Damaged Souls
Jan. 29th, 2004 10:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatHad a conversation with my mother recently about John Steinbeck's EAST OF EDEN, the conversation focused on something that I've been struggling with internly for a while now and that is these nasty human emotions.
Emotions you don't say or write out loud, for fear someone will think poorly of you. Envy, jealousy, anger, rage...Steinbeck is an interesting writer - one who does not back down from discussing the more negative aspects of humanity. In East of Eden, he makes a very strong case for accepting our imperfections. Our capacity for cruelty, meanness - is partly what does make us human. And like it or not, we all have it inside of us.
Monsters.
I don't know how many people out there have actually met a human monster. I have. I have sat across from a human being who killed for selfish purposes and showed no remorse for those killings. He touched my hand. I visited with him. I looked into his eyes. It is not an experience I will forget and it is not one I've seen replicated well onscreen. What was unforgettable about the experience was the person on the other side of that small coffee table we sat at, was human. He was not evil. He was not good. He claimed he was innocent, and I wanted to believe him. But after several visits, discussions with his attorneys, and a thorough inspection of the evidence, I realized he wasn't. He was a hit man. He killed others for money. Didn't think about it. Didn't look back. Each paycheck he got he put towards his dope habit. Until he was finally caught and locked away in Leavenworth Penitentiary.
Looking at this wreck of a human being, and he was a wreck with needle marks up his arms, yellowing eyes, and a slur, my niavete and innocence melted away. No longer would I look at murderers the same way. I couldn't. Because what I saw in front of me was not a monster, it was a man. Who had comitted horrible acts.
I also realized the words of my old criminal defense professor were true: "There but for the grace of god go I." Circumstance, luck, enviroment, genetics, etc had saved me from becoming a monster like this man had become.
What creates a Monster? Is it one act? OR several? The recent movie, MONSTER by Patty Jenkins demonstrates that it takes several acts over time. Most serial killers were abused horribly as children. They weren't born monsters. They didn't come out of the womb that way. Some were raped as children, beaten, tortured, mentally and physically abused. Their families ripped from them. Or they just couldn't connect to them anymore. So psychologically traumatized that in the end they retreated to that world permanently takening out their pain on others.
Not all people who are abused become Monsters. Our lives are not predestined. And the horrible abuse we suffer at the hands of others does not in any way justify the acts we do ourselves. We do have choices.
Even though at times it seems like we don't. That we are compelled to do things. Part of our struggle, is saying no. Not giving into the compulsion.
I keep coming back to two things that revolve over and over in my head...1. people don't become monsters over night, its more than one act, one circumstance that creates them and 2. what role does society play in the creation of human monsters...do we in fact create our own? By our inability to stop at any point what is happening, to intervene, and our own human imperfections which get in the way of helping?
I've found the posts on last night's Angel episode about Spike interesting and lovely, *but* they all are skipping around something that has been bugging me since I first read the spoilers for it.
How to put this into words? Dana...is someone who was become a monster due to what has been done to her by others without her consent. ATS touched on this lightly with Untouched - about a woman who unknowingly uses her telekinesis to hurt others. She was molested as a child and that experience caused this reaction. The difference between Dana and the girl in Untouched, is will. Dana wants to hurt and actually seems to enjoy it. The girl in Untouched didn't want to hurt, her power was doing it without her will. Both girls had their power pushed to the surface by an external entity - with the girl in Untouched it was Lilah and W&H, with Dana it's Buffy and Willow. Both also were damaged as children. Both had a doctor with ulterior motives.
What's important about both cases here - is it's not just one person, it's a group of people - the worse violators may actually be the well-intentioned ones.
1. Walter the serial killer. He traumatized her. Tortured her. Killed her family. Walter was worse than the vampires. Why? Because he did have a soul. He wasn't a demon. He was human. He didn't kill to drink blood and sustain himself. And don't misunderstand me to say that this justifies the vampires evil - it doesn't. I'm just pointing out a distinction.
2. The Doctor who is using Dana to write a book. Instead of figuring out what is wrong with her, he is using her a bit like a guinea pig. Keeping her doped up, video taping sessions. Keeping notes. Seeing her as a file on a desk.
3. Buffy and Willow - who decided to share Buffy's slayer powers with every potential slayer in the universe. Not knowing who these girls were, what their mental state currently was, and what sharing these powers might do to them. Andrew claims that was entirely unforeseen. Hmmm. Buffy has had the powers for seven years, has hated having them, been tormented with dreams she didn't understand and when she first got them was quickly tracked down and aided. That was when just one slayer got chosen. She didn't foresee
what this would do to people? Plus she does it so she can build an army of girls to go out and kill vampires?
This has disturbed me since Chosen. Maybe because I don't see female empowerment the same way Whedon does, I don't see it as being physical. Fred to me is an incredibly powerful woman and she is not physically powerful nor has great magics. Tara was also incredibly powerful. And I'd like to add Cordelia who tried to help the world day by day with painful visions. What Buffy and Willow did last year reminds me a great deal of what Cordelia did with Jasmine and what is happening with Angel...the puppet images.
It disturbs me.
What did Buffy's power do to poor Dana? It inflicted thousands of years of nightmares on someone who was already having nightmares. It inflicted power on someone who was filled with rage and wanted to inflict that rage on anyone who stopped by. And she does. She kills over 10 innocent people in this episode and she does it horribly. Buffy's power turned Dana into a killing machine. That disturbs me. And it never occurred to Buffy that this would happen?
I'm not sure if these are the questions the writers intended and since no one else seems to be asking them, maybe it's just me. Not sure.
