![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatIt's late and I should be off the net and in bed. Or at the very least refilling the humidifier, which is getting low again. But feel restless...possibly a side-effect of the chocolate I ate. Must stop doing that.
Read two things on the net...that sparked thoughts. Deep or not, is not relevant.
1. First..a poem by Roz_K entitled Complicity that I think does a wonderful job of describing that ambiguous feeling of guilt we all have when we enjoy something from a creator or source...that operates against our convictions or is against everything we believe. Recently I've been struggling to answer the question..."What are the main obstacles in living your convictions? What will you do differently because of this? If you could write the ideal way to live what would it say?" As I have been struggling with the enjoyment of cultural arts or products by those...who are the antithesis of those convictions.
Example? Do you continue to listen to a band that wrote songs you loved, that you enjoyed, when you discover they raped a woman? Or do you continue to read books by a guy who is a bigot, a racist? Or buy chocolate from a company that sells a substance containing poison to a developing country? Do you continue to work in a field that hurts others with its products? Are we complicit? And to what degree? And is it just a matter of perception?
They say do no harm. But it is harder than it appears. How do you always know? I love the works by Joss Whedon, but I've heard stories that he ...mistreated various actors and crew members, and was a bit of a bully? How do I reconcile these things? Are these stories even true or merely hearsay?
And if they are true...isn't Whedon human? And hardly perfect? And hardly evil...I've seen worse, known worse? And are we getting both sides of the tale? Or how about Mel Gibson? Or Alfred Hitchcock...who was notorious for sexual harassment? Or various others? Are we complicit...if we continue to buy their products? What if we don't see their actions in this way? What about the Twilight novels...or how about the violence on tv shows? Or the sexism of the Bond films?
Perhaps it is a matter of degree? After all no one was truly raped on Whedon's shows and depiction is a fair one of society, a reflection of what occurs in society. This is true of Criminal Minds or other shows as well. Can you blame art for depicting what exists? Or the creator for exploring it? And there's a huge difference between depicting or showing life as it is, and well the act. If it was a snuff film it would be different after all.
Complicity...is insidious I think and not clear cut. There's a difference between loving a band's songs and not knowing what it is doing behind the scenes, and loving the band's songs - after you discover what it is doing behind the scenes. Ignorance vs. Informed.
I wonder too about this age of too much information...before we were oblivious, unaware. Now, we aren't. Instant info. It's no longer news at 11, it's news 24/7 and in every format imaginable.
How don't you know about the killings in Benghazi...unless you are living under a rock. And may I join you? And the onslaught is overwhelming, desentisizing. It's almost hard to care after a while, I can't do anything anyhow...which makes me wonder is that what the Germans thought when the Nazis took over bit by bit? That feeling of inertia. The inability to move. Paralysis, under the onslaught of information...
Can I change the world? Do I even know how? The answer seems so simple - of course you do. Of course I would. And of course I wouldn't do that. But put it to the test...the real test? Is it? I don't know the answers. I'm half afraid to.
2. In a recent scan of a review of the Angel S5 Episode - "Destiney", I hit upon one interesting tid-bit. "Angelus's jealousy. Angelus had decided Spike was his. And when Spike said he wanted to share with Drusilla, Angelus chose to take Drusilla from Spike." It threw the whole series into a new, and somewhat disturbing light, along with the character of Angel - who appears to be more emotionally invested in male relationships than one's with women or people who are not like Angel. This is not a comment on homosexuality - far from it. Because I don't think of Angel and Spike as gay, so much as bisexual, and more on the heterosexual side of the fence...to be honest. It feels too much like a bullshit gay subtext...the sort of thing that makes heterosexuals comfortable, in heterosexual humorous nudge nudge wink wink sort of way, which I've always wondered, would I find offensive if I were homosexual? I don't know, can't decide if it is offensive now. Some found it offensive, some didn't. Personally, I found it sort of hot - and have always wondered if that should bother me...should I find it hot? Is that no different than a heretrosexual male finding two hetersexual/bisexual women flirting and kissing hot? The whole thing gives me headache, when I think about it too hard.
