the fruit. The ability to make decisions, the
freedom to disobey God's commandment to not eat from the TKGE,
was there from the beginning. The fact that the serpent was able
to tempt them into eating the fruit, and the fact that Adam and
Eve were able to do something God had prohibited them not
to, proves that free will was something innate in human beings.
Er, hope that didn't come off as too militant an interpretation.
This is just one point I feel very strongly about. I don't even
really want to say "in my humble opinion", since I think
the Genesis account is pretty clear (at least in all the translations
I've read) that Adam and Eve had a choice about eating
the fruit of the TKGE.
[> [> Agree wholly -- sdev, 20:24:07 10/08/03
Wed
from the Jewish perspective as well.
From the beginning they knew of the tree and were told to stay
away. That they chose to disobey was free will in action. Per
OT the world was created ab initio with free will.
It is arguable as to whether they really fundamentally had choice
before they had any knowledge of good and evil . Do you have choice
before you understand what the choices are? But since they certainly
knew that they were not supposed to touch that tree, that knowledge
contained in and of itself the concept of good (don't touch that
tree)and evil (disobey). And they chose.
[> [> [> But... -- Gyrus, 12:46:23 10/10/03
Fri
But since they certainly knew that they were not supposed to
touch that tree, that knowledge contained in and of itself the
concept of good (don't touch that tree)and evil (disobey).
But could they have known that disobedience was evil before they
ate the fruit? How would they know that obeying God is good if
they couldn't understand what good is? They may have had freedom
of choice, but they were not necessarily able to make an informed
choice.
[> [> [> [> Re: But... And ifs and ands --
sdev, 17:37:40 10/10/03 Fri
Textually (from the OT) you are perhaps correct in that I do not
think it is spelled out. But I believe it is implicit in the story
that there was recognition by Adam of a divine being who made
the rules and thus Adam could infer that it was wrong to disobey.
The understanding of good was all around them, in the perfection
that was the Garden. It is the understanding of evil which is
less explicit.
Two points. First, when God forbids eating the fruit he says,
if you eat it, on that day you will surely die. Did Adam know
what death was? It is implied that he must have or otherwise the
warning would be pointless.
Second, in the OT the prohibition not to eat the fruit of the
tree is given to Adam, and it is immediately followed with the
story of God's creation of a mate for him. Adam explicitly states
his awareness that God had created woman from "a bone of
my bones and flesh of my flesh" (forgive my editorializing
here but it is much more beautifully stated than the reductionist
and sometimes derisive expression of 'from his rib') Thus Adam
was acutely aware of the creation process, aware of God's role
as creator, and surely had some concept of Divinity and the 'chain
of command.'
I hope this is not too technical.
[> [> No that's fair- but the question remains --
Tchaikovsky, 02:30:23 10/09/03 Thu
As much as they could choose to do whatever they liked, how could
they orient their moral decisions without a basis understanding
of Good and Evil? In a sense, despite their free will in action,
they did not have the free will to decide whether to commit Good
Acts or Evil Acts, (or even the more realistic Morally Ambiguous
acts) as they weren't given that information until they partook
of the fruit.
In this sense, the state in which they lived in Eden until they
ate the fruit was one where they had a lower degree of understanding,
therefore knowledge, therefore power to choose, than afterwards.
That was the distinction I was trying to make by claiming this,
admittedly very quickly rushed over. What's more interesting to
me is the second part of the sentence:
Angel's decision is not dissimilar to his killing of Jasmine
in 'Peace Out'- it establishes the possibility of free will, and
demands the strength of character from his team that they can
both acknowledge evil and fight it.
This, not free will of itself, (last year's puzzle) may be the
more important theme of Season Five. Or maybe it'll be goats;-)
TCH
[> [> [> Good point, I'm not sure how to answer that
-- Scroll, 21:24:10 10/09/03 Thu
In a sense, despite their free will in action, they did not
have the free will to decide whether to commit Good Acts or Evil
Acts, (or even the more realistic Morally Ambiguous acts) as they
weren't given that information until they partook of the fruit.
I asked my Sunday school teacher that exact question: If Adam
and Eve had no true understanding of good and evil, no comprehension
of consequence, then was their decision to eat the fruit really
made with free will?
My teacher's answer so far is that we just don't know. Can we
really make the judgement that Adam and Eve weren't capable of
making moral choices? We don't know their mind-sets, what they
did know and didn't know. I think we can safely say they knew
disobeying God was a Bad Thing, and obeying God was a Good Thing.
Isn't that enough to make a moral choice? (I guess your answer
depends on what you think of God.)
I just wanted to share a story my teacher and I cooked up to help
explain the whole free will thing to some of my classmates:
A parent tells her child not to cross the street. The parent says,
"Don't cross the street." There are two reasons why
the child shouldn't cross the street. (1) The street is dangerous
and the child will very likely be run over and injured. (2) The
parent told the child not to cross the street (and the parent
should be obeyed).
Only one reason is apparent to the child: Reason (2). But does
this make Reason (1) any less valid? No. (Now, some could argue
that God has bad parenting skills; kids always want to know why.)
The child still has a choice. Cross the street or don't cross
the street.
Adam and Eve crossed the street and got run over by a Mack.
Hee! Okay, that was kind of irreverent. And yeah, clearly the
situations differ in complexity! *g* I get that having free will
to make a decision isn't the same thing as having free will to
make a decision while having total understanding of the consequences
of that decision. God had knowledge of good and evil, understood
exactly what death was like, knew how much Adam and Eve would
suffer once they ate the fruit; thus he prohibited them from eating
the fruit. Adam and Eve, not fully understanding what good and
evil and death and separation meant, ate the fruit anyway.
*happy sigh* I love what Joss is doing with Angel. I love
exploring Genesis. I love my Sunday school class. Even though
my teacher has been trying to get through Genesis for the past
three years, and has only now got to Chapter 3. I really hope
we manage to get through all fifty chapters before he retires!
[> [> [> [> Genesis is one cool book -- Tchaikovsky,
02:45:54 10/10/03 Fri
Shame about the band really.
I'm starting to wonder whether there's a short-circuit in my original
argument- inasmuch as nobody makes decisions based on a
complete understanding of the surrounding issues of their choice.