Regarding Spike and Angel. This is the part of the episode I enjoyed. It didn't disturb me that much and it was about time the writers addressed these two characters issues.
While I had no problems with the mutilation of Spike - and the hands image. Lovely metaphor. Don't feel the need to analyze it since so many others already have. Ramses2 and morgain on ASSB wrote amazing posts analyzing it when spoilers came out this fall. I'm more interested in patterns - such as the use of physical torture to examine Spike's character as opposed to psychological torture.
The writers certainly like to physically torture Spike, don't they?
A brief list:
1. S2 What's My Line - Killed by Death: Spike hit by pipe organ, burned and in a wheel chair, tormented.
2. S3 Lover's Walk - drunk, burns his hand...actually gets off pretty well this season
3. S4 The Iniative - gets a chip in his head that makes it impossible for him to kill anything
4. S5 Is tortured by Glory and almost killed
5. S6 Is beaten up by Buffy and tortured in trials while getting a soul
6. S7 Is tortured, crucified and (it is implied, raped) by the First Evil's ubervamp and burns up saving the world
ATS
1. Conviction - comes back to life burning
2. Just Rewards - can't touch or feel anything
3. Unleashed - is being pulled to hell and can't control his visibility and can't leave
5. Hellbound - is being tortured by a ghost in numerous ways
6. Damage - has his hands cut off....
For some reason they rely on psychological torture for Angel and physical torture for Spike - to motivate character development. Not that Angel isn't going to get his fair share of the physical torture this year or hasn't been physically tortured in the past, but the emphasis has always been more psychological. I wonder if this is yet another way of distinquishing the characters - Spike is more physical than Angel, he's all about the body, the experience, while Angel is cereberal, all about the mind, and overthinks it. Their descriptions of how they looked at victims certainly support this:
Spike states that as a demon he never really saw the victims themselves, just bodies to kill. The rush. The crunch. This explains why when he discovers he can kill demons in Doomed, he's thrilled. He gets off on the rush of the kill. Who the victim is doesn't really matter to him. Demon? Human? Not a biggie. Someone online, can't remember where, (problem with lurking in so many places is you forget where you read things), stated that this made sense: Spike is chaotic evil, chaos doesn't think about victims or consequences - it just rips through, remember the little girl in the white room way back in S3 Forgiving mentions chaotic evil. For Spike - evil wasn't really a thought. He didn't care. It explains why he does what he does for Buffy in S4-6, occassionally helping. He does it not because its good or evil, but because it's fun. It's a party. It's a rush. Spike is in many ways a lot like the hired gun I mention above - the hit man who kills for the adrenaline rush and the next hit. Doesn't matter which side he does the hits for, he just does them. Makes him unpredictable, impossible to control, because he has no allegiances, he just does whatever feels good at the time.
Angel on the other hand, was in it for the evil. For Angel it is all about the individual victim. Angel is organized, structured in how he approaches things. Analytical. Calculated. He's a lot like Holland Manners of Wolfram and Hart, or Lindsey and Lilah, or
the little girl in the white room. To him, the fun was in the plan. In how you destroy the person, break them down, bit by bit.
How they go about finding Dana - emphasizes these two very different takes as well.
Angel thinks it through. Asks advice. Questions the nurse. Looks at the data. Analyzes it. Considers his options. He's very orderly. Had Wes call Buffy's group. Even sets up a tactical team to back him up. Order.
Spike rushes out and does it. Gets the info he needs.
Then takes off. Impulse. Chaotic. He finds the girl faster than Angel, using his body to do so. His sense of smell. His hearing. His senses. Angel uses the technology of W&H.
So it does make sense - that to push Angel's buttons - you go with the psychological torment. With Spike? You hurt his body. You go after his senses.
Angel - we get flashbacks, or visions of the victims that he spent so much time turning into monsters.
Spike - we get incorporeality, dragging to hell, cut off hands.
Angel- his dreams and mind is attacked with images.
Spike - his senses are removed or attacked, he can't feel, he can't touch, he can't smell.
Angel comes to an epiphany when a parasite gives him bad dreams. Spike when his hands are cut off.
It's interesting to me how this show demonstrates how order and chaos interrelate, how both are necessary but can also lead to evil. And it's equally interesting how they compare and contrast the use of physical and psychological images to examine character.
A bit of a ramble I'm afraid. Thoughts still way too cloudy by other things to remain coherent.
Overall a good episode. I actually enjoyed Andrew in it. Shocking I know. ;-)
Another frigid day outside with windchills. Ugh. Was hoping for a walk outside. Stretch my legs. Shake off the cabin fever and the growing feeling of isolation, which maybe adding to my irritiability.
Emotions you don't say or write out loud, for fear someone will think poorly of you. Envy, jealousy, anger, rage...Steinbeck is an interesting writer - one who does not back down from discussing the more negative aspects of humanity. In East of Eden, he makes a very strong case for accepting our imperfections. Our capacity for cruelty, meanness - is partly what does make us human. And like it or not, we all have it inside of us.
Monsters.
I don't know how many people out there have actually met a human monster. I have. I have sat across from a human being who killed for selfish purposes and showed no remorse for those killings. He touched my hand. I visited with him. I looked into his eyes. It is not an experience I will forget and it is not one I've seen replicated well onscreen. What was unforgettable about the experience was the person on the other side of that small coffee table we sat at, was human. He was not evil. He was not good. He claimed he was innocent, and I wanted to believe him. But after several visits, discussions with his attorneys, and a thorough inspection of the evidence, I realized he wasn't. He was a hit man. He killed others for money. Didn't think about it. Didn't look back. Each paycheck he got he put towards his dope habit. Until he was finally caught and locked away in Leavenworth Penitentiary.