But it seems Angelus and Angel's hang-up is on the father/son relationship and solely that. His mother barely mattered. We never really see her. And while he clearly cared for Darla, it was the Master he obsessed over impressing and when he couldn't - he strove to take Darla from him. He hurts the men he can't get in the same fashion over and over again. A repetitious pattern. His vengeance on his father - was to take his father's family, then kill Daddy. He does the same with Giles. Note, he doesn't kill Giles - he kills Jenny. Giles he leaves alone (not talking about the comics, just the tv series). And with Spike - he takes Dru from him. HE wants Spike. He wants to create his own monster, his son, someone who will adore him, revere him...much like he did the Master (albeit quietly and without the Master's complete knowledge of it). He feels much the same with Connor. With Holtz - he doesn't kill Holtz, he kills Holtz's family - takes them, makes them vampires.
It's fascinating in a way. Angelus doesn't want Dru to create Spike, he wants to do it. He wants to be the leader of the family/the father figure - not Dru, not Darla. It is in the end about power. Are all relationships about power, I wonder? Is that the problem? Jockeying for power?
One abdicates, one takes control? It is true almost all of the relationships Whedon writes about are about power dynamics. Sexual or otherwise.
I don't know why of all the tv shows that I've watched, I find myself analyzing Whedon's Buffy and Angel the most and still. I wouldn't say they were necessarily the best written, they weren't. And I do have issues with both and their creator on all so many levels...and yet for some inexplicable reason those shows spoke and still speak to me in a way nothing else has, before or since. And I don't know why, nor am I certain I want to know why. I try not to think about it too much.
Sometimes I think, at least for me at any rate, that it's easier to discuss tv shows or books...than it is other things. Safer somehow.
It's late. I'm tired. Time for bed. Shower first. Humidifier second. I think.
Read two things on the net...that sparked thoughts. Deep or not, is not relevant.
1. First..a poem by Roz_K entitled Complicity that I think does a wonderful job of describing that ambiguous feeling of guilt we all have when we enjoy something from a creator or source...that operates against our convictions or is against everything we believe. Recently I've been struggling to answer the question..."What are the main obstacles in living your convictions? What will you do differently because of this? If you could write the ideal way to live what would it say?" As I have been struggling with the enjoyment of cultural arts or products by those...who are the antithesis of those convictions.
Example? Do you continue to listen to a band that wrote songs you loved, that you enjoyed, when you discover they raped a woman? Or do you continue to read books by a guy who is a bigot, a racist? Or buy chocolate from a company that sells a substance containing poison to a developing country? Do you continue to work in a field that hurts others with its products? Are we complicit? And to what degree? And is it just a matter of perception?
They say do no harm. But it is harder than it appears. How do you always know? I love the works by Joss Whedon, but I've heard stories that he ...mistreated various actors and crew members, and was a bit of a bully? How do I reconcile these things? Are these stories even true or merely hearsay?
And if they are true...isn't Whedon human? And hardly perfect? And hardly evil...I've seen worse, known worse? And are we getting both sides of the tale? Or how about Mel Gibson? Or Alfred Hitchcock...who was notorious for sexual harassment? Or various others? Are we complicit...if we continue to buy their products? What if we don't see their actions in this way? What about the Twilight novels...or how about the violence on tv shows? Or the sexism of the Bond films?
Perhaps it is a matter of degree? After all no one was truly raped on Whedon's shows and depiction is a fair one of society, a reflection of what occurs in society. This is true of Criminal Minds or other shows as well. Can you blame art for depicting what exists? Or the creator for exploring it? And there's a huge difference between depicting or showing life as it is, and well the act. If it was a snuff film it would be different after all.
Complicity...is insidious I think and not clear cut. There's a difference between loving a band's songs and not knowing what it is doing behind the scenes, and loving the band's songs - after you discover what it is doing behind the scenes. Ignorance vs. Informed.