It's just that Adam and Eve had one (vital) less piece of judgement
than we do when we try to make a decision. Hmmm.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [> Why? -- Diana, 09:23:26
10/10/03 Fri
When I look at Adam and Eve pre-fall, I just see them doing things,
naming animals, frolicking naked, eating from every other tree.
Their choices were "what should we call this animal,"
"where should we frolick today," and "oranges or
pears." The first thing they figure out is "Uh-oh. We're
naked." The second thing they do is take steps to correct
this. With the knowledge of good and evil comes not only the knowledge
they are naked, but how to correct this. Then they go hide.
There is nothing wrong with being naked and they don't need to
hide from God. The tree is often seen by atheists as a good thing,
that it gives us more knowledge to make choices with. What if
that knowledge is "false"? Even the Catechism says,
"They become afraid of God of whom they have conceived a
distorted image--that of a God jealous of his prerogatives."
What if there is no difference between good and evil? That tree
started the dichotomies that riddle human thought now. This is
what leads to our deaths and all the things that Man has to suffer
because of this.
Informed consent and making choices based on knowledge is important,
but maybe there is such a thing as too much knowledge. Adam and
Eve did gain one piece of information, but is that piece vital?
Now we rationalize what they did, much as the characters in the
Buffyverse tend to. I can rationalize pretty much anything.
God needed to have dichotomies in order to create the world. That
is what Genesis 1 is, creating these separations. Heaven from
Earth, light from dark, rain from ocean, land from sea, day from
night. All of this stuff God declared good. He saw Man alone and
declared it not good. That is why God needs to know what is good
and what is evil evil.
Why do we? Job 38-41 says it all. When God told Adam and Eve that
they shouldn't eat the fruit, perhaps He should have given them
this speech. Could this speech be understood by Adam and Eve,
though?
[> [> [> [> my teacher said -- Ann, 12:27:36
10/10/03 Fri
My grade seven science teacher, at Catholic school, was explaining
evolution to us. I asked how Adam and Eve fit into that theory,
as the bible says they were the first people. She said, in a theory
I have never seen espoused anywhere else, that A and E were the
first two people who had souls. There were other people around
as seen with Cain and Abel's wives (another question that was
never answered to my satisfaction). The problems A and E encountered
came from the lack of experience as hunter gathers now having
to make "moral" choices. I have always thought that
was an interesting theory.
[> And the inevitable plug... -- Tchaikovsky, 10:02:42
10/09/03 Thu
Thanks to everyone who's responded. This review is now up with
all the others here,
and if you've got a little time to wile away, I've also put up
a few essays from the last year in the Miscellaneousness section.
TCH
[> [> Re: And the inevitable plug... -- sdev, 22:06:39
10/09/03 Thu
Thanks for this interesting analysis. I didn't know you had a
site. I'll be looking in especially since I'm not as familiar
with ATS.
To Be a Master Vampire -- Claudia, 13:02:37
10/08/03 Wed
Has anyone ever wondered what it takes to be a master vampire?
What I really mean is . . . what type of traits did Darla, Angel,
Drusilla and Spike possessed, to become master vampires? I don't
mean by what it took for them to become evil. I'm simply wondering
what traits they had possessed that enabled them to become strong,
intelligent and long living vampires.
Does anyone have an idea?
Replies:
[> ...is Mainly About Being a Badass. -- Gyrus, 13:14:44
10/08/03 Wed
Being the HVIC (head vamp in charge) seems to depend mainly on
how much other vampires fear you. The Master, Angelus, Spike,
and Sunday all controlled their minions by force or the threat
of force. (This is mainly why Harmony flunked out as a master
vamp -- not because she wasn't smart enough, but because her minions
weren't afraid of her.)
I don't know if Darla or Drusilla could be considered "Master"
vampires, since they never had minions to speak of. Darla survived
by cleverness, by sticking with Angelus whenever it suited her,
and by always looking out for number one. Drusilla has value to
other vampires and evil beings because of her psychic abilities,
motivating them to keep her alive. Her prescience may also have
kept her out of harm's way over the years.
[> I'll venture some guesses -- Celebaelin, 16:43:59
10/08/03 Wed
Individual circumstances will vary greatly but how about these
as rules of thumb.
1 Choose your allies carefully.
2 Trust no-one ever.
3 Be totally ruthless.
4 Remember that popular vampires aren't 'seen' to kill
other vampires.
5 Remember some vampires do kill other vampires, make sure you're
on the right side of that equation (see rule 4).
6 Conceal your nature from humans in order to be a provider.
7 Flaunt your nature to weaker vampires in order to be feared
and admired.
8 Be stylish. A bit of the cool vampire idiom never hurt anyones'
reputation.
9 Publicly uphold the 'unwritten laws', be a vampires' vampire.
10 Do something spectacularly demonic once in a while to keep
up your profile (preferably just before leaving town, or what's
left of it).
[> Oh, I know the answer to that...! -- Random, 19:46:36
10/08/03 Wed
In case you watch AtS (which I assume you do now, since you apparently
have this thing for a certain vampire), you might have
seen Disharmony, wherein the seamy underbelly of the vampiric
ladder of power was laid bare. That is to say, we finally saw
that vampiric masterhood was a product of pyramid schemes. The
brilliance of this resolution stunned me, and made me view both
BtVS and AtS in entirely different lights. So the Order of Aurelius,
for instance, was a long-running scam that finally collapsed when
it turned out that the last of the order, Spike, failed to grasp
the nature of the pyramid (he tends to think in terms of trapezoids,
as befitting his uneven personality) and got bitchslapped by Buffy.
In this vein, the institution of Slayerhood is a metaphor for
the Justice Department cracking down on the pyramid scams. Thus
has the battle raged since time immemorial, the cosmic metaphor
for grift and retribution.
[> [> And Vamp Vitamins (TM) Just as flavorful as Flintstones
Vitamins, but higher platelet counts -- Random, 19:48:25
10/08/03 Wed
[> [> A little less ritual and a little more fun
-- Celebaelin, 21:25:29 10/08/03 Wed
[> [> Okay, that answer was better than mine. --
Gyrus, 22:43:56 10/08/03 Wed
[> To Be a Master Vampire... -- LittleBite, 22:39:00
10/08/03 Wed
One becomes a vampire master through the same steps that have
been followed in the crafts since medieval times. And just like
in those times not every vampire is selected, and not every vampire
selected will advance through the levels.
