AOQ Angel Review 1-17: "Eternity"
Arbitrar Of Quality
episodes in these review threads
ANGEL
Season One, Episode 17: "Eternity")
(or "Proof that ATS can only be enjoyed when on drugs")
Writer: Tracey Forbes
Director: Regis Kimble
Our _Angel_ tour of L.A. next takes us to the part where we rub
shoulders with Hollywood. That's been touched on before, but this
episode throws us into a stereotypical version of it headfirst. The
world of entourages, lavish parties and homes, poor lonely pampered
people, and a ridiculous number of stalkers. It's not a world that I
find particularly interesting, any more than the singles scene as
portrayed in "Lonely Hearts," and the bulk of this episode isn't
much better, until we finally get out of Hollywood at the end.
The show takes a little time to mock on Cordelia for sucking and her
friends for being softies ("I wouldn't say it if I didn't think
so." "Thanks... You didn't say it." "Hey, you know, it was
a night in the theater I'll never forget"). Then the dominant
story becomes the connection between Angel and future has-been actor
Rebecca Lowell. She's drawn to Angel at first because he's a
mysterious savior who doesn't know her, and then later as someone
otherworldly and... well, you folks saw the last act too. And he's
naturally drawn to her because... well, I have no fucking idea. The
script says so. There's not much (if any) sparkage from where I'm
sitting. And furthermore, I didn't care much about Rebecca's
plight at all, and can't see why Angel likes her so much. So her
career's in trouble as she starts to see the beginnings of aging, and
she doesn't have any real friends; fine. Perhaps it's because
she's so thoroughly self-obsessed, showing no interest in anything
not completely centered around her. In one line of dialogue, she
mockingly refers to herself as a "poor little rich girl," so the
show's aware of the cliché, yet it doesn't try to avoid it. I
quite disliked the character, and the episode seems to bear me out, so
why have the main character be so fascinated by her at all? Why are we
asked to buy this chick as a match for our hero?
"It was a seminal show. Cancelled by the idiot network." Make
your own joke here.
So starlet and vampire bodyguard deal with the vague presence of an
ultimately nonexistent stalker who occasionally shows up to try to add
some semblance of action into this borefest. The parts with guns and
breaking windows and stuff aren't as dull as the limo rides and
"romantic" conversations, I guess. Rebecca's agent is a pretty
slimy character, and having him love me wouldn't be much comfort.
Cordelia has her annoying moments, but her shopping spree with Rebecca
is actually a solid little sequence. She comes across as a starstruck
*kid*, unusually self-deprecating and socially nervous, and Rebecca
comes across as quarter-way decent with her words of reassurance.
It's nice when the show occasionally remembers that Cordy is only
supposed to be nineteen or twenty. I smiled at her following up an
annoying fake-laugh with "I won't do that again." Also, while
we're on fun Cordelia moments, she had me going for a second with the
fake vision, especially since she had help from the soundtrack. And
let's also work in a mention for "no, like a reviewer needs to see
some hundred-year-old play."
Eventually things migrate back to Angel's, where Boreanaz does a good
job showing our hero having loosened up, with the way he laughs after
having a drink spilled on him. (Are we really meant to believe that
Angel would own a bottle-opener, though?) Given that there hasn't
been any supernatural threat thus far, one would suspect at this point
that Rebecca herself will be the source of the episode's climax.
Which of course she is. But then, bam. "Eternity" takes one hell
of a left turn.
We start with Cordelia piecing together what Rebecca really wants out
of Angel - a taste of eternity. We cut back to her letting him know,
and he reacts... absolutely tearing her apart verbally and then, in a
deliciously fucked-up moment, force-feeding her some blood. This scene
works well to someone who doesn't know what's going on since there
are a few possible explanations. Had he seen right through her from
the beginning, or is he piecing her motivations together? Is he
reacting out of Angelus-style sadism, or just anger? When she says
"you're just trying to scare me," it raises the possibility for
the viewer that he might be just trying to drive her away to get the
vampire idea out of her head. That kind of thing.
Now all of Cordelia and Wesley's fears about Angel reverting make
sense in context. It's been a part of other episodes too, as well it
should be. As Cordelia says, they "think about this happening -
every single day." Wesley tells us right away that the drugs can
only bring temporary release. Right away, we've set the rules for
the action. Angel turning good again at the end is now not a cop-out,
since it's presented as inevitable - what his employees have to do
is simply stay alive until then, and keep him away from any more drugs.
Which is suitably challenging since Evil Angel is quite the nasty
bastard. He looks like he's having so much fun, especially toying
with Rebecca in the basement; the actor brings a savage joy to this
part. Some great intense scenes in the last act. And one ill-advised
superfluous line - "and the Oscar goes to..." but that's just
one line.
This brings up another issue - Angel can't revert too often, for
storytelling purposes. Evil Angel is one of the best villains the
Buffyverse has ever known, but given the circumstances, you've gotta
keep his appearances rare and special. So is this episode a throwaway,
and thus a waste of Angelus? I don't think so. Like I was moving
towards above, a major theme throughout this episode (and a few others)
is living perpetual fear of his dark side. So this episode needed to
happen. However vigilant his friends were, Angelus finds a way out;
now we see if they're up to the challenge. They had an undecorated
burst of competence in "The Ring," but Cordelia and Wesley are
enhanced much more in this episode, by first being brought down. As
also seen last week (and as far back at least as "Homecoming"),
Cordelia can be utterly convincing as an actor once the stakes are high
and there're no lines to memorize. That fact resonates here
precisely because of the stuff with the play. Same story with Angel
mocking Wes's loser-ness. The sidekicks succeed through a fair
share of luck as well as skill, of course, but it's still a real
triumph for these two, and does a lot to validate their presence at AI.
So in the end, both the plot and the point of "Eternity" aren't
about Rebecca or her world, but about our main cast. Note that, in a
bit of a rarity, Angel and Cordelia are the only mystical creatures in
this story.
Verdict? Was the end worth sitting through the rest of the episode?
My problem is that I can't really see all the dullness as being
necessary to set up the climax. Not only is it long and boring, as
I've repeated at length and to the point of dullness, but it's full
of sequences that aren't connected with the resolution except as
false leads. The stalker plot, anything involving the agent, the
boring-ass tour of the Hollywood world - it could all come out of a
different story entirely. And building the Rebecca/Angel dynamic is at
least relevant, but it still sucks. Hence, "Eternity" gets my
now-standard ATS episode rating. But the rating isn't everything.