Looking at this wreck of a human being, and he was a wreck with needle marks up his arms, yellowing eyes, and a slur, my niavete and innocence melted away. No longer would I look at murderers the same way. I couldn't. Because what I saw in front of me was not a monster, it was a man. Who had comitted horrible acts.
I also realized the words of my old criminal defense professor were true: "There but for the grace of god go I." Circumstance, luck, enviroment, genetics, etc had saved me from becoming a monster like this man had become.
What creates a Monster? Is it one act? OR several? The recent movie, MONSTER by Patty Jenkins demonstrates that it takes several acts over time. Most serial killers were abused horribly as children. They weren't born monsters. They didn't come out of the womb that way. Some were raped as children, beaten, tortured, mentally and physically abused. Their families ripped from them. Or they just couldn't connect to them anymore. So psychologically traumatized that in the end they retreated to that world permanently takening out their pain on others.
Not all people who are abused become Monsters. Our lives are not predestined. And the horrible abuse we suffer at the hands of others does not in any way justify the acts we do ourselves. We do have choices.
Even though at times it seems like we don't. That we are compelled to do things. Part of our struggle, is saying no. Not giving into the compulsion.
I keep coming back to two things that revolve over and over in my head...1. people don't become monsters over night, its more than one act, one circumstance that creates them and 2. what role does society play in the creation of human monsters...do we in fact create our own? By our inability to stop at any point what is happening, to intervene, and our own human imperfections which get in the way of helping?
I've found the posts on last night's Angel episode about Spike interesting and lovely, *but* they all are skipping around something that has been bugging me since I first read the spoilers for it.
How to put this into words? Dana...is someone who was become a monster due to what has been done to her by others without her consent. ATS touched on this lightly with Untouched - about a woman who unknowingly uses her telekinesis to hurt others. She was molested as a child and that experience caused this reaction. The difference between Dana and the girl in Untouched, is will. Dana wants to hurt and actually seems to enjoy it. The girl in Untouched didn't want to hurt, her power was doing it without her will. Both girls had their power pushed to the surface by an external entity - with the girl in Untouched it was Lilah and W&H, with Dana it's Buffy and Willow. Both also were damaged as children. Both had a doctor with ulterior motives.
What's important about both cases here - is it's not just one person, it's a group of people - the worse violators may actually be the well-intentioned ones.
1. Walter the serial killer. He traumatized her. Tortured her. Killed her family. Walter was worse than the vampires. Why? Because he did have a soul. He wasn't a demon. He was human. He didn't kill to drink blood and sustain himself. And don't misunderstand me to say that this justifies the vampires evil - it doesn't. I'm just pointing out a distinction.
2. The Doctor who is using Dana to write a book. Instead of figuring out what is wrong with her, he is using her a bit like a guinea pig. Keeping her doped up, video taping sessions. Keeping notes. Seeing her as a file on a desk.
3. Buffy and Willow - who decided to share Buffy's slayer powers with every potential slayer in the universe. Not knowing who these girls were, what their mental state currently was, and what sharing these powers might do to them. Andrew claims that was entirely unforeseen. Hmmm. Buffy has had the powers for seven years, has hated having them, been tormented with dreams she didn't understand and when she first got them was quickly tracked down and aided. That was when just one slayer got chosen. She didn't foresee
what this would do to people? Plus she does it so she can build an army of girls to go out and kill vampires?
This has disturbed me since Chosen. Maybe because I don't see female empowerment the same way Whedon does, I don't see it as being physical. Fred to me is an incredibly powerful woman and she is not physically powerful nor has great magics. Tara was also incredibly powerful. And I'd like to add Cordelia who tried to help the world day by day with painful visions. What Buffy and Willow did last year reminds me a great deal of what Cordelia did with Jasmine and what is happening with Angel...the puppet images.
It disturbs me.
What did Buffy's power do to poor Dana? It inflicted thousands of years of nightmares on someone who was already having nightmares. It inflicted power on someone who was filled with rage and wanted to inflict that rage on anyone who stopped by. And she does. She kills over 10 innocent people in this episode and she does it horribly. Buffy's power turned Dana into a killing machine. That disturbs me. And it never occurred to Buffy that this would happen?
I'm not sure if these are the questions the writers intended and since no one else seems to be asking them, maybe it's just me. Not sure.
Regarding Spike and Angel. This is the part of the episode I enjoyed. It didn't disturb me that much and it was about time the writers addressed these two characters issues.
While I had no problems with the mutilation of Spike - and the hands image. Lovely metaphor. Don't feel the need to analyze it since so many others already have. Ramses2 and morgain on ASSB wrote amazing posts analyzing it when spoilers came out this fall. I'm more interested in patterns - such as the use of physical torture to examine Spike's character as opposed to psychological torture.
The writers certainly like to physically torture Spike, don't they?