The starting point is the Apprentice. A vampire can be
considered to be chosen for an apprenticeship when he or she is
kept close and trained by the one who sired him/her. Following
this, this vampires whom we know were apprenticed would be Darla,
Angelus, Drusilla, Spike, Luke, Absolom, Colin-the Annoying
Anointed One, Sunday and very likely Dalton. Richard Winters was
an apprentice as well. In the WishVerse, this would have included
both VampWillow and VampXander. It's entirely possible that among
the unnamed minions were other apprentices, but we are really
only aware of those who advanced to the next level. At this level
the vampire would be given nominal leadership of things like raiding
parties and such, or tasks requiring greater skill than usual.
Once the master deems an apprentice ready he becomes a Journeyman.
Those who reach this stage have shown themselves to be capable
of assuming limited leadership roles and enforcing the master's
orders. Or, in some cases, may show aptitudes in particular areas
that are of special use to the master vampire. In the former case,
Darla, Angelus, Spike, Luke and Sunday as well as Winters would
have advanced, while the latter case would certainly have seen
the promotion of Drusilla. VampWillow would certainly make journeyman
status but it's less certain that VampXander would as we don't
see him taking much of the initiative. The An...ointed One was
clearly no more than an apprentice, with Absolom and the minions
giving him authority because of his status only. It's unclear
about Dalton, but in my opinion he never rose above apprentice,
but was given favor because of his research skills. When the vampire
is ready, s/he may advance to master level.
Master level can be attained in several ways. The simplest,
and least common, way is for the master to make the promotion.
This is rare because two masters don't function well together.
The next choice is for a vampire who is ready for master level
to simply strike out on his/her own and gather minions together.
This was the case with Spike, for example, who gathers a group
of minions wherever he settles for a time. Angelus had reached
this stage, but never really developed an entourage outside of
Darla, Drusilla and Spike, who could really be considered immediate
family, but he was still the master of the group. Spike was beginning
to show the characteristics of wanting his independence when we
saw them in China. The third and most common method is for a vampire
who is ready to become master to challenge and kill his own master
and simply take over his minions. That's how Winters got his master
position. Unlike the vampire known as "The Master" who
was one of the few who was promoted by his predecessor to be the
head of The Order of Aurelius. Although it should be pointed out
that his predecessor didn't last as long as expected after his
successor was named.
[> [> Nice synopsis -- Celebaelin, 05:04:58 10/09/03
Thu
Of what we RPGers would often refer to as a Lawful Evil power
structure.
Lawful Evil (LE) is a tricky attitude ('alignment') to play as
there is a requirement for adherence to the letter of the Law.
This is made a little easier by considering 'Whose Law?'. Whilst
Lawful Good (LG) characters abide by not only their own (often
religious) doctrinal code of morals but also whatever presiding
Laws are in place in the area in which they are located LE characters
will only serve as regards LE doctrinal Law, and that, as Gyrus
said, through fear. Any opportunity to manipulate or misuse the
presiding Law for personal/organisational gain will be exploited
to the full. W&H anyone? LE structures both provide and require
a strict hierarchy so ultra-Lawful LEs (there are shades of black!)
might issue a challenge to their superior prior to making
their move, particularly if that's what the rules say, but no-one
in full posession of their faculties expects a fair fight. It
is a lot more likely however that the rising star would simply
demonstrate their de facto superiority by removing obstacle(s)
in a 'night of the long knives' type operation. OTOH promotion
of a threatening junior member could save your skin as
well as serving the LE agenda.
I think a large number of vampires, arguably the more stupid ones,
exhibit Chaotic Evil behaviour. There aren't really any consistent
rules to this however, not even the one about there being no rules.
Spike for example - rebel, anarchist, the big bad. Drusilla for
another - mad as a box full of worms. Because of their individual
talents they would be useful to any organisation, but never really
on the inside as 'one of our people'. This could explain Spike's
less contemptuous, more pragmatic, view of humans cw Angelus.
Souled Spike has definitely strayed into the realms of Chaotic
Neutral, and perhaps even ultimately Chaotic Good, although there
is a big karmic bill to pay.
[> [> [> Character -- Claudia, 08:59:48 10/09/03
Thu
Yeah, but what was it about the previous human forms of Spike,
Angel, Drusilla and Darla that made them such successful vampires?
Did each of them possess a certain character trait that enabled
them to become so successful?
"Souled Spike has definitely strayed into the realms of Chaotic
Neutral, and perhaps even ultimately Chaotic Good, although there
is a big karmic bill to pay."
If Spike has a "big karmic bill to pay", can one say
the same about Angel?
[> [> [> [> Re: Character -- LittleBite, 10:25:39
10/09/03 Thu
Yeah, but what was it about the previous human forms of Spike,
Angel, Drusilla and Darla that made them such successful vampires?
Did each of them possess a certain character trait that enabled
them to become so successful?
Darla was an independent businesswoman, in one of the
few businesses available to a woman at that time. She didn't rely
on anyone to support her, other than needing a clientele, but
that's true of any business. She was tough, she was persuasive
and she knew what her strengths and assets were. The only reason
Darla never became a Master vampire herself was because initially
she was the protégé of The Master and after Angelus
rejected The Master, and the Order of Aurelius, she went with
him. They were, however, primarily equal partners with their strengths
complementing each other.
Which brings us to Angelus. He received his training from
Darla, but he added his own rather unique qualities. As Liam,
he was, in my opinion, suffering from a deplorable self-image
(yes, due to his father, but the mechanism doesn't alter the outcome).
However, he also possessed a reckless nature...drinking, womanizing,
petty thievery, brawling...all with apparent zeal, yet always
with an eye to the effect on his father. Even his vamping itself
was seen as just a new experience, an adventure, to him. Afterward,
with no soul, he carried that abandon into his activities as a
vampire, sparing no excess except that which might get him killed.
He, like Darla, never truly achieved Master status...he kept his
group to the bare minimum, with each having a place except, as
we have seen, Spike. Spike was not Angelus' choice, he was Drusilla's,
and it was clear that Angelus did not like the fact that Drusilla
kept him around in the face of Angelus' distaste.