The final act alone is enough to bump it from the Weak/Bad range to
just shy of Good, and has put me in a better mood about the state of
the series than I've been in in quite some time.
So...
One-sentence summary: Cut about twenty-five minutes and you have a good
short.
AOQ rating: Decent
[Season One so far:
1) "City Of" - Good
2) "Lonely Hearts" - Weak
3) "Into The Dark" - Good
4) "I Fall To Pieces" - Good
5) "Rm W/ A Vu" - Decent
6) "Sense And Sensitivity" - Weak
7) "The Bachelor Party" - Decent
8) "I Will Remember You" - Excellent
9) "Hero" - Good
10) "Parting Gifts" - Decent
11) "Somnambulist" - Good
12) "Expecting" - Bad
13) "She" - Good
14) "I've Got You Under My Skin" - Decent
15) "The Prodigal" - Decent
16) "The Ring" - Decent
17) "Eternity" - Decent]
burt...@hotmail.com
> This brings up another issue - Angel can't revert too often, for
> storytelling purposes. Evil Angel is one of the best villains the
> Buffyverse has ever known, but given the circumstances, you've gotta
> keep his appearances rare and special. So is this episode a throwaway,
> and thus a waste of Angelus? I don't think so. Like I was moving
> towards above, a major theme throughout this episode (and a few others)
> is living perpetual fear of his dark side. So this episode needed to
> happen. However vigilant his friends were, Angelus finds a way out;
> now we see if they're up to the challenge.
The big problem for me is that Angelus shouldn't have been able to
"find a way out" in this manner. This episode was a pretty big
contradiction of the established mythology of both shows. It's not that
Angel has a split personality that he keeps one side of under tight
control at all times; Angelus is a *demon* that can only come out when
Angel has lost his soul. This isn't to say that Angel can't do bad or
evil things, but Angel and Angelus are two completely different beings.
For Angelus to gain temporary control of Angel's body, as he
apparentely does in this episode, simply shouldn't be possible.
I could see the drug simply not doing anything beyond the obvious
effects (since, as Wesley says, it's just synthetic and not 'true'
happiness), and I could see it being able to banish Angel's soul for
good if that's the direction the writers wanted to go, but this middle
ground just doesn't make any sense given what we've seen and heard
before on the shows.
(And we also run up against the rather silly idea that drugs have any
effect at all on vampires here, but that's been around at least since
"Dopplegangland" so it's hardly a new thing).
jil...@hotmail.com
The soul keeps the demon on the bottom, but without the strength of the
horror it feels at the demon's desires, can't.
Lord Usher
@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> The big problem for me is that Angelus shouldn't have been able to
> "find a way out" in this manner. This episode was a pretty big
> contradiction of the established mythology of both shows. It's not
> that Angel has a split personality that he keeps one side of under
> tight control at all times; Angelus is a *demon* that can only come
> out when Angel has lost his soul. This isn't to say that Angel can't do
> bad or evil things, but Angel and Angelus are two completely different
> beings.
I disagree. Clearly, Angel is not Angelus. But he *contains* Angelus. He
knows everything Angelus knows, feels everything Angelus feels, wants
everything Angelus wants. His soul just allows him to know and feel and
want other things as well. It *augments* the demon; it doesn't replace it.
So it makes sense to me that, in a moment of mental impairment, that
augmentation might break down. And it doesn't mean Angel has literally lost
his soul, just that he's lost the mental fortitude necessary to repress the
part of himself that wants to torment and destroy -- the part of him that
is as much Angelus as Angelus was.
If there's a problem with the end of this episode, it's that it tries to
frame the "perfect happiness, loss of soul" thing too literally. Wes is
sort of missing the point when he says that Angel's moment happiness is
"not genuine"; Angel's behavior has nothing to do with the Escape Clause,
and everything to do with a temporary loss of self-control.
--
Lord Usher
"I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."
One Bit Shy
news:1147901609.7...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> So starlet and vampire bodyguard deal with the vague presence of an
> ultimately nonexistent stalker who occasionally shows up to try to add
> some semblance of action into this borefest.
What I'd like to know is how Rebecca was supposed to survive the first
"fake" attempt on her life without Angel around to save her. That car sure
looked like it was set to run her down. If it ran Angel down, I don't see
how it could fail to run her down if Angel didn't show.
At the second attempt, Angel totally smashed in a floor to ceiling glass
window/door. Yet Rebecca locks a door next or near to it later that
evening.
> Cordelia has her annoying moments, but her shopping spree with Rebecca
> is actually a solid little sequence. She comes across as a starstruck
> *kid*, unusually self-deprecating and socially nervous, and Rebecca
> comes across as quarter-way decent with her words of reassurance.
> It's nice when the show occasionally remembers that Cordy is only
> supposed to be nineteen or twenty. I smiled at her following up an
> annoying fake-laugh with "I won't do that again." Also, while
> we're on fun Cordelia moments, she had me going for a second with the
> fake vision, especially since she had help from the soundtrack.
I liked how she kept peering at Angel and Wesley to see if it was working.
> And
> let's also work in a mention for "no, like a reviewer needs to see
> some hundred-year-old play."
Again, CC seems to be having a lot of fun playing her role right now. I
thought she was wonderful this episode. Don't really have anything to say
about Wesley, though.
> (Are we really meant to believe that
> Angel would own a bottle-opener, though?)
It's champagne. He doesn't need a bottle-opener - or a corkscrew.
> So...
> One-sentence summary: Cut about twenty-five minutes and you have a good
> short.
> AOQ rating: Decent
That's a good review. I pretty much agree with it across the board -
including rating - with only a few things to add.
Regarding hope for the future - there's little about the story that offers
that to me. But I do note a general confidence in performance and
interaction among the three leads. That's good - though again I note how
few central characters there are.
Regarding whether this wastes Angelus as a character, I note additionally
that this is the first time we've seen Angelus in today's world in this
series. Aside from treating the viewers of this series to a core element of
Angel, I think it's also valuable for the series to sort of claim its own
rights to the character.
Regarding the mechanism of releasing Angelus, I don't much care for it - or
at least not the explanation. I feel like I have to throw in a heavy dose
of fanfic right off the bat just to make a little sense of it. We already
know that the way Angel's curse works is that his soul departs when he
achieves true happiness. In other words, the spell tying his soul to him is
broken. The idea that simulating bliss would somehow simulate the soul's
departure doesn't make any sense to me. Now maybe if you have the drug
somehow repress or anesthetize the soul - removing its influence - it would
work. But that has nothing to do with bliss or perfect happiness.