I wonder too about this age of too much information...before we were oblivious, unaware. Now, we aren't. Instant info. It's no longer news at 11, it's news 24/7 and in every format imaginable.
How don't you know about the killings in Benghazi...unless you are living under a rock. And may I join you? And the onslaught is overwhelming, desentisizing. It's almost hard to care after a while, I can't do anything anyhow...which makes me wonder is that what the Germans thought when the Nazis took over bit by bit? That feeling of inertia. The inability to move. Paralysis, under the onslaught of information...
Can I change the world? Do I even know how? The answer seems so simple - of course you do. Of course I would. And of course I wouldn't do that. But put it to the test...the real test? Is it? I don't know the answers. I'm half afraid to.
2. In a recent scan of a review of the Angel S5 Episode - "Destiney", I hit upon one interesting tid-bit. "Angelus's jealousy. Angelus had decided Spike was his. And when Spike said he wanted to share with Drusilla, Angelus chose to take Drusilla from Spike." It threw the whole series into a new, and somewhat disturbing light, along with the character of Angel - who appears to be more emotionally invested in male relationships than one's with women or people who are not like Angel. This is not a comment on homosexuality - far from it. Because I don't think of Angel and Spike as gay, so much as bisexual, and more on the heterosexual side of the fence...to be honest. It feels too much like a bullshit gay subtext...the sort of thing that makes heterosexuals comfortable, in heterosexual humorous nudge nudge wink wink sort of way, which I've always wondered, would I find offensive if I were homosexual? I don't know, can't decide if it is offensive now. Some found it offensive, some didn't. Personally, I found it sort of hot - and have always wondered if that should bother me...should I find it hot? Is that no different than a heretrosexual male finding two hetersexual/bisexual women flirting and kissing hot? The whole thing gives me headache, when I think about it too hard.
But it seems Angelus and Angel's hang-up is on the father/son relationship and solely that. His mother barely mattered. We never really see her. And while he clearly cared for Darla, it was the Master he obsessed over impressing and when he couldn't - he strove to take Darla from him. He hurts the men he can't get in the same fashion over and over again. A repetitious pattern. His vengeance on his father - was to take his father's family, then kill Daddy. He does the same with Giles. Note, he doesn't kill Giles - he kills Jenny. Giles he leaves alone (not talking about the comics, just the tv series). And with Spike - he takes Dru from him. HE wants Spike. He wants to create his own monster, his son, someone who will adore him, revere him...much like he did the Master (albeit quietly and without the Master's complete knowledge of it). He feels much the same with Connor. With Holtz - he doesn't kill Holtz, he kills Holtz's family - takes them, makes them vampires.
It's fascinating in a way. Angelus doesn't want Dru to create Spike, he wants to do it. He wants to be the leader of the family/the father figure - not Dru, not Darla. It is in the end about power. Are all relationships about power, I wonder? Is that the problem? Jockeying for power?
One abdicates, one takes control? It is true almost all of the relationships Whedon writes about are about power dynamics. Sexual or otherwise.
I don't know why of all the tv shows that I've watched, I find myself analyzing Whedon's Buffy and Angel the most and still. I wouldn't say they were necessarily the best written, they weren't. And I do have issues with both and their creator on all so many levels...and yet for some inexplicable reason those shows spoke and still speak to me in a way nothing else has, before or since. And I don't know why, nor am I certain I want to know why. I try not to think about it too much.
Sometimes I think, at least for me at any rate, that it's easier to discuss tv shows or books...than it is other things. Safer somehow.
It's late. I'm tired. Time for bed. Shower first. Humidifier second. I think.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-18 12:49 pm (UTC)And Whedon talks so much about it. He makes very complex power dynamics, starting with the trio Buffy-Willow-Xander and going to Darla-Angelus-Dru and Spike. I wanted to make a specific meta about power-dynamics in Whedonverse, because my inner sociology nerd thinks that Whedon is also kinda the sociology nerd. Maybe he got all this from his mother. But, whatever.