So, now, to Drusilla. Drusilla, as a human, possessed the
'Sight' which was considered an evil thing and in direct conflict
with her Irish Catholic upbringing. When we saw Drusilla in confession,
she had come because she had 'Seen' and been scolded for her evil
ways by her mother. She had attempted to atone for the 'evil'
within her by giving her life to the Church, by taking vows. Angelus
prevented this. He had pushed her to near insanity, and then his,
and Darla's, actions when they interrupted her vigil took her
over the edge before he turned her. Drusilla possessed abilities
that were valuable to other vampires, and could certainly have
moments of crystal clarity when she would act almost more effectively
than any other, but for the most part she did not have leadership
skills, and required great care herself.
Which she received primarily from Spike. As William, we
see Spike as a very insecure gentleman of the gentry. One with
the leisure and the resources to pursue his interests which were
caring for his beloved mother, poetry, and, it seems, worshipping
at the altar of his beloved Cecily. When his hopes are dashed,
nay, ridiculed and belittled, he flees and runs into Drusilla,
who mesmerizes him through his initial fear by 'seeing' the poet
in him and praising it. At that point, he was willing to do whatever
she wanted, and she wanted him as a pet. It's entirely possible
that would have been their relationship, he both pet and caretaker,
had the subsequent events with his mother not taken place. When
she rejected and ridiculed him with greater cruelty than ever
Cecily or her aristocratic friends had ever used he, now soulless,
retaliated by allowing his feelings the violent reaction they
required. And it changed him. He found he could control that which
would attempt to thwart him by using violence. He was the only
one of the four who gathered minions to do his bidding. He controlled
them with a combination of his own ability to dominate through
intimidation and violence, and with the demonstration of a quick
and ruthless temper, as well as his own reputation for a recklessness
surpassing Angelus' own. He stayed with Drusilla, or she with
him, when the four went separate ways after Angelus' soul was
restored. Drusilla helped to add to his reputation as a Big Bad,
by her nature and her insanity, thus her unpredictability. The
only vampires Spike never controlled, or really even seriously
tried to control, were his immediate 'family'-Darla, Angelus and
Drusilla. Which is interesting in itself...that while he is the
strongest of the four in terms of exhibiting the traits, or desires,
of one who would be a Master, Spike is nonetheless, unable to
control the other three by either force or personality, while
both Darla and Angelus could reduce him to childish behaviors,
and Drusilla was biddable unless being so crossed her own interests,
thus reducing him to the weakest of the four in actual ability
to control. Of course Drusilla's insanity, much like Buffy's emotional
deadness, gave Spike an opening he did his best to take advantage
of. But that's a different discussion altogether.
So yes, each had character traits, or latent ones, that ultimately
allowed them to become the vampires we came to know.
If Spike has a "big karmic bill to pay", can one
say the same about Angel?
In my opinion, the answer to this is self-evident to anyone who
has watched the early seasons of Buffy, or any season of Angel.
Yes, Angel has a big karmic bill to pay. To quote him, "I
was cursed with a soul and fought with it for a hundred some years
and you spend three weeks moaning in a basement." Angel
has been paying his karmic bill for over a century. Some of us,
myself included, might even say he's been paying for over two
centuries, since he spent a hundred years in a hell dimension
being tortured because he had a soul. And I'm certain that his
choices in the past few years, even though he has a soul, have
added at times to the debt, and at times paid it. Having a soul
doesn't guarantee that all actions will gain karmic points. Not
having one, conversely, doesn't say that all actions create karmic
debt. The point here, is Spike is only starting to pay for his
century of evil. Angel has been paying for two centuries for the
century-plus of evil as a vampire, and for that which he has done
while ensouled.
[> [> [> [> [> Karmic Payback -- Claudia,
11:26:22 10/09/03 Thu
You say that Spike is starting to pay for his past. Are you sure?
I've always felt that Spike has been paying ever since he stepped
foot in Sunnydale. Which makes me wonder how the other characters
- even those not deemed "evil" are still paying for
their actions.
[> [> [> [> Re: Character -- Celebaelin, 10:35:42
10/09/03 Thu
Contempt for the naivity of their former personality.
Even Darla.
And sooooooo YES
[> usually its just what you type on your Business card
-- neaux, 05:01:32 10/09/03 Thu
Angel's probably says C.E.O. which equates to Master.
but he could probably have Master Vampire on his business card
if he wanted.
[> [> ROTFLOL! Very cute, neaux! -- Scroll, 16:40:38
10/09/03 Thu
[> And now for a word from our sponsor...(come on people,
this is fun) -- Random, 09:12:04 10/09/03 Thu
Charles Batlas Masterfying Program
"Are you a 98.6 degree, 97 lb weakling of an evil monstrosity
in a human body? Do bullying Master vamps regularly kick sand
in your face, steal your girlfriend and then proceed to dismember
you sheerly for the sake of inspiring terror and obedience in
their other minions? How would you like to be a Master
vampire yourself?!? It's easy, through the 13 week home correspondence
course "Charles Batlas' How to be a Master." Stake those
bullies, take control of your unlife, and win back your insane
psycho vampire girlfriend (or boyfriend.) In just a baker's dozen
of weeks, you will find yourself the object of terror and distaste
everywhere. Courses in this program include: "Tasmanian Devil
Blood: It's not just for smoothies anymore;" "Benchpressing
Your Way to a Direct Conduit to the Dark Powers"; "Sleeping
to Your Way to the Top: Makins Certain the Knots Are Tight Enough";
"Making Sure You Don't Lose Your Lunch: 10 Ways to Stronger
Shackles"; "Adding Inches to Those Sexy Fangs."
All these and more, so order now! Call 666-¥¿§Ǽ"
Testimonials:
Angelus I was once a weakling newbie, being beaten
every night by some murderous blonde (which I actually rather
enjoyed), but thanks to Charles Batlas, I went from Master buttmonkey
to Master baiter. Thanks Chuck!!!
Mortimer I sent away for the Charles Batlas Program. Everyday
at school, older vampires picked on me. But then, after Charles
showed me the way, I became Mortimer, Scourge of MIT, and showed
those ooh-I-can-do-differential-calculus-in-my-head Master Vampires
a thing or two. Now I am the Dark Lord of the Chess Club!
Spike Bugger off, mate. I don't do testimonials. In fact,
thanks to Charles Batlas, no-one can tie me down and make me anymore.