I don't doubt that someone can come up with a rationale to marry the bliss
back into the process, but I think the device is always going to feel cheap
to me. I also don't much like the idea of some readily available
tranquilizer being around that can release Angelus at will.
Forgetting the device used, it still was a lot of fun seeing Angelus.
OBS
Mel
My explanation for everything is that he was faking it, just like he did
in "Enemies." They never say that on-screen but otherwise, as you say,
it doesn't make sense that a non-mystical drug would make someone's soul
ineffective. Inhibitions? Yes. Judgment? Yes. Soul? Doesn't seem likely.
Still, Angelus is loads of fun. Despite his being vicious and evil,
Cordy still appreciates his honesty for telling her how bad an actress
she is.
>
> (And we also run up against the rather silly idea that drugs have any
> effect at all on vampires here, but that's been around at least since
> "Dopplegangland" so it's hardly a new thing).
>
Vg'f xvaq bs fgenatr gung fhpu n gval nzbhag pbhyq unir gung rssrpg
pbafvqrevat vg gnxrf ybnqf naq ybnqf bs nypbuby sbe n inzcver gb trg
qehax. (EBG-13rq 'pnhfr V qba'g erzrzore vs guvf unf orra zragvbarq lrg.
V xabj Fcvxr fnlf nf zhpu va frnfba svir)
Mel
Mel
One Bit Shy wrote:
Guvf pbzrf hc ntnva va frnfba sbhe jura gur tnat qrpvqrf gurl arrq
Natryhf gb erzrzore fbzrguvat gung Natry qbrfa'g. Vafgrnq bs svaqvat
fbzr bs guvf qeht gb fvzhyngr oyvff, gurl npghnyyl erzbir uvf fbhy naq
nyy xvaqf bs uryy oernxf ybbfr nf n erfhyg. Bs pbhefr, jvgubhg gung ovg
bs fghcvqvgl, jr jbhyqa'g unir "Becurhf" gb gnyx nobhg.
Mel
KenM47
Don Sample
burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > This brings up another issue - Angel can't revert too often, for
> > storytelling purposes. Evil Angel is one of the best villains the
> > Buffyverse has ever known, but given the circumstances, you've gotta
> > keep his appearances rare and special. So is this episode a throwaway,
> > and thus a waste of Angelus? I don't think so. Like I was moving
> > towards above, a major theme throughout this episode (and a few others)
> > is living perpetual fear of his dark side. So this episode needed to
> > happen. However vigilant his friends were, Angelus finds a way out;
> > now we see if they're up to the challenge.
>
> The big problem for me is that Angelus shouldn't have been able to
> "find a way out" in this manner. This episode was a pretty big
> contradiction of the established mythology of both shows. It's not that
> Angel has a split personality that he keeps one side of under tight
> control at all times; Angelus is a *demon* that can only come out when
> Angel has lost his soul. This isn't to say that Angel can't do bad or
> evil things, but Angel and Angelus are two completely different beings.
> For Angelus to gain temporary control of Angel's body, as he
> apparentely does in this episode, simply shouldn't be possible.
Angel and Angelus being distinct is a hotly debated subject. A lot of
viewers, and the characters, like to think that they're two distinct
personalities, but the in story evidence points to the opposite
conclusion.
> I could see the drug simply not doing anything beyond the obvious
> effects (since, as Wesley says, it's just synthetic and not 'true'
> happiness), and I could see it being able to banish Angel's soul for
> good if that's the direction the writers wanted to go, but this middle
> ground just doesn't make any sense given what we've seen and heard
> before on the shows.
It wasn't the synthetic happiness, nor was Angel's soul banished. The
drug just removed Angel's inhibitions enough that it let his inner demon
out to play.
> (And we also run up against the rather silly idea that drugs have any
> effect at all on vampires here, but that's been around at least since
> "Dopplegangland" so it's hardly a new thing).
Before that. It goes back to at least 'School Hard.' "I was actually
at Woodstock. That was a weird gig. I fed off a flowerperson, and I
spent the next six hours watching my hand move."
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Don Sample
wrote:
In the Buffyverse, it is the soul that gives someone their inhibitions.
> >
> > (And we also run up against the rather silly idea that drugs have any
> > effect at all on vampires here, but that's been around at least since
> > "Dopplegangland" so it's hardly a new thing).
> >
>
> It's kind of strange that such a tiny amount could have that effect
> considering it takes loads and loads of alcohol for a vampire to get
> drunk.
We've seen Spike falling down drunk, in 'Lovers Walk.' It may take more
than it does for a regular person, but not so much to make it impossible
to get a vamp drunk.
burt...@hotmail.com
What in-story evidence would that be?
The distinction is clear - with his soul, he's Angel, without it, he's
Angelus.
> > I could see the drug simply not doing anything beyond the obvious
> > effects (since, as Wesley says, it's just synthetic and not 'true'
> > happiness), and I could see it being able to banish Angel's soul for
> > good if that's the direction the writers wanted to go, but this middle
> > ground just doesn't make any sense given what we've seen and heard
> > before on the shows.
>
> It wasn't the synthetic happiness, nor was Angel's soul banished. The
> drug just removed Angel's inhibitions enough that it let his inner demon
> out to play.
Except that, in the actual episode, it clearly wasn't portrayed as just
a matter of lowered inhibitions. All the dialogue was focused on the
idea that the drug might have brought Angel a moment of true happiness.
The state of Angel's inhibitions has no bearing on whether or not he
has his soul.
Frankly, the idea that lowering Angel's inhibitions is all it takes to
bring Angelus out is silly. Why would the gypsy clan have bothered to
cast a curse that Angel could undo just by getting drunk?
Don Sample
burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
Some of it would be this episode.
> The distinction is clear - with his soul, he's Angel, without it, he's
> Angelus.
He still had his soul, and behaved like Angelus.
>
> > > I could see the drug simply not doing anything beyond the obvious
> > > effects (since, as Wesley says, it's just synthetic and not 'true'
> > > happiness), and I could see it being able to banish Angel's soul for
> > > good if that's the direction the writers wanted to go, but this middle
> > > ground just doesn't make any sense given what we've seen and heard
> > > before on the shows.