A brief list:
1. S2 What's My Line - Killed by Death: Spike hit by pipe organ, burned and in a wheel chair, tormented.
2. S3 Lover's Walk - drunk, burns his hand...actually gets off pretty well this season
3. S4 The Iniative - gets a chip in his head that makes it impossible for him to kill anything
4. S5 Is tortured by Glory and almost killed
5. S6 Is beaten up by Buffy and tortured in trials while getting a soul
6. S7 Is tortured, crucified and (it is implied, raped) by the First Evil's ubervamp and burns up saving the world
ATS
1. Conviction - comes back to life burning
2. Just Rewards - can't touch or feel anything
3. Unleashed - is being pulled to hell and can't control his visibility and can't leave
5. Hellbound - is being tortured by a ghost in numerous ways
6. Damage - has his hands cut off....
For some reason they rely on psychological torture for Angel and physical torture for Spike - to motivate character development. Not that Angel isn't going to get his fair share of the physical torture this year or hasn't been physically tortured in the past, but the emphasis has always been more psychological. I wonder if this is yet another way of distinquishing the characters - Spike is more physical than Angel, he's all about the body, the experience, while Angel is cereberal, all about the mind, and overthinks it. Their descriptions of how they looked at victims certainly support this:
Spike states that as a demon he never really saw the victims themselves, just bodies to kill. The rush. The crunch. This explains why when he discovers he can kill demons in Doomed, he's thrilled. He gets off on the rush of the kill. Who the victim is doesn't really matter to him. Demon? Human? Not a biggie. Someone online, can't remember where, (problem with lurking in so many places is you forget where you read things), stated that this made sense: Spike is chaotic evil, chaos doesn't think about victims or consequences - it just rips through, remember the little girl in the white room way back in S3 Forgiving mentions chaotic evil. For Spike - evil wasn't really a thought. He didn't care. It explains why he does what he does for Buffy in S4-6, occassionally helping. He does it not because its good or evil, but because it's fun. It's a party. It's a rush. Spike is in many ways a lot like the hired gun I mention above - the hit man who kills for the adrenaline rush and the next hit. Doesn't matter which side he does the hits for, he just does them. Makes him unpredictable, impossible to control, because he has no allegiances, he just does whatever feels good at the time.
Angel on the other hand, was in it for the evil. For Angel it is all about the individual victim. Angel is organized, structured in how he approaches things. Analytical. Calculated. He's a lot like Holland Manners of Wolfram and Hart, or Lindsey and Lilah, or
the little girl in the white room. To him, the fun was in the plan. In how you destroy the person, break them down, bit by bit.
How they go about finding Dana - emphasizes these two very different takes as well.
Angel thinks it through. Asks advice. Questions the nurse. Looks at the data. Analyzes it. Considers his options. He's very orderly. Had Wes call Buffy's group. Even sets up a tactical team to back him up. Order.
Spike rushes out and does it. Gets the info he needs.
Then takes off. Impulse. Chaotic. He finds the girl faster than Angel, using his body to do so. His sense of smell. His hearing. His senses. Angel uses the technology of W&H.
So it does make sense - that to push Angel's buttons - you go with the psychological torment. With Spike? You hurt his body. You go after his senses.
Angel - we get flashbacks, or visions of the victims that he spent so much time turning into monsters.
Spike - we get incorporeality, dragging to hell, cut off hands.
Angel- his dreams and mind is attacked with images.
Spike - his senses are removed or attacked, he can't feel, he can't touch, he can't smell.
Angel comes to an epiphany when a parasite gives him bad dreams. Spike when his hands are cut off.
It's interesting to me how this show demonstrates how order and chaos interrelate, how both are necessary but can also lead to evil. And it's equally interesting how they compare and contrast the use of physical and psychological images to examine character.
A bit of a ramble I'm afraid. Thoughts still way too cloudy by other things to remain coherent.
Overall a good episode. I actually enjoyed Andrew in it. Shocking I know. ;-)
Another frigid day outside with windchills. Ugh. Was hoping for a walk outside. Stretch my legs. Shake off the cabin fever and the growing feeling of isolation, which maybe adding to my irritiability.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-29 11:39 am (UTC)Re: thank you
Date: 2004-01-29 01:12 pm (UTC)I found in watching this episode, how much I identify with Angel at times. Overthinking problems. Brooding too long on it.
What keeps coming back to me though is how the series keeps playing with the ideas of order vs. chaos, and the spectrum of light and dark in both. We have Forgiving (still amongst my favorite episodes) where the little girl in the white room points out how she has no trouble with "evil" and "killing" but chaos upsets her. Which is why they made Sajhan incorporeal. Sajhan is a little like Spike in his evil - chaotic, crush and destroy. Reminds me of the anamoly of Rupert Giles in the Faral Demon's body, struggling with the two sides - the "crush/destroy" and the "analytical" - Giles is more analytical, calculating now, but as Ripper he was very much into the party. We see the war between both sides of this personality in Halloween, The Dark Age, Band Candy and A New Man.
Lots of continuity. Also wonderful allusions to S2 BTVS.
Thanks again.
Re: thank you
Date: 2004-01-29 02:16 pm (UTC)My brother is still in academia and has been looking for a tenure-track job for eight years now. He has seen that phrase a bazillion times at this point, and it stopped being reassuring long ago, if it ever was reassuring.
Good luck to you, my friend.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-29 11:44 am (UTC)Part 1, cuz I talk too much!
Date: 2004-01-29 12:00 pm (UTC)Agreed. Sometimes we can break the cycle, sometimes we show compassion instead of anger, love instead of hatred. Things don't always have to fall apart. That's my hope, at least.
The difference between Dana and the girl in Untouched, is will. Dana wants to hurt and actually seems to enjoy it. The girl in Untouched didn't want to hurt, her power was doing it without her will.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree here. I don't see Dana as enjoying any of what she's doing. I don't see her "wanting", as in having the conscious desire, to hurt people. I see her reacting. I see her traumatised, replaying the nightmare of the murder of her parents, her kidnapping and torture. When she attacks and kills, she isn't seeing the people she attacks and kills, but him. The monster who did this to her. And when she cuts off Spike's hands, she's not seeing just Spike, but Spike the vampire who killed her twice (as Nikki and Xin Rong), and as the monster who hurt her 15 years ago. It's all mixed up in her brain. That's how I see it, anyway.