I went from a poofter to a peroxided poofter in only 26 weeks.
Yeah, I took the course twice. Eff off.
DarlaScrew you, Charles Batlas! You stole my dear boy from
me, you $@#^% [the rest has been edited for content] So...thanks....for...the....a....and...great....evil....bad.
[postscript: For those of you who have already ordered, rest assured
that the unfortunate, lamentable destruction of the Sunnydale
Hellmouth will in no way affect the distribution centers in Cleveland
and Samarra. Your orders will arrive on schedule]
[> [> ROFLMAO (Micah 7:5) -- Celebaelin, 10:51:08
10/09/03 Thu
"Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide:
keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom"
And other encouraging words of kindness.
C
[> [> Re: And now for a word from our sponsor...(come
on people, this is fun) -- Claudia, 11:28:55 10/09/03 Thu
Oh God! That was hilarious! I loved it!
By the way, is there a BtVS/AtS humor site?
[> [> [> humor me -- Miyu tVP, 14:58:29 10/09/03
Thu
this may not be exactly what you're looking for, but I find it's
usually good for a laugh.
http://www.boilsandblindingtorment.com/index.html
it's kinda harsh, but in a loving way. :)
[> [> [> [> Read far enough to know that there
are spoilers in the above link -- Celebaelin, 15:52:54
10/09/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> yes, sorry!! - some conviction
spoilers on the homepage -- Miyu tVP, 16:18:28 10/09/03
Thu
yes, sorry!!! they do thorough ep recaps, and I didn't realize
conviction was right there on the homepage. They're usually much
slower to get stuff up on the site.
:(
sorry!
[> [> [> [> [> [> No prob., occupational
hazard! -- Celebaelin, 16:27:15 10/09/03 Thu
[> Has anyone actually been referred to as a Master Vampire?
-- Sheri, 12:40:53 10/09/03 Thu
Before we can even discuss HOW someone becomes a "master
vampire"... do we even know that they exist? Has the word
"master" been used to discribe anyone besides THE Master?
I'm in agreement with neaux that if the title is used at all,
it's simply a title and not some real difference in the vampire.
So the question really is... what makes some vampires better leaders
than other vampires? And the answer is: same thing that makes
some people better leaders than other people.
Also, while one possible assumption is that a long lived vampire
is long lived because there is some special "master quality"
about him... it is also possible that the vampire was lucky
to have survived for those first few decades and that the leadership
(and survival by means other than dumb luck) qualities were developed
over time.
[> [> What you said, Sheri -- Scroll, 14:42:19
10/09/03 Thu
The idea that vampires are "born" to be Masters or minions
or favoured childer (what is this, Anne Rice?) is merely a mish-mash
of vamp folklore, Anne Rice (natch), and fanon. No where does
it say Angelus is a Master Vampire because he was born
into a powerful lineage (the Aurelians). Angelus is a kick-ass
master because he's a kick-ass master. The guy has the
balls and the smarts to keep other vamps in line, he has the strength
and cunning to out-last rivals and gather followers. He has the
reputation to put the fear of Angelus in other demons because
he built up that repuation. This isn't a mystical vamp power.
Buffy has the exact same power to lead and unite and survive against
all odds. It's what being a leader is all about.
[> [> [> Woah Scroll! Extreme! -- Celebaelin,
16:14:09 10/09/03 Thu
[> [> An Error -- Claudia, 14:51:31 10/09/03 Thu
I've made an error with my original posting. When I called the
members of the Fang Gang, master vampires, I wasn't referring
to their ability as leaders. I was referring to their abilities
as long-surviving vampires with a reputation to put fear in others.
I wanted to know what traits that their human counterparts possessed
that carried into their vampire personas and led them to be such
successful demons.
[> [> [> Ah, I see -- Scroll, 15:58:32 10/09/03
Thu
I wanted to know what traits that their human counterparts
possessed that carried into their vampire personas and led them
to be such successful demons.
Well, that makes more sense then. I think Gyrus' and Little Bit's
replies are probably more in keeping with what you were really
looking for, though I don't think either really touches the Fanged
Four's human traits.
As a quick summary:
Darla: manipulative as a human, used beauty and sex to manipulate
men to secure power and protection for herself, did the same as
a vamp, also cunning enough to survive, excellent self-preservation
skills (IMHO, Darla is the canniest and most clever of the Fanged
Four)
Angelus: driven to excess (drinking, whoring) as a human, had
artistic talent, carried those same traits into being a bad-ass
vamp with death as performance art, obsessed with proving himself
to his dead father thus pushing him to exceed even Darla's and
the Master's expectations
Drusilla: had the Sight as human, driven insane by Angelus, is
useful to other vamps because of her powers, very into BDSM which
appeals to her daddy and possibly other vamps, and like Darla
uses men to protect her, had Daddy wrapped around her little finger
Spike: more concerned with flights of fancy than real life, chivalric
notions carried on to serving Dru and Dru was Daddy's spoiled
little girl so Spike got to live, disdain for upper class led
to learning to fight like a brawler, daddy and mommy issues has
him trying to out-do Angelus and win Dru
Of course, this is JMHO. So what human traits do you think
they possessed that helped them become such powerful, long-lived
vamps? It's only fair you share your thoughts too :)
[> [> [> [> They were all social rejects --
Finn Mac Cool, 17:57:00 10/09/03 Thu
Darla was ostracized because she was a prostitute. Liam was disowned
and viewed as a worthless drunk. Drusilla's gift of foresight
made her "unclean" in the eyes of her mother and the
church. William was looked down on and thought of as a sissy by
his peers. People turned their backs on each of the Fanged Foursome,
and, when they became vampires, they got some payback. Darla used
sex in many of her kills, striking back at those who scowled at
her selling sex, Angelus went very explicately against his father
and anyone else he viewed as being in charge, Drusilla rivaled
in "wickedness" and perverted religious symbols/rituals,
and Spike struck back at the world as a whole, but his fascination
with fighting Slayers could be seen as Spike proving to himself
that no woman could hurt him like Cecily did (for all those who
might bring up the "love's bitch" thing, that was after
Drusilla dumped him and his image was torn apart). Each of these
vampires had a grudge against human society, and, when freed of
all guilt or remorse, they struck back. Their anger fueled them
to greater heights, pushing them towards acts of great carnage
and gaining the strength that comes from great rage (much like
Buffy, vampires seem to be stronger the more pissed off they are).