> >
> > It wasn't the synthetic happiness, nor was Angel's soul banished. The
> > drug just removed Angel's inhibitions enough that it let his inner demon
> > out to play.
>
> Except that, in the actual episode, it clearly wasn't portrayed as just
> a matter of lowered inhibitions. All the dialogue was focused on the
> idea that the drug might have brought Angel a moment of true happiness.
> The state of Angel's inhibitions has no bearing on whether or not he
> has his soul.
That is just evidence that Wesley doesn't always know what he's talking
about. If the drug caused him to lose his soul, how'd he get it back?
> Frankly, the idea that lowering Angel's inhibitions is all it takes to
> bring Angelus out is silly. Why would the gypsy clan have bothered to
> cast a curse that Angel could undo just by getting drunk?
Drunk apparently doesn't do it. The gypsies didn't know about designer
drugs.
burt...@hotmail.com
> In article <1147923205....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Don Sample wrote:
> > > Angel and Angelus being distinct is a hotly debated subject. A lot of
> > > viewers, and the characters, like to think that they're two distinct
> > > personalities, but the in story evidence points to the opposite
> > > conclusion.
> >
> > What in-story evidence would that be?
>
> Some of it would be this episode.
And my point is that this episode doesn't track with the rest of canon.
> > The distinction is clear - with his soul, he's Angel, without it, he's
> > Angelus.
>
> He still had his soul, and behaved like Angelus.
He didn't just behave like Angelus. We were clearly meant to think that
he was Angelus. He said he was Angelus, and the drug Rebecca gave him
was a tranquilizer, not a hallucinogen.
> > > It wasn't the synthetic happiness, nor was Angel's soul banished. The
> > > drug just removed Angel's inhibitions enough that it let his inner demon
> > > out to play.
> >
> > Except that, in the actual episode, it clearly wasn't portrayed as just
> > a matter of lowered inhibitions. All the dialogue was focused on the
> > idea that the drug might have brought Angel a moment of true happiness.
> > The state of Angel's inhibitions has no bearing on whether or not he
> > has his soul.
>
> That is just evidence that Wesley doesn't always know what he's talking
> about. If the drug caused him to lose his soul, how'd he get it back?
That would be the question, wouldn't it?
Like I said, it makes no sense. A much better tack for the writers to
have taken would have been to show how dangerous *Angel* could be if he
lost control. Even with a soul, he's still a vampire, after all. They
didn't need to bring Angelus into the equation at all - the episode
would have worked just fine without that bit, and wouldn't have screwed
up the mythology.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> effect at all on vampires here, but that's been around at least since
> "Dopplegangland" so it's hardly a new thing).
youre right of course
in real life vampires only use cocaine as foot powder
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
Apteryx
news:1147901609.7...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>episodes in these review threads
>not completely centered around her. In one line of dialogue, she
>mockingly refers to herself as a "poor little rich girl," so the
>show's aware of the cliché, yet it doesn't try to avoid it. I
>quite disliked the character, and the episode seems to bear me out, so
>why have the main character be so fascinated by her at all? Why are we
>asked to buy this chick as a match for our hero?
It's a problem. Maybe he just has a thing for stars of seminal,
about-to-be-cancelled shows.
>"It was a seminal show. Cancelled by the idiot network." Make
>your own joke here.
Oh... Sorry... I already did.
>This brings up another issue - Angel can't revert too often, for
>storytelling purposes. Evil Angel is one of the best villains the
>Buffyverse has ever known, but given the circumstances, you've gotta
>keep his appearances rare and special. So is this episode a throwaway,
>and thus a waste of Angelus? I don't think so. Like I was moving
>towards above, a major theme throughout this episode (and a few others)
>is living perpetual fear of his dark side. So this episode needed to
>happen. However vigilant his friends were, Angelus finds a way out;
>now we see if they're up to the challenge.
I agree. There is a lot of lameness in both Rebecca's motivation for trying
to get vamped, and the way the drug somehow releases Angelus. But even
though that is badly done, we do need to see Angelus at least once to
demonstrate what Cordelia and Wesley are worried about. At this stage, in
this season, there is no point in redoing Surprise/Innocence, so it
necessarily must be a gimmicky return by Angelus. And from that follows both
the fun and the problems with Eternity.
>AOQ rating: Decent
Decent for me too. Its my 63rd favourite AtS episode, 11th best in Season 1
--
Apteryx
eli...@gmail.com
Arbitrar Of Quality
> The big problem for me is that Angelus shouldn't have been able to
> "find a way out" in this manner. This episode was a pretty big
> contradiction of the established mythology of both shows. It's not that
> Angel has a split personality that he keeps one side of under tight
> control at all times; Angelus is a *demon* that can only come out when
> Angel has lost his soul. This isn't to say that Angel can't do bad or
> evil things, but Angel and Angelus are two completely different beings.
> For Angelus to gain temporary control of Angel's body, as he
> apparentely does in this episode, simply shouldn't be possible.
Disagreed. I think the established mythology is pretty clear that
they're aspects of the same person. Angel and Angelus both universally
refer to the other as "I," and feel deeply guilty/embarassed over
things that the other does. We also have the statement in "The
Prodigal" that "what we once were informs all that we have become;" see
One Bit Shy's excellent summary in that thread for more about the idea
that the un-souled and souled versions of a character are the same
being on some level.
> (And we also run up against the rather silly idea that drugs have any
> effect at all on vampires here, but that's been around at least since
> "Dopplegangland" so it's hardly a new thing).
Yep. As Don points out, references to vamps on drugs actually goes as
far back as "School Hard." If vampires don't have a heartbeat, how do
bloodborne chemicals like alcohol get to their brains? The only answer
is that no one really cares.
-AOQ
Lord Usher
news:1147931538.0...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> Like I said, it makes no sense. A much better tack for the writers to
> have taken would have been to show how dangerous *Angel* could be if
> he lost control.
Isn't that what Angelus *is* -- Angel without the control?
Arbitrar Of Quality
> That's a good review. I pretty much agree with it across the board -
> including rating
!!!!!!
How often does that happen?
> Regarding the mechanism of releasing Angelus, I don't much care for it - or
> at least not the explanation. I feel like I have to throw in a heavy dose
> of fanfic right off the bat just to make a little sense of it. We already
> know that the way Angel's curse works is that his soul departs when he
> achieves true happiness. In other words, the spell tying his soul to him is
> broken. The idea that simulating bliss would somehow simulate the soul's
> departure doesn't make any sense to me. Now maybe if you have the drug
> somehow repress or anesthetize the soul - removing its influence - it would
> work. But that has nothing to do with bliss or perfect happiness.