Angelus is all about control and power, he wants and needs to be the patriarch and so he challanges other male figures to prove his leadership. I'm against all the "alpha male" crap, because power dynamics are more complex than that. I think that Angelus' settings in power dynamics are clearly influenced by his relationship with his father.
Angelus doesn't work well with others, he costantly challanges authority (For example, he kills the Best in Season Four of AtS and he goes away from the Master, another patriarch of the vampiric community) and he doesn't care about women (his mother was absent= all the women means nothing)
no subject
Date: 2012-11-18 10:42 pm (UTC)Note when he digs up Acathla - he wants to seen as "worthy" - he's willing to destroy the world and take everything to hell - to redeem himself in the eyes of the hellish power, the authority. I must be worthy.
And Angel - as much as he claims to be helping others for the sake of helping them, he craves approval. He wants that authority's approval. Giles denies it.
So he strives for the higher power - the PTB. He'll do just about anything for it. It's why it is so easy to manipulate him.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-18 10:48 pm (UTC)I agree about the approval. To me Angel/us desperatly needs approval and recognition. Even in the ways he kills, it's all about statements and art performed by him. In a way, the fact that he challenges authority can easy cohexist with his desire of approval. In the end it's all about "look at me, look at me!" (Sorry for my English! ^_^)
no subject
Date: 2012-11-19 12:28 am (UTC)We appear to agree on everything but the authority bit. ;-)
It's admittedly been a while since I watched the series, so my memory may be faulty but I thought the Powers That Be were pretty much defined as authority figures by the characters...in that they set the rules and define how things work. Angel certainly saw them as authority figures or at least that was my impression. He even railed against them as such, as did Spike and others...although Spike was less certain of their existence.
To clarify? I'm not saying I define God as an authority figure necessarily, just that I felt the tv series appeared to.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-18 04:43 pm (UTC)I hadn't really thought about Jenny's murder as an attack on the Scooby patriarch. But it makes sense. And of course, Angel knew that nothing would hurt Buffy more than to see her father figure suffering.
I disagree that Angelus ever adored or revered the Master. I think he just rebelled against the Master's power, the way he rebelled against all the father figures in his life - and the way his own "sons" would subsequently rebel against him. He may tell himself that he wants them to revere him, but the only one who actually did was Penn, and Angelus got bored of him in five seconds and then abandoned him for a century. (I wrote a fic about this once.) Angel is secretly proud of his sons when they defy his patriarchal authority, because that's what he always did. If they don't defy him, then they're not really made in his own image.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-18 09:54 pm (UTC)Angel is secretly proud of his sons when they defy his patriarchal authority, because that's what he always did. If they don't defy him, then they're not really made in his own image.
His sons rebel against him but not against his schemes. They follow a certain model of power dynamics so easily then he can play he's own role. Their rebelliousness is another way to reproduce always the same scheme, always same power dynamic without change. It's like a convenient rebellion that makes things just the same.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-18 10:38 pm (UTC)He wants someone to "okay" it, or to annoit him. To choose him. It's the old prodigal son tale - the boy comes back and Daddy welcomes him with open arms.
He wants to be embraced by the higher power - without that, this, all of it, means nothing.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-18 10:35 pm (UTC)It's not about obey, so much as impress and obtain approval. Angel and Angelus have that fatal flaw in common - both seek male approval, specifically an authority. For Angelus - that was the Master or the Old Ones or whoever was the biggest and baddest. For Angel - that was the PTB. Both saw themselves as the "chosen" son - who needed Daddy's approval. And his relationship with his own sons, biological or otherwise, is similar - they want his approval, he refuses to give it.
Note - Spike brags to Angel (whom he believes to be Angelus) that he killed a slayer. But at this point, that's not an accomplishment.
Part of it is surpassing the father figure, the other part is obtaining the father's approval...kill thy father, become thy father, become thy own man - typical mythological trope.
His relationship with Spike is both father/son and older brother/younger brother. In the first relationship - it's the dynamic of Spike striving to obtain Angel's approval. In the second - it's Spike striving to best his brother, sibling rivalry.