[> [> [> [> [> Perfect summation, Finn --
Scroll, 20:34:22 10/09/03 Thu
(much like Buffy, vampires seem to be stronger the more pissed
off they are)
So, so true. Distilling the psychology of humans and vampires
down to the most fundamental level. As Buffy says to Kendra, "My
emotions give me power. They're total assets!"
[> [> [> [> [> Good insights. -- Gyrus,
09:30:27 10/10/03 Fri
Your analysis makes a lot of sense -- those who are rejected by
human society may be attracted to vampirism as a counter-culture
and are motivated to do well within it. This idea is further supported
by the high failure rate of vampires who were turned against their
will. Most of them become minions (at best) who are quickly dusted
by the good guys. Even those who survive, like Harmony, are certainly
not what you would call "master" vampires; Harmony would
have died at Spike's hands years ago if she hadn't been wearing
the Gem of Amara at the time.
[> [> [> [> [> Hmmm... -- Random, 10:22:31
10/10/03 Fri
I tend to disagree with your thesis, not on logical grounds but
on the grounds that your examples don't really provide validation.
Of the four, only Spike and Darla were overtly socially
ostracized...and Spike was only ostracized somewhat, as evidenced
by the fact that he was still welcome in the elite circles, if
not well-treated. Liam was ostracized from his family, while Drusilla
was ostracized by her mother (by the Church? Doubtful, considering
she was about to take her vows.)
More importantly, the modes of lashing out took different forms
after becoming vampires. Angelus was as murderous a fiend as ever
created, and went directly after his family first. One could argue
that he became such a prolific and feared vampire because he was
attacking the society for rejecting him, but it's a weak argument,
IMO. He was a ne'er-do-well, but there's no reason to think he
resented his treatment by society, only his father. Indeed, his
primary focus appeared to have been religion and God, if the events
of Prodigal are any indication.
Darla was, of course, a reject, but she appeared to be quite comfortable
in her role as a prostitute. It brought her wealth and security
(and disease, but she didn't seem to be railing against even that
-- indeed, she seems defiant that her choice was her choice
and she wouldn't accept judgment -- be it man's or God's -- because
she chose her doom.) I see no evidence that she is lashing out
against society for this reason -- she doesn't even seem to confront
it at all until she is brought back from the dust by W&H.
Drusilla...well, the girl's nuts. As far as I can tell, she has
no focused animosity toward people who mistreated her or rejected
her because of her Sight. Nor do I see a thematic aspect to Drusilla's
behaviour other than her childishness and childlike, if evil,
glee in playing with familial conventions and the like. If she's
angry, she does a good job of hiding it. Lacking any real evidence
to the contrary, I tend to conclude that insanity and pleasure
are her primary motivations, not ostracism or revenge.
Spike is the clearest-cut of the four, mainly cause he admits
to taking his revenge on his tormentors. And to changing his persona
to fight back against society. But he is the only clear-cut one
of the four, IMO. I tend to imagine one could make a case for
almost any vampire being rejected at some point in their
mortal life. The problem is, we don't see most of them pre-vamp.
So we have no idea if the same arguments made about the Fanged
Four could be applied to the lowliest vamp henchmen. Your thesis
may have some validity. I just tend to think that we simply lack
enough information to make such a judgment yet.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Have to wait till I see
Season 2 before I can comment on Darla . . . -- Finn Mac Cool,
14:10:52 10/10/03 Fri
But, as for Angelus, I was counting Liam's father as a part of
society there. As for Drusilla, you're right, I was stretching
it there. But I did kind of get the feeling that her obsession
with being "wicked" was a result of her mother telling
her she was wicked as a human, which could be seen as lashing
back in a less obvious sense.
the
carrot and the stick (spoilers for 5.2) -- Miyu tVP, 09:58:13
10/09/03 Thu
touching on some comments from the tail end of chat last night....
I myself was disappointed to hear that Spike is on the brink of
damnation in a very literal sense. Introducing this sort of threat
would cloud any future redemption he might seek. Even the slimiest,
self-serving scum at W&H would be on their best behavior if they
believed they would suffer very real, agonizing pain for all eternity.
Someone mentioned that Buffy was the carrot and hell is the stick...
but this is the morality of a child! (maybe that's the point,
but if it is, I'm even more disapppointed.)
Also on a practical level... getting back into the culpabiltiy
of souled/unsouled sins. So a person is killed by a vampire. His
soul leaves his body and goes wherever. Then the body is fed the
blood of a vampire and a demon soul enters this body. The resulting
vampire wreaks havoc. Then by some means the original human soul
is forced back into the body... and now it is at risk to suffer
the eternal fires of hell for things that its body did in its
absense? It's like someone steals your car, wrecks the town, returns
the car and then *you* are held responsible for the damage.
Granted Angel as a concept wouldn't work at all if the slate were
wiped completely clean upon the return of one's soul. I understand
there would be issues to work through. But it seems bizarre to
me that Spike's *soul* could actually be a candidate for damnation
when it participated negligibly in the evil that Spike has done.
Replies:
[> It isn't his soul (spoilers 5.02) -- Diana, 10:14:53
10/09/03 Thu
It is his "essence" that is tied to the Amulet of Purification.
Yet another concept that is part of the metaphysics of the Buffyverse.
It was probably this essence and not the human soul that went
to heaven when Buffy sacrificed herself. It is this essence that
Giles' probably refers to when he says that who we are doesn't
change or Riley is referring to when he tells Buffy that none
of this can touch her. This essence is probably why Angel doesn't
moan about being ripped out of heaven (or hell) when he is resouled.
It is this essence that is probably what Darla refers to in "Inside
Out" as what makes us who we are. It is this essence that
remains consistent, human to vampire souled or unsouled. Masq
is probably having a field day.
Joss is going to have to do some heavy exposition to get across
just what the soul is.
[> [> Re: It isn't his soul (spoilers 5.02) -- Ames,
10:22:30 10/09/03 Thu
You could substitute the word "conscience" for "soul"
as far as we know about what Angel and Spike have (or don't have
from time to time).