>
> I don't doubt that someone can come up with a rationale to marry the bliss
> back into the process, but I think the device is always going to feel cheap
> to me. I also don't much like the idea of some readily available
> tranquilizer being around that can release Angelus at will.
Yeah, it works better if you forget about perfect happiness and run
with jillun's idea that the drug aesthetizes the soul. Which puts a
spin on the idea of Buffyverse-soul as conscience. Angelus was kept at
bay by Angel's conscience - his guilt over what he'd done in the past
and fear of what he might do in the future kept the enemy within from
taking control. So far we've seen two things that can weaken that
sense of guilt: certain specific anti-conscience drugs, or a moment of
complete happiness.
But the main reason I'm not at all bothered by cheap devices here is
that the reversion clause is that the whole device of reversion, at
all, feels really cheap to me, a fact that I've long since made peace
with. There's a reason I used ot call Angel's curse The Really Stupid
Curse - because it was designed by and for the use of total fucktards
(well, okay, also for the convenience of writers). It's led to some
great things, but it's been pure plot deviece, since day one.
> Forgetting the device used, it still was a lot of fun seeing Angelus.
Damn straight.
-AOQ
Don Sample
burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Don Sample wrote:
> > In article <1147923205....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> > burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Don Sample wrote:
> > > > Angel and Angelus being distinct is a hotly debated subject. A lot of
> > > > viewers, and the characters, like to think that they're two distinct
> > > > personalities, but the in story evidence points to the opposite
> > > > conclusion.
> > >
> > > What in-story evidence would that be?
> >
> > Some of it would be this episode.
>
> And my point is that this episode doesn't track with the rest of canon.
Rkprcg sbe rcvfbqrf fhpu n 'Becurhf' juvpu ernyyl vf gur bayl bar gb
nqqerff gur Natry/Natryhf qvpubgbzl.
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > (And we also run up against the rather silly idea that drugs have any
> > effect at all on vampires here, but that's been around at least since
> > "Dopplegangland" so it's hardly a new thing).
>
> Yep. As Don points out, references to vamps on drugs actually goes as
> far back as "School Hard." If vampires don't have a heartbeat, how do
> bloodborne chemicals like alcohol get to their brains? The only answer
> is that no one really cares.
Except it's something that does get discussed from time to time. No
heartbeat doesn't mean no blood circulation. It just means the blood
doesn't move as fast. Simple movement will cause blood vessels to
expand and contract, forcing the blood to move around the vampire's
system.
KenM47
>burt...@hotmail.com wrote in
>news:1147931538.0...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Like I said, it makes no sense. A much better tack for the writers to
>> have taken would have been to show how dangerous *Angel* could be if
>> he lost control.
>
>Isn't that what Angelus *is* -- Angel without the control?
No. Angelus is a demon soul. Angel is a human soul.
This was a badly thought out plot point IMO. If Angelus can surface
when Angel is not actively controlling the Liam husk, then Angelus
should surface every time Angel sleeps (of course that might wake
Angel and submerge Angelus leaving a very cranky sleepless Angel - and
the concept has always had Buffyverse vamps sleeping just not
searching out their coffins for beds)
And why shouldn't drugs work? As far as we know there is some sort of
blood circulatory system in the Buffyverse vamps even if their hearts
do not beat - some kind of continuous loop/drip without a pulse.
Otherwise they would not bleed and bruise. (I agree this makes little
sense, but it appears to be a given).
Ken (Brooklyn)
eli...@gmail.com
one.
Still, I don't understand this way of seeing Angel and Angelus as two
*completely* seperate entities. The soul is _Angel's_ soul, not someone
else's... the soul is a part of Angel and when he has it, it makes him
feel guilt for what he did without it, but it doesn't make him a
completely different person. We see this when he mocks Cordy's acting,
only with the soul barrier in place he cared about Cordelia's feelings.
To be honest the episdoe strikes me as a variation of the age old
premise of getting a character very drunk (or similar) and blurting out
uncomfortable truths. It might be a bit clumsy, which is a shame, but
there you go. Also Angel always talkes about *me* when speaking of his
past as Angelus, taking responsibility for what he did. If he's a
different person with the soul, why on earth should he try to fight for
his redemption?
Nyfb va F4 gurer vf s.rk. gur fprar jurer Natryhf vf arrqyvat Thaa
nobhg gur zheqre bs Serq\'f cebsrffbe, naq qvfpbiref gung vg jnf Thaa
jub qvq gur qrrq. Gur jnl ur fcrnxf znxrf vg boivbhf gung Natry jbexrq
bhg jung unq unccrarq, ohg ur bs pbhefr qvqa\'g fnl nalguvat.
The fact that the two sides of his personality are not integrated,
doesn't mean that they're not both him.
gree...@gmail.com
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> One-sentence summary: Cut about twenty-five minutes and you have a good
> short.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent
I liked it enough to push it to "Good." Heck, Carpenter in those tight
red leather pants alone is worth a "Good".
Also: "You're not going to untie me, are you?" "Pffft!" That didn't
tickle the funny bone?
Terry
Lord Usher
news:unao62177lkiku1hb...@4ax.com:
>>Isn't that what Angelus *is* -- Angel without the control?
>
> No. Angelus is a demon soul. Angel is a human soul.
No, *Liam* is the human soul. Angel is an aggregate entity created by the
imposition of Liam's soul upon Angelus's demonic one.
> This was a badly thought out plot point IMO. If Angelus can surface
> when Angel is not actively controlling the Liam husk, then Angelus
> should surface every time Angel sleeps
Assuming that they're such separate entities that one will always be awake
when the other is sleeping. Which they aren't. :)
Although one of the central plot points of "Somnambulist" is the idea that
something like this *could* happen.
Lord Usher
> But the main reason I'm not at all bothered by cheap devices here is
> that the reversion clause is that the whole device of reversion, at
> all, feels really cheap to me, a fact that I've long since made peace
> with. There's a reason I used ot call Angel's curse The Really Stupid
> Curse - because it was designed by and for the use of total fucktards
> (well, okay, also for the convenience of writers).
They're not fucktards if they *knew* their actions might one day come
back to bite them, but they chose to pursue them anyway because they
were serving something greater and more terrible than their own well-
being.
"It is not justice we serve. It is Vengeance."
