Moving to a Doylist level: I think what disturbs some viewers, including our host, is that the narrative itself in a way supports Angel's decision because once the spell is broken in Origin, and Connor has both sets of memories available again, he still is better off for what Angel did. (Connor v.3?) He expresses some reservations but he also says he gets why Angel did it. (Wesley, too, after regaining his memories.) And if you as a viewer consider Angel's action wrong and selfishly motivated, then the show should have let either Connor be worse off and/or tell Angel what he did was wrong. If, otoh, like myself you consider what Angel did understandable (and something you might do yourself under identical circumstances), then the narrative validating Angel's decision by letting Connor-with-both-memories be better off for what Angel did is a boon instead of a disturbance.
Exactly this. I think that is the difference in the two perspectives. Thank you. And I think it has a lot to do with..how you view memory loss and redemption. Which is difficult to define - not what you stated above, but ..why we view it this way. Why some of us saw the writing as a betrayal of moral pov, while others a validation of a moral pov. I don't know. I do know that both perspectives are equally valid - the morality here is admittedly ambiguous. And that the writers ...well, I think were equally on the fence about it. As shown in Dollhouse and unfortunately the comics. Whedon clearly was of two minds...and the text sort of reveals that. It can be read two ways. Angel dies for his sins and takes LA and possibly Connor along with him in Not Fade Away. Would Not Fade Away have happened if Angel made a different choice?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2012-03-22 12:05 am (UTC)Exactly this. I think that is the difference in the two perspectives.
Thank you. And I think it has a lot to do with..how you view memory loss and redemption. Which is difficult to define - not what you stated above, but ..why we view it this way. Why some of us saw the writing as a betrayal of moral pov, while others a validation of a moral pov. I don't know. I do know that both perspectives are equally valid - the morality here is admittedly ambiguous. And that the writers ...well, I think were equally on the fence about it. As shown in Dollhouse and unfortunately the comics. Whedon clearly was of two minds...and the text sort of reveals that. It can be read two ways.
Angel dies for his sins and takes LA and possibly Connor along with him in Not Fade Away. Would Not Fade Away have happened if Angel made a different choice?