[> That was me... (spoilers for 5.2) -- Random, 10:40:15
10/09/03 Thu
Re someone mentioning carrot and stick. And it is not exactly
the morality of a child -- it is a cosmic morality in most human
societies, via myth and religion. All morality is carrot and stick,
really, when one considers that one does the moral thing for the
sake of a reward -- self-satisfaction, jewels from the king, karmic
balance, general worldly well-being -- and the immoral things
are punished (ideally) by karmic retribution or the mechanism
of law, or even just a self-loathing. For Spike, the stick is
just as interesting as the carrot, and not much different. In
either case, it is self-interest that motivates him -- the interest
in doing the right thing in Buffy's eyes or the interest in not
suffering an eternity in hell. Whether the hell is real or not,
or whether he's still dealing with the karma of his existence,
doesn't matter. What matters is that he believes it. Spike
has given every evidence of coming back without a real understanding
of his situation. He appears to believe that his sacrifice annulled
all debt, that he was destined for a reward and accolades. But
Angel's speech about his own atonement accentuates the problems
that Spike has already begun to encounter. If one buys that Angel
needs to atone -- a thesis I don't endorse wholeheartedly, but...
-- one must observe that Spike has to do more than the grand gesture.
As Buffy told Jonathan, you can't just make everything work with
the grand gesture. Life is complicated, messy. Call it karma,
or just call it a general attitude -- Spike seems to be struggling
with the idea that things are not as simplistic as he's always
viewed them. Spike the unsouled and Spike the ghost -- both tend
to see the world in very basic, very simplistic terms...and now
he is being forced to realize that change is about more than quick-fix
soul restorations and summary martyrdom. It's about continuity,
growth, living each moment out as it comes. It's hard work, and
often painful, but it's necessary. This is what I see being established
now: Spike reclaiming his humanity just as Angel struggled to
reclaim it. In terms of outlook and personality, there are many
instances of where he's changed little since the halcyon days
of the Big Bad (his treatment of Harmony stuck out like a sore
thumb, as did his jealousy of Angel and the attitude he expressed
toward Buffy in the opening dialogues of the episode.) He's changed
dramatically in some areas...but now comes the nitty-gritty. It's
not enough not to murder innocents...that's basic behaviour expected
(though not always gotten) from everyone with a soul. He's no
longer a monster. Now comes the true test -- can he be a man?
[> [> Changing Tunes -- Claudia, 11:12:19 10/09/03
Thu
It's interesting. After "Chosen" had aired, many had
believed that Spike had achieved redemption. Now, after the airing
of "Just Rewards", many believe that Spike had made
the grand gesture in the matter of self-interest. Which is it?
And has anyone noticed that despite their dislike and resentment
of each other, both Spike and Angel managed to come through? Spike
overcame his baggage to help out the one person he dislikes the
most. And Angel overcame his to accept the help of the one person
he believes (out of jealousy and resentment) he should not trust.
I think that both have come a long way.
[> [> [> Who are these 'many' you keep referring to?
-- Random, 11:16:15 10/09/03 Thu
I am certainly not one of them. I think he did it out of both
self-interest and desire redemption. I never said he achieved
transcendence. You might want to clarify what people you're referring
to. My only point in that matter is that Spike has a long road
to travel, IMHO. If you disagree, cool. Offer your own thesis,
and, preferably, a lucid defense of it.
[> [> [> Re: Changing Tunes -- LittleBit, 19:06:23
10/09/03 Thu
If I recall correctly after "Chosen" aired, there were
far more opinions offered on this board questioning what Spike
achieved for himself by his sacrifice than I recall claiming he
had achieved full redemption. Some of those views, and the arguments
used to present them at times made it seem that a majority of
the posters disliked season 7, leading to a rather shrill post
by Rina about how she liked it and didn't care if we all hated
it. I didn't hate s7, I liked it. That said, I never stated, nor
really saw stated on this board, that Spike was redeemed. Let's
face it---if he had been that would have been the end of his story).
I do feel compelled to point out, though, if you haven't already
noticed, that this board is quite different from the other Buffy
boards I visited at one time. It's one of the reasons I like it.
We don't tend to post questions for others to answer without posing
our own thoughts. We don't wait for others to respond just so
we can say "Nope, not good enough for me." If you want
a true discussion, this is certainly the place to come. But if
you choose to make your case by telling us what others, not you,
have said, without offering your own view of what they've said,
then, yes, we will eventually stop responding. Those of us who
like to participate in an exchange of thoughts, or when the topic
is an unfamiliar one, want to see thoughts...not a parroting of
what some nebulous 'other' has said (and making that other a 'many
others' in no way alters the fact that we are still not hearing
your thoughts.
That said, I'll answer your question "Which is it?"
It's both, Claudia. One of the interesting things about the TV/film/music
experience is that no one is obliged to have the same opinion
as the next person. There are those who believe that the 'grand
gesture,' the saving the world, does redeem a person for wrongdoing.
I don't happen to be one of them, but I can understand the "what
more do you want?" concept. There are others, myself included,
who see it as an amazing step in the journey.
Regarding your comment, yes, I noticed, as did many others, that
the Angel and Spike interaction was true to their past relationship,
and that they were able to put things far enough aside to do what
needed to be done. Things weren't moved very far though and that
bodes well for some interesting dynamics as things progress. I
think they both have come a long way.
[> [> thanks, Random! -- Miyu tVP, 11:27:09 10/09/03
Thu
Your comment stuck with me... but by the time I digested it, I'd
fogotten who said it. hope you don't mind!
I'm going to have to disagree with you about carrots and sticks.
I agree that it is "a" level of morality - one that
works fine for most people, and certainly one that is the back-bone
of any self-respecting organzied religion. But I think, I *hope*,
that it isn't the very highest level of morality we humans are
capable of. Still say it's trite and self-serving. and childish.
I'm coming at this from a personal/aesthetic angle, so I'm sure
I can't articulate this into an airtight logical argument, but
I don't think right and wrong comes down to rewards and punishments.
If something has a better reward overall than something else,
that makes it more "moral"? too utilitarian for me.
[> [> [> I Said . . . -- Claudia, 11:38:24
10/09/03 Thu
I said many fans or viewers. I did not refer to any person in
particular. Or any forum in particular. I always use the generic
term "many". I have heard similar comments about Spike
on other forums.
[> [> [> [> Why don't you try something new for
a change? -- Sheri, 15:29:29 10/09/03 Thu
I said many fans or viewers.