And, to quote an old post of mine, let's see what happened to Angel
because his curse's silly escape clause kicked in:
*****
1. He went bad, killed a lot more people, and tormented the one person
for whom he had felt pure, non-evil love.
2. He got his soul back again.
3. He got sent to hell, there to be tormented by all of the new horrible
things he'd done to the people he cared most about, all because he dared
to forget his pain for just one instant.
Whereas if there had been no escape clause, he would've just been
perfectly happy living it up with his One True Love for years and years.
*****
Seems like the whole thing worked out pretty nicely for the spirit of
vengeance that Angel's tormentors served. And maybe they didn't know
that's how things would go -- but they trusted that, somehow, Vengeance
would see its will done.
"I had hoped to stop it. But I see now it was arranged to be so."
Sam
Lord Usher wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in
> news:1147935076.3...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
>
> vengeance that Angel's tormentors served. And maybe they didn't know
> that's how things would go -- but they trusted that, somehow, Vengeance
> would see its will done.
>
> "I had hoped to stop it. But I see now it was arranged to be so."
>
What Usher said. The curse seems very stupid if you're thinking of it
as an attempt to force Angel to be good. But that's not what it was. In
fact, they specifically say they never wanted Angel to be able to live
like a person. That's why they put in the escape clause in the first
place -- on the off chance Angel ever really makes peace with having a
human conscience, even that vanishes in a last little poof of sheer
spite.
Don Sample
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >burt...@hotmail.com wrote in
> >news:1147931538.0...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >> Like I said, it makes no sense. A much better tack for the writers to
> >> have taken would have been to show how dangerous *Angel* could be if
> >> he lost control.
> >
> >Isn't that what Angelus *is* -- Angel without the control?
>
>
> No. Angelus is a demon soul. Angel is a human soul.
>
> This was a badly thought out plot point IMO. If Angelus can surface
> when Angel is not actively controlling the Liam husk, then Angelus
> should surface every time Angel sleeps (of course that might wake
> Angel and submerge Angelus leaving a very cranky sleepless Angel - and
> the concept has always had Buffyverse vamps sleeping just not
> searching out their coffins for beds)
Souls don't sleep. Sleep is something the conscious mind does.
burt...@hotmail.com
> burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > The big problem for me is that Angelus shouldn't have been able to
> > "find a way out" in this manner. This episode was a pretty big
> > contradiction of the established mythology of both shows. It's not that
> > Angel has a split personality that he keeps one side of under tight
> > control at all times; Angelus is a *demon* that can only come out when
> > Angel has lost his soul. This isn't to say that Angel can't do bad or
> > evil things, but Angel and Angelus are two completely different beings.
> > For Angelus to gain temporary control of Angel's body, as he
> > apparentely does in this episode, simply shouldn't be possible.
>
> Disagreed. I think the established mythology is pretty clear that
> they're aspects of the same person. Angel and Angelus both universally
> refer to the other as "I," and feel deeply guilty/embarassed over
> things that the other does. We also have the statement in "The
> Prodigal" that "what we once were informs all that we have become;" see
> One Bit Shy's excellent summary in that thread for more about the idea
> that the un-souled and souled versions of a character are the same
> being on some level.
So Angel can't feel guilty about things that aren't his fault? People
do that all the time, after all. Angel referring to Angelus as "I" just
means he *feels* responsible for Angelus's actions, it doesn't mean he
*is* responsible.
And Darla's line was in reference to someone's human personality having
influence over who they become as a vampire. First of all, that
situation isn't equivalent to a vampire having their soul returned, and
second, even if some aspects of the personality carry over, the vampire
is still a completely different creature from the human. Most human
beings aren't remorseless serial killers, but every vampire we meet
(Angel excepted)certainly is.
burt...@hotmail.com
Don Sample wrote:
> In article <1147931538.0...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Don Sample wrote:
> > > In article <1147923205....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> > > burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Don Sample wrote:
> > > > > Angel and Angelus being distinct is a hotly debated subject. A lot of
> > > > > viewers, and the characters, like to think that they're two distinct
> > > > > personalities, but the in story evidence points to the opposite
> > > > > conclusion.
> > > >
> > > > What in-story evidence would that be?
> > >
> > > Some of it would be this episode.
> >
> > And my point is that this episode doesn't track with the rest of canon.
>
> Rkprcg sbe rcvfbqrf fhpu n 'Becurhf' juvpu ernyyl vf gur bayl bar gb
> nqqerff gur Natry/Natryhf qvpubgbzl.
Jryy, fvapr jr'er gnyxvat nobhg frnfba 4, vs Natry naq Natryhf ner gur
fnzr ragvgl, jul jbhyq gurve zrzbevrf or frcnengr? Jul jbhyq gurl arrq
gb oevat Natryhf bhg va beqre gb svaq bhg jung ur xabjf nobhg gur
Ornfg? Vs Natry naq Natryhf jrer gur fnzr, gurl pbhyq whfg nfx Natry.
burt...@hotmail.com
> KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> news:unao62177lkiku1hb...@4ax.com:
>
> >>Isn't that what Angelus *is* -- Angel without the control?
> >
> > No. Angelus is a demon soul. Angel is a human soul.
>
> No, *Liam* is the human soul. Angel is an aggregate entity created by the
> imposition of Liam's soul upon Angelus's demonic one.
I don't think you can say they're an aggregate, since Angelus has never
popped up before this (except when Angel lost his soul in Buffy S2).
Don't you think it's pretty telling that the *only* time Angelus
managed to surface was after the happiness clause of the curse kicked
in and Angel's soul was gone?
> > This was a badly thought out plot point IMO. If Angelus can surface
> > when Angel is not actively controlling the Liam husk, then Angelus
> > should surface every time Angel sleeps
>
> Assuming that they're such separate entities that one will always be awake
> when the other is sleeping. Which they aren't. :)
>
> Although one of the central plot points of "Somnambulist" is the idea that
> something like this *could* happen.
Yes, but it's pretty quickly revealed that it didn't happen.
One Bit Shy
> One Bit Shy wrote:
>
> > That's a good review. I pretty much agree with it across the board -
> > including rating
>
> !!!!!!
> How often does that happen?
I seem to remember it happening once before in BtVS, but I can't recall
now which episode. So I wouldn't consider it a trend quite yet...