Your point about Buffy and Willow sharing the Slayer powers is very good -- one I've pointed to in the past as a big reason why I'm uncomfortable with "Chosen". I liked what Joss was trying to say, I just don't agree with what foisting Slayer powers on unsuspecting girls would mean, symbolically.
But I have to agree with those who defend Buffy's actions as one of extreme necessity. Buffy knew full well that there would be girls out there like Faith, unstable and violent, more likely to abuse their power than to use it to do good. I'm sure it's something that haunts her even now. But Buffy's plan to share the power was a plan of desperation, of intuition. Give the girls the power, and hopefully save the world from ending. Maybe some of those girls will end up homicidal maniacs with super-strength, but hey, world not ended.
I'm not sure if these are the questions the writers intended and since no one else seems to be asking them, maybe it's just me. Not sure.
I'm sure the writers want us to ask these questions. I know I've asked these questions, and I still have no answers. But the asking is good, I think :)
Part 2
Date: 2004-01-29 12:01 pm (UTC)Excellent points, especially the categorising of chaotic and orderly evil, and how that relates to how the vamps are getting their character development.
Funny, I just read a The Sentinel fanfic in which the author said something very insightful. (If I can find it again, I'll link to it.) Basically, Jim, a police officer, is recovering from a knife wound. He keeps trying to get better by trying harder, pushing his body to feel better by exercising, straining himself. Obviously he doesn't get better. His doctor points out, generalising, that there are two types of people: people who live in their heads, and people who live in their bodies. I live in my head; my imagination and thought processes can amuse me for days, even weeks on end. Spike lives in his body. He experiences the world through his physical interaction. He fights, he fucks, he stalks around the room when impatient, he moves, he runs, he sprawls, he takes up space.
He needs the physicality of his body being damaged to move out of what-he-knew-before into the what-he-knows-now. Sorry I can't explain any better than that! The physical damage is a catalyst to his change and growth as a souled person.
Angel, at his most human, is a lot more physical. It's when he's doing his Beige!Angel or Angelus routine that he gets really, really scary-intelligent. Not saying he has a split personality or whatever. Only that Angel has to be in a not-human frame of mind to draw on certain aspects of himself.
How they go about finding Dana - emphasizes these two very different takes as well.
Angel reminds me a lot of Giles and Wesley here. He's doing the research, he's getting the intel. He's developing a strategy. But still, despite W&H's superior resources, he kinda wishes he was out on the streets the way Spike is, just going after the girl. Maybe he believes Spike's way is better in the long run? Maybe he's just tired of sitting in the office? Maybe both!
And Spike using his vamp senses, walking the streets and getting his hands dirty -- this was Angel not so long ago. This was Angel before he put on that suit and got handed the keys to a bunch of fancy cars. This, perhaps, is what Angel needs to get back to, if he wants to do real good.
But yet... is the W&H technology all that bad? Technology itself isn't evil, right? It's all in how you use it. W&H technology and medicine gave Lindsey an evil hand. W&H technology and medicine is working to wake Cordelia from her coma. W&H technology and medicine gives Spike back his arms. And wasn't the old Watchers Council a lot like W&H, except with tweed and moral high ground? Institutions can get mired down, corrupted, but does they have to be? Is it inevitable that big organisations will be ineffectual and morally bankrupt? Don't have answers yet...
Re: Part 2
Date: 2004-01-29 01:56 pm (UTC)Was it, Angel? Even in S1, S2, S3, and S4 - Angel never just relied on his senses or the physical. He had resources.
It's when he didn't he stumbled. In City of - he uses Doyle and a cop. Throughout most of Season 1 and 2 we see him relying on computers, the cops (specifically Dectective Kate Lockely), getting Gunn to help with a distraction, relying on Wes to help research, Cordelia and her research skills and visions. When he fires them? He goes to Kate again or uses informants.
Spike doesn't appear to do this. He seems to be much more of the loner. Far less analytical about it. Note in Supersymmetry how Angel figure out what happened to Fred?
He has a photographic memory he plots it out. Or what Angel's art is? Drawing - meticulous drawings.
Spike on the other hand is Mr. Sensual - he is into the fun of the thing. Poetry. Singing. The rush. He's intiuitive - he picks up body language, or how people reacte. He watchs how they interact with one another. Far more physical. Always touching things.
Angel only drinks blood. Isn't into eating, or drinking alcohol. We seldom see him doing it. The only time he got into that was when he became human. Spike on the other hand is always drinking alcohol or smoking or eating or doing something that involves one of his senses. You ask Angel what blood smells like, he'll say "I don't know, blood", Spike will describe it - "metallic, like a penny". If you ask Spike how to tactically plan an attack - he'll say lets just do it. IF you ask Angel he'll tell you how, make it an art form.
Very different personalities here. But also very similar.
As you pointed out very well above.
But yet... is the W&H technology all that bad? Technology itself isn't evil, right? It's all in how you use it.
I don't think the writers are stating technology in of itself is bad here, I think that relying too much on it can be. That's what we see beginning to happen with Gunn and possibly Fred. Pay attention to the others in the episode, the rest of the AI team. Gunn is relying way too much on W&H. Even mentioning that they need to kow-tow to senior partners. He's stopped being physical, become all cereberal, and at the same time is relying way too much on technology. Fred similarly - very much into the science. Angel is the one pulling back from it, hunting the medium.