Actually, no, you didn't:
"It's interesting. After "Chosen" had aired, many
had believed that Spike had achieved redemption."
When someone directs a generic statement at me, I do wonder if
I am being included. So while maybe in your head you think that
it's clear that what you really mean is "on the several boards
I frequent, I have seen a large number of posters who apparently
believe this or that...", for those of us who are not mind
readers, it sounds like you're making a blanket accusation against
the entire board.
I can only speak for myself, but if you want me to take you at
all seriously, why don't you try citing actual examples and quit
making "generic" statements? Otherwise I'm just going
to continue presuming you're a troll looking to start flame wars.
[> [> [> [> [> This Is Getting Ridiculous!
-- Claudia, 10:37:19 10/10/03 Fri
[I said many fans or viewers.
Actually, no, you didn't:
"It's interesting. After "Chosen" had aired, many
had believed that Spike had achieved redemption."][
Okay, this is getting ridiculous! I admit that I didn't say "many
fans". But the word "many" is in there. Why are
you making a big fuss over this? I didn't mention anyone's name
on this forum. I didn't even mention this forum by name. And I
also mentioned that I have been visiting other BtVS. Why are you
making such a big fuss over something so petty?
[> [> [> [> [> [> I think what she was trying
to say is... -- Scroll, 12:13:54 10/10/03 Fri
I admit that I didn't say "many fans". But the word
"many" is in there. Why are you making a big fuss over
this? I didn't mention anyone's name on this forum. I didn't even
mention this forum by name.
I think you're missing what Sheri's trying to say. And I'm definitely
not trying to be mean or petty here; I'm merely explaining her
position, since I'm pretty sure I know what she's trying to get
at. (Sheri, if I'm wrong, please correct me.)
This board has a different atmosphere from most boards. Most of
our discussions involve posters sharing their own opinions, with
lots of on-screen evidence and hopefully reasoned arguments. We
don't shy away from giving our points of view, but we always try
to give rational explanations for why we think the way we do.
We don't shy away from stating our opinions. But we always try
to speak only for ourselves.
For example: Wesley is my favourite character. I think Wesley
is a complicated character with complex motivations and many psychological
issues. I think he's one of the most dedicated of all the fighters
on either Buffy or Angel, that his training as a
Watcher is a vital part of his decision-making process. Wesley
is intelligent, clever, strong, noble, faithful and loyal, dedicated
to saving the innocent and fighting evil. He's also a fucked up
SOB who makes bad decisions, plays lone wolf too often, screwed
around with the enemy, then fell in love with her. He's got Daddy
issues up the wazoo, trust issues, mental stability issues, and
will absolutely take his shot-gun to Angel's ass once he finds
out Angel's fucked with his memories.
Strong statements about a character I adore beyond all others.
If you quote me in one of your posts as saying, "Scroll thinks
Wesley is a fucked-up warrior of good with Daddy issues up the
wazoo", I will be more than happy to say, "Uh-huh, what
she said."
But when you say "Many posters think Wesley is a fucked-up
warrior of good with Daddy issues up the wazoo", you are
putting words in other people's mouths. There are plenty of Wes
lovers who don't think he's fucked-up at all. (Most of us do,
though, I think.) And there are plenty of Wes haters who don't
think he's much of a warrior of good at all.
So you see why we object to "many posters" or "many
posters on other boards" when you don't give actual examples
or quotes? I'm not saying you can never ever generalise -- but
be cautious of doing so, and be sure to give disclaimers to cover
your own butt. I'm saying this as a friend. Personally, I don't
get too fussy, but there are those who do, and they would have
every right to get fussy if your vague wording implied you were
speaking for them.
It's not that you don't name names or name forums. It's that you
don't name names or name forums (in other words, if you
say this person said this-and-this, please quote). We stand by
our words, or at least I know I do. (This isn't to say this also
doesn't backfire. If you quote out of context, be prepared for
the shit to hit the fan.) But instead of telling us what other
people are saying, why don't you tell us what you think?
We're interested in your ideas and thought processes. What do
you think of Wesley, and why do you think the way
you do? (Actually, please do share. I love talking about Wes!)
So there you have it. I hope my explanation helps you understand
the way we dialogue on this board. It's not that you can't post
any way you want to, say anything you want to. But I'm telling
you why some of us might take exception to your posts.
It's not that we don't like what you're saying, it's just how
you're saying it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Critiquing my own post
above (aka Doh!) -- Scroll, 13:01:00 10/10/03 Fri
Grr! I hate posting stuff without really thinking things through.
*sigh* Claudia, trust me when I say we have all, at one time or
another, posted things and later smacked ourselves in the forehead,
saying "What the hell was I thinking?" (And yes, that
sentence is hypocritical considering the point of this post.)
Okay, so here's the big thing I did really wrong in my above post.
I told you not to speak for others, and then I turned around and
did it myself! Bad Scroll, no biscuit!
I kept generalising how "we" on the Board prefer to
do discussion, describing how "we" interact. I guess
I did this because I've been on the board for nearly two years
now, and I feel a level of familiarity and comfort. I do
know how "we" prefer to interact on the Board, or at
least the official stance on Board interaction. Therefore I felt
able to give my opinion on it.
When you posted that 'After "Chosen" had aired, many
had believed that Spike had achieved redemption"', some
of us took exception to your "many". I think the difference
is that the statement (since we had to assume you were including
us in your "many") felt like a false statement to us
(or at least Random and Sheri, since they address that point specifically).
There were a good many of us on this board who didn't believe
Spike had achieved redemption (myself among them), and so since
it didn't seem a true statement, people took exception to your
generalisation. Now, if you had said "many fans on the net",
I think Random and Sheri wouldn't have replied as they did. Perhaps
they were being a little over zealous in pointing out the vagueness
in your statement; possibly they could have let it slide. In my
opinion, by itself your statement isn't that big a deal, like
you say.
But please be aware that if anyone consistently makes vague
statements that seem to imply that other posters are thinking
things they aren't actually thinking, people are going to get
upset. It's better to take an extra minute to make sure your post
is clear and understandable, than to unintentionally offend people.
At least, that's how we tend to do things on this Board. Which
is why I'm kind of ashamed of my obvious error in telling you
to do what I say, not what I do! I