> But the main reason I'm not at all bothered by cheap devices here is
> that the reversion clause is that the whole device of reversion, at
> all, feels really cheap to me, a fact that I've long since made peace
> with. There's a reason I used ot call Angel's curse The Really Stupid
> Curse - because it was designed by and for the use of total fucktards
> (well, okay, also for the convenience of writers). It's led to some
> great things, but it's been pure plot deviece, since day one.
Yes, I remember your attitude. And am reminded again that it is a
forever disputed topic with attitudes ranging from your Really Stupid
Curse to a sublime justice/vengeance where perfect happiness ultimately
leads to even worse punishment.
I continue to take the quieter road that the Gypsies were simply
limited to the capabilities of the magic they knew. It is traditional
in magic for there to be a way for curses to be lifted. (Indeed, true
love is probably the most common curse lifter known.) It's just the
way the magic works. And the Gypsies chose, understandably I think, to
go with it anyway, because the punishment was so elegant.
As a story telling device I like it for another reason too. Think of
all the classic fairy tales that have the curse lifted through some act
of love. Beauty and the Beast. Snow White. Sleeping Beauty. Endless
variations on kissing the toad. In many ways this is just another
extension of that classic story. Except... that lifting the curse
brings on a worse one. It's a delicious twist to the classic form,
bringing into question whether the curse was really a curse and whether
true love can actually conquer all.
OBS
HeKS
"Mel" <melb...@uci.net> wrote in message
news:x7-dnbxaWJ1...@uci.net...
>>>storytelling purposes. Evil Angel is one of the best villains the
>>>Buffyverse has ever known, but given the circumstances, you've gotta
>>>keep his appearances rare and special. So is this episode a throwaway,
>>>and thus a waste of Angelus? I don't think so. Like I was moving
>>>towards above, a major theme throughout this episode (and a few others)
>>>is living perpetual fear of his dark side. So this episode needed to
>>>happen. However vigilant his friends were, Angelus finds a way out;
>>>now we see if they're up to the challenge.
>>
>>
>> "find a way out" in this manner. This episode was a pretty big
>> contradiction of the established mythology of both shows. It's not that
>> Angel has a split personality that he keeps one side of under tight
>> control at all times; Angelus is a *demon* that can only come out when
>> Angel has lost his soul. This isn't to say that Angel can't do bad or
>> evil things, but Angel and Angelus are two completely different beings.
>> For Angelus to gain temporary control of Angel's body, as he
>> apparentely does in this episode, simply shouldn't be possible.
>>
>> effects (since, as Wesley says, it's just synthetic and not 'true'
>> happiness), and I could see it being able to banish Angel's soul for
>> good if that's the direction the writers wanted to go, but this middle
>> ground just doesn't make any sense given what we've seen and heard
>> before on the shows.
>
> in "Enemies." They never say that on-screen but otherwise, as you say, it
> doesn't make sense that a non-mystical drug would make someone's soul
> ineffective. Inhibitions? Yes. Judgment? Yes. Soul? Doesn't seem likely.
>
> still appreciates his honesty for telling her how bad an actress she is.
>
>
>
>>
>> (And we also run up against the rather silly idea that drugs have any
>> effect at all on vampires here, but that's been around at least since
>> "Dopplegangland" so it's hardly a new thing).
>>
>
> pbafvqrevat vg gnxrf ybnqf naq ybnqf bs nypbuby sbe n inzcver gb trg
> qehax. (EBG-13rq 'pnhfr V qba'g erzrzore vs guvf unf orra zragvbarq lrg. V
> xabj Fcvxr fnlf nf zhpu va frnfba svir)
Ok, I need to ask ... what is this stuff? What kind of code is this that
some people seem to understand it. Clearly I have missed something.
HeKS
Sam
burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Lord Usher wrote:
> > KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> > news:unao62177lkiku1hb...@4ax.com:
> >
> > >>Isn't that what Angelus *is* -- Angel without the control?
> > >
> > > No. Angelus is a demon soul. Angel is a human soul.
> >
> > No, *Liam* is the human soul. Angel is an aggregate entity created by the
> > imposition of Liam's soul upon Angelus's demonic one.
>
> I don't think you can say they're an aggregate, since Angelus has never
> popped up before this (except when Angel lost his soul in Buffy S2).
> Don't you think it's pretty telling that the *only* time Angelus
> managed to surface was after the happiness clause of the curse kicked
> in and Angel's soul was gone?
>
But Angel has repeatedly said that he always feels the demonic urges to
commit evil. Look at "Somnambulist." Angel was still deeply upset by
his experience there, even after he knew he wasn't the killer, because
when he experienced committing Penn's murders, he still enjoyed them.
Soul or not, Angel still enjoys hurting others just as much as Angelus
ever did. He just *also* has a conscience which makes him regret it and
control it.
Angel is as much Angelus as he is Liam. He's Angelus with Liam's human
conscience, and/or Liam with all of the demonic urges of Angelus.
One Bit Shy
> > Vg'f xvaq bs fgenatr gung fhpu n gval nzbhag pbhyq unir gung rssrpg
> > pbafvqrevat vg gnxrf ybnqf naq ybnqf bs nypbuby sbe n inzcver gb trg
> > qehax. (EBG-13rq 'pnhfr V qba'g erzrzore vs guvf unf orra zragvbarq lrg. V
> > xabj Fcvxr fnlf nf zhpu va frnfba svir)
>
> Ok, I need to ask ... what is this stuff? What kind of code is this that
> some people seem to understand it. Clearly I have missed something.
ROT13
Here's one place you can decrypt it. (Or encrypt it.) Just cut and
paste.
OBS
Don Sample
burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Lord Usher wrote:
> > KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> > news:unao62177lkiku1hb...@4ax.com:
> >
> > >>Isn't that what Angelus *is* -- Angel without the control?
> > >
> > > No. Angelus is a demon soul. Angel is a human soul.
> >
> > No, *Liam* is the human soul. Angel is an aggregate entity created by the
> > imposition of Liam's soul upon Angelus's demonic one.
>
> I don't think you can say they're an aggregate, since Angelus has never
> popped up before this (except when Angel lost his soul in Buffy S2).
> Don't you think it's pretty telling that the *only* time Angelus
> managed to surface was after the happiness clause of the curse kicked
> in and Angel's soul was gone?
How about 'The Dark Age' when Angel says "I've had a demon inside me for
a couple hundred years, just waiting or a good fight."
Also what the First was trying to get Angel to do in 'Amends.'