Something between Spike - who wants nothing to do with it and Wes/Fred/Gunn who are relying far too much on it.
Actually Spike/Gunn may be a good comparison - Spike is more impulsive leaping to conclusions, Gunn wants to spend way too much time analyzing the situation compiling evidence. Both solutions lead to death and dismemberment, one because it takes too much time and one because it's far too dangerous and takes too many risks.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-29 07:21 pm (UTC)Okay, now I don't think you're giving Spike enough credit! Spike, at the very least, has "Doyle" his Vision Guy. Fake or not, Lindsey is someone in Spike's life now. And Spike has always been one to make connections in the demon world. He buys his blood now, I assume, so he must know some of the vamps, the butchers, the people on the streets. I'm sure he's made contacts. (Or he will, if he continues this S1 Angel routine Lindsey has him on.)
But yeah, Spike is (or was, as of "Soul Purpose") cut off from anyone who could be called his friend. Hopefully that last scene with Angel goes toward forging a bond that will be a life-saver to both vamps. They both need every friend they can get!
But Angel isn't exactly a slouch at reading body language either. I'm not saying he works on intuition the way Spike does -- but hey, it was Angel who figured out Gunn had murdered the professor, even though he never gave a hint he knew until he became Angelus. But anyway.
You ask Angel what blood smells like, he'll say "I don't know, blood"
Um. I'm not trying to pick on this point, but when did Angel say this? If I've forgotten, I apologise, but I don't remember this line.
I don't think the writers are stating technology in of itself is bad here, I think that relying too much on it can be.
Yeah, I think you're right here. In relying on W&H resources, in using their tools, law and procedure and protocol, the AI team is conforming to a way of life, of doing things that wasn't/isn't their own. But that's why I'm wondering about the parallels of W&H and the Council. Does the simple fact that you have money and paper-pushers working for you turn you into ineffectual fighters for good? Does the "medium", so to speak, change the "message"?
Re:
Date: 2004-01-29 07:33 pm (UTC)I should make clear that I don't consider one type of behavior superior to the other.
How about this?
Angel is a thinking personality - by that I mean cereberal, someone who is analytical, clinical. Who uses reason and often will detach. We see this with scientists, doctors, lawyers. Angelus was very much like this. Techs. I'm not saying they aren't emotional. They are. Heck most of the people online are probably this typed of personality. They just use "reason" or "head" to make decisions. They tend to be leaders.
Spike is a feeling personality - by this I mean, someone who goes with his gut. What he feels. These people tend to be poets, artists, creative types. They also wear their hearts on their sleeve. Their decisions tend to be made with the heart or their blood. They don't make very good leaders.
Of course we all fall a bit within the spectrum of the two...not extremes, so you will see a little of each trait in each vamp. Spike goes with his gut. Angel with his head, 9 times out of 10. There are exceptions.
Angel doesn't tell you what blood smells like, he ignores you or doesn't say how he could tell - examples:
Cautionary Tale (it's Spike who explains it to the others), the tracking in S1, S2, - look back over the seasons does Angel ever explain his tracking? He's quiet about it.
I'm not saying one quality is better than the other, I don't think Spike's stupid. He's actually very bright.
And I don't think Angel's cold - he's actually very emotional. What I'm saying is they deal with the world differently. One physically. One cereberally.
Not sure if that made sense.
Agree one isn't better than the other
Date: 2004-01-29 09:48 pm (UTC)And Buffy's right there, with the oil and maybe a mud pit ;)
But anyway, in regards to Angel as cerebral... I can't deny it. Angel, especially when he's channeling his Angelus self, is coldly analytical in his planning. Which isn't to say he doesn't feel a hell of a lot (which I think we agree on), cuz how you plan isn't the same as how you feel about how you plan. But there's plenty of times when Angel tries to lock away that analytical part of himself. I'm thinking of all the times he's reacted with his gut, done the really stupid let's kick some ass without thinking of even a basic plan thing plenty of times. Like, say, "Over the Rainbow" or, well, most of early S3 when he relies on Wes to do the big planning.
And I do think Spike can make a good leader. Not saying he's always the brains of the operation, or the motivator (Dru was often the real motivator) but he held together a gang of vamps in S2, he overthrew the Anointed and made those minions obey him. He had the good idea to videotape Buffy's fights so he could analyse them. So I do think he has leadership abilities. But yeah, he isn't usually, or even naturally, the leader.
Basically, I think both vamps are more in the middle of the spectrum than you do. That's okay, we're allowed to differ :)
Re: Agree one isn't better than the other
Date: 2004-01-29 09:56 pm (UTC)I think the best way to look at them is the way you'd look at a sibling. They are like brothers after all.
You think the reason you and the sibling don't get along is your differences, but actually it's the similarities.
When people ask if you are alike - you declare - no, we're as different as night and day, yet to an objective observer? You have more in common than you know. Yet there are differences or slight variations in your behavior. You are alike yet come at things differently.
Angel says off-white, Spike insists white. And no one knows you better than that sibling, no one can push your buttons quicker. No one brings out the worst in you quite like they do.
It's an odd relationship. I find Spike a far more interesting character on ATS than on BTVS, just as I find Angel far more interesting on ATS than BTVS. And together? They are fascinating because of the things they bring out in each other. They make good foils.
Re: Part 1, cuz I talk too much!
Date: 2004-01-29 01:38 pm (UTC)Good points. But still on the fence here - a friend of mine compared Dana to Dru, which may actually be a better comparison. Neither character seems to be cognizant of what they are doing really. Which brings up another question: can you have will if you have no ability to comprehend? No mind? In the legal arena, insanity is a defense. You have to have competency - the ability to determine right from wrong to stand trial and be convicted of a crime, otherwise you do a competency hearing and are put in an asylum.
I think Dana did enjoy it - inflicting pain - or the actress at least conveyed it, through her grin. She saw it as inflicting it on her attacker. But she did enjoy it. She did choose to do it. The difference is - she did not see her victims, all she saw was Walter. Every man she looked at was Walter. That man's face was Walter's face. I keep comparing her in my head to Connor - who seemed to see every victim by the end of S4 as his father - the father he couldn't kill and couldn't love, the father who he felt robbed him of identity and purpose - whether this father is Holtz or Angel is uncertain. The ghost of Connor seems to echo with Dana. I can't help but wonder if part of Angel's response to Dana may be a reflection of how he feels about what happened with Connor?
But I have to agree with those who defend Buffy's actions as one of extreme necessity. Buffy knew full well that there would be girls out there like Faith, unstable and violent, more likely to abuse their power than to use it to do good. I'm sure it's something that haunts her even now. But Buffy's plan to share the power was a plan of desperation, of intuition. Give the girls the power, and hopefully save the world from ending. Maybe some of those girls will end up homicidal maniacs with super-strength, but hey, world not ended.
Yes, but did that stop the world from ending? Or was it the amulet from W&H? The more I think about Chosen, the more it bothers me. If it weren't for that amulet, those girls and Buffy would be dead. I'm not sure that Buffy made the best choice here or the only one. From Buffy's point of view and the view of the storyteller it seemed wonderful - share the power, don't keep it to yourself, that's evil. Yet...yet..
what if the power that you have isn't necessarily a gift but a curse, something that dooms you. Like vampirism.
Is it still necessarily wise to share it? Or to do so without allowing others to make that choice? Could Willow have found a way to empower just the girls there? I don't know...it's a guestion that continues to bother me.
This is why I have issues with "Chosen"
Date: 2004-01-29 02:14 pm (UTC)"Chosen" had great potential. S7 had amazing potential. I liked where Joss was going with all of it. I liked the theme of power and sharing it. I just think the execution faltered. The amulet, if you'll excuse me, was a total crock. It worked to get Spike onto Angel, but as a plot device in "Chosen", it was clunky and ridiculous.
And yes, the amulet and Spike saved the day. Please don't think I don't give Spike the credit he deserves for dying to save the world. But as a story-telling device, it made no sense and totally undermined the decision to share the Slayer power. The newly activated Slayers should've been the key, the reason why the world is turning today. We are stronger together, we are stronger when we share, we are better and more enduring because we are not alone -- that should have been the reason why the world didn't end. Not a shiny bauble sent over from W&H.
But I don't blame Buffy and her decision; I blame the writers. The creators of the Buffyverse. I'm not saying Buffy was perfect. I loved all her flaws in S7. But from a universe-creating POV, Joss fell down. Anyway, that's just how I see it! It's possible I'm being a little hard on him...
what if the power that you have isn't necessarily a gift but a curse, something that dooms you. Like vampirism.
Hee! That's exactly what I said! (http://www.livejournal.com/users/scrollgirl/55941.html) I'd be glad to hear what you think.
Re: This is why I have issues with "Chosen"
Date: 2004-01-29 03:09 pm (UTC)Wrote a lengthy essay - Season 7 Review at www.geocities.com/shadowkatbtvs detailing some of them.
I had troubles with it being an amulet that was brought over by the lead character of another series in the final episode being what saved the world. It took away from the sharing the power theme. Oh I know what Whedon wanted to say, I just don't think it was well conveyed, rather clunkily conveyed actually.
I wrote ages ago a post on atpo explaining what I think Whedon meant to do in that final scene where Spike saves the world and Buffy helps. In that post which is probably in the archives back in May? I state that he's trying to show how Buffy needs to accept the darkness in herself, go beyond good and evil and share that with the world. I saw the metaphors, I saw the message. But...I did not find the way it was conveyed to be clear or well-written. The characters didn't further the plot so much as were used by the writers to make statements. Often thrust into situations that made no sense or felt out of character. In S7 I felt as if the writers had grown bored of the story they were telling and just pushing out episodes and occassionally playing games with the audience. I may change my mind in years to come. But right now? It's my least favorite season of both series and not one I re-watch. The only two episodes I *really* liked out of it were Beneath You and Selfless. LMPTM is ruined by two things - Robin Wood, a character I can't watch without cringing, and
Giles, who felt off and underdeveloped. While they finally followed up on Spike, they have yet to satisfactorily follow up on Giles. Hopefully someday, I'll be able to watch that season with a different more positive perspective, but right now? Doubtful.
S7 had good eps, but lousy arc
Date: 2004-01-29 07:05 pm (UTC)Hopefully you're right about perspective. I'd like to be able to go back to S7 one day and see a stronger, less scatter-shot story.
Btw
Date: 2004-01-29 02:18 pm (UTC)Whew! Sorry, didn't mean to rant on you. But it's a sticking point and I really want to clarify.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-29 01:12 pm (UTC)I don't think it did. And even if it did, I think she would have done it anyway. She was trying to avert an apocalypse. Balancing one damaged life against millions? A variation on the choices she had in The Gift.
But remember, Buffy wasn't the one who made Dana a potential. What if Dana had been activated in the regular course of Slayer's being chosen as one dies? What would the CoW have done? Probably would've killed her, as they tried to do with rogue slayer Faith. They would've killed her to activate the next slayer, without any thought to her right to live. A sad, sick choice, either way you go, isn't it?
punkinpuss
Re:
Date: 2004-01-29 01:18 pm (UTC)And did Buffy's decision to empower all these girls in any way shape or form avert that apocalpyse? Think about it.
What would have happened if Spike's amulet didn't go off?
Lots and lots of dead girls. Buffy would have failed.
So, was it a good plan? And did it have consequences that may cause another apocalyspe down the road?
Wes' statement about how it was a good strategic move - make an army of slayers...sent a chill up my spine. Just as Gunn's comment that we don't have all the evidence about Eve. Also, the idea that W&H have satellite capability and could without much trouble take out and kill every one of these girls.
Re:
Date: 2004-01-29 02:31 pm (UTC)In the end, it needed both the Slayer army and Spike's amulet to avert apocalypse. If the Slayer army hadn't been there to buy them time, Spike could've been dusted before the amulet was activated. Without the amulet, the Slayer army would've gotten slaughtered eventually. Either way, they needed both or the whole world was doomed.
And either way, the choices are morally gray. It's an impossible choice. Give the power to thousands of potentials, of unknown background, to improve your chances of saving the world or don't do it and face even worse odds against an army of demons who will almost certainly destroy the world.
At least Buffy takes the responsibility for what she did by taking Dana away from W&H/Angel. Dana is her responsibility now. It's not a matter of trusting Angel/W&H or not. Even if she did trust Angel AND W&H, she shouldn't have left Dana in their care. And if Buffy didn't forsee a Dana situation, ME most certainly did. One of the shots in Chosen is of an abused girl who stops a punch during what seems to be a beating from her father. The CoW couldn't control who was chosen any more than Buffy could.
Even with the best of intentions our actions can come back to haunt us with dire consequences for ourselves, or even worse, for others. It's a great storyline and one that I'm sorry we won't get to see played out with Buffy and the Scoobies.
Of course, that's a major arc for Lymond that begins in Queens Play and continues throughout the rest of the series -- how much our actions and words effect the fates of all those around us.
punkinpuss
Hmmm I think you convinced me
Date: 2004-01-29 08:02 pm (UTC)At least Buffy takes the responsibility for what she did by taking Dana away from W&H/Angel. Dana is her responsibility now.
Yes, I agree with this. Just got off the phone with a friend tonight who echoed many of these comments. And actually really supported your argument.
My friend's points:
1. In Chosen, Buffy had no way of knowing what Spike's amulet would do. Even if she failed, by empowering slayers all over the world - she gave the world a means of fighting the ubervamps. The newly empowered slayers would at least be able to help. It would no longer be just one girl against millions of vampires. It would be thousands of girls. Trained or untrained that was better than nothing.
2. After Spike does save the world, Buffy and the Gang don't just go off on a five year Caribbean Cruise, they
search the world for the slayers, hoping to train them, help them deal with the power. They do take responsibility for what was decided.
3. They mention that Dana wasn't on their radar and was an anomaly. But they take responsibility for her. They don't leave her with Angel. They take her themselves. Very different than what they did with Faith.
What isn't explained and is somewhat troubling is why didn't Buffy tell Angel and his team about this weeks ago? It's been about four months...right? Was it because she didn't want Angel hunting slayers?
no subject
Date: 2004-01-29 04:13 pm (UTC)Liked your comments about Chosen and how Angel the show is dealing with some of the fallout... Not sure if that's what Joss intended in Chosen, but boy are they thinking about it now!
I'm not sure if you've read
Mmm. I love the grayness of this episode.
Re: Dana as irredeemable
Date: 2004-01-29 07:21 pm (UTC)I remain on the fence regarding Dana. The more I think about it though - Dana may be more of a device to get at what's going in inside Angel and Spike. This episode is very similar to The Sonmubalist from S1, in what it is trying to examine. In The Sonmubalist - we are mislead to believe that Angel is the killer, a serial killer torturing his victims, doing exactly what had been Angel's own M.O. ages in the past. We learn it's someone else entirely. The person it is - was himself a victim.
Now is irredeemable - a vampire. In Damage - Dana is human not quite as irredeemable as Penn, she has a soul.
Can Buffy and the SG help her? We don't know. What Spike says to Angel in this episode reminds me a little of what Angel said to Cordelia in The Sonmubalist - which is a reflection of what he feels about himself. "She's a monster now...like us" emphasis on "us". Angel: No she's an innocent victim. Spike: So were we - once upon a time.
Spike isn't really talking about Dana here. He is talking about himself. He is asking Angel if he can be helped. If Angel can be. If either of them can be anything different than the monsters they've become, over time, over a series of acts. The question at the end of the episode is not about Dana, it's about Angel and Spike, or possibly even broader than even that - can
you reclaim a life? Can you help someone who has become a monster?
It's interesting that the writers chose Andrew of all people to represent the SG and slayers. Andrew who in many ways represents a young Wes. Andrew like Wes has blood on his hands. And in sending Andrew - the message seems to be yes, you can reclaim a life gone astray, but ...but does it matter when you reclaim it? And does free choice have to come into play? Dana - can only be reclaimed if Dana has the ability to choose it. Spike and Angel both have souls now, a moral compass, the ability to choose - they may never be able to make up for their past sins, but they can choose to be better people in the future...I think that may be part of the reason Andrew was chosen. And part of the message behind the line "once upon a time".
It's an interesting episode. Isn't it?