The demon is something that is always there, always trying to break
loose.
Stephen Tempest
>What in-story evidence would that be?
>
>The distinction is clear - with his soul, he's Angel, without it, he's
>Angelus.
From 'The Dark Age'
ANGEL: But I've had a demon inside me for a couple hundred years just
waiting for a good fight.
- so not only do the demon and human soul co-exist inside him, but the
demon can come out to fight another demon that tries to possess Angel.
From 'Innocence'
SPIKE: You've really got a yen to hurt this girl, haven't you?
ANGEL: She made me feel like a human being. That's not the kind of
thing you just forgive.
(Note that Joss's script still refers to 'Angel', not 'Angelus')
- so Angelus thinks of Angel as "me", and is aware of everything he
experiences?
From 'Revelations'
BUFFY: I was going to tell you! But I didn't know why he was back or
anything. I wanted to wait -
XANDER: For what? For Angel to go psycho again the next time you give
him a happy?
- Xander, for one, doesn't think of Angel and Angelus as two separate
entities: it's one person 'going psycho', not turning into someone
else. See also 'Amends':
XANDER: Must be that whole
Angel-killed-his-girlfriend-and-tortured-him thing. Giles is really
petty about stuff like that.
And for that matter, Giles also blames Angel for the things Angelus
did:
ANGEL: I should be in a demon dimension suffering an eternity of
torture.
GILES: I don't feel particularly inclined to argue with that.
...and most importantly, so does Angel himself:
ANGEL: It wasn't haunting me. It was just showing me.
BUFFY: Showing you --
ANGEL: What I am.
BUFFY: *Were.*
ANGEL: And ever shall be. I wanted to know why I was back. Now I do.
I've always thought that the sharp Angel/Angelus distinction was
something thought up, firstly, by Buffy herself to make it easier to
cope with things - and secondly, by the type of fan who likes
everything neatly classified, consistent and canonical. Other
characters on the show - and, I suspect, the writers - saw things in
less black and white terms.
Stephen
BTR1701
> Angel and Angelus being distinct is a hotly debated subject. A lot of
> viewers, and the characters, like to think that they're two distinct
> personalities, but the in story evidence points to the opposite
> conclusion.
Seems to me the in-story evidence leads to exactly the opposite
conclusion. Especially the episode "Orpheus" which came right out and
had Angel and Angelus as two distinct entities debating and fighting
with each other.
Also, wouldn't the characters count as "in-story evidence"?
kenm47
You raise good points BUT the division is because of the curse. The
human soul is gone, and only Willow's re-curse brings it back.
That suggests to me two entities sharing the husk, but the human soul,
when in occupancy, is the master of the domain with the demon soul
reduced to observer.
Ken (Brooklyn)
jil...@hotmail.com
Stephen Tempest wrote:
> burt...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >What in-story evidence would that be?
> >
> >The distinction is clear - with his soul, he's Angel, without it, he's
> >Angelus.
>
> From 'The Dark Age'
> ANGEL: But I've had a demon inside me for a couple hundred years just
> waiting for a good fight.
>
> - so not only do the demon and human soul co-exist inside him, but the
> demon can come out to fight another demon that tries to possess Angel.
Well, the demon didn't come OUT. The other demon came IN, hahahah.
> I've always thought that the sharp Angel/Angelus distinction was
> something thought up, firstly, by Buffy herself to make it easier to
> cope with things - and secondly, by the type of fan who likes
> everything neatly classified, consistent and canonical. Other
> characters on the show - and, I suspect, the writers - saw things in
> less black and white terms.
It certainly is. Half of the people who comment on Buffy (I will not
name names, but it starts with the letters "threedee") try to re-write
the series as something shallow and simple.
jil...@hotmail.com
BTR1701 wrote:
>
> Frrzf gb zr gur va-fgbel rivqrapr yrnqf gb rknpgyl gur bccbfvgr
> pbapyhfvba. Rfcrpvnyyl gur rcvfbqr "Becurhf" juvpu pnzr evtug bhg naq
> unq Natry naq Natryhf nf gjb qvfgvapg ragvgvrf qrongvat naq svtugvat
> jvgu rnpu bgure.
Ercrng nsgre zr: GUVF VF N FCBVYRE naq vf abg or or oebhtug hc va na
NBD erivrj guernq!
V guvax bayl gur Becurhf Qeht nyybjrq gung gb unccra. "Natry" vf gur
crefbanyvgl Natryhf unq gb perngr gb fheivir gur fbhy guehfg hcba uvz.
Ohg jvgubhg gur fbhy, Natry unf ab cbjre gb pbageby Natryhf.
Mel
Don Sample wrote:
> In article <x7-dnbxaWJ1...@uci.net>, Mel <melb...@uci.net>
> In the Buffyverse, it is the soul that gives someone their inhibitions.
The soul gives them guilt, or at least the capacity to feel guilty. It
doesn't stop them from doing bad things.
>
>
>
>>>(And we also run up against the rather silly idea that drugs have any
>>>effect at all on vampires here, but that's been around at least since
>>>"Dopplegangland" so it's hardly a new thing).
>>>
>>
>>It's kind of strange that such a tiny amount could have that effect
>>considering it takes loads and loads of alcohol for a vampire to get
>>drunk.
>
>
> We've seen Spike falling down drunk, in 'Lovers Walk.' It may take more
> than it does for a regular person, but not so much to make it impossible
> to get a vamp drunk.
>
But we don't know how much he had to drink to get that drunk. Wasn't the
back seat full of empty bottles?
Mel
Mel
HeKS wrote:
It's a code for saying stuff that is spoilery in the AOQ threads.
Go here http://www.rot13.com/index.php for a place to encode and decode
text.
Mel
Don Sample
"jil...@hotmail.com" <jil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Naq vg vf rkcyvpvg va 'Becurhf' gung Natryhf vf pbagnvarq jvguva Natry.
Don Sample
Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:
> Don Sample wrote:
> > In article <x7-dnbxaWJ1...@uci.net>, Mel <melb...@uci.net>
> > wrote:
> >>My explanation for everything is that he was faking it, just like he did
> >>in "Enemies." They never say that on-screen but otherwise, as you say,
> >>it doesn't make sense that a non-mystical drug would make someone's soul
> >>ineffective. Inhibitions? Yes. Judgment? Yes. Soul? Doesn't seem likely.
> >
> >
> > In the Buffyverse, it is the soul that gives someone their inhibitions.
>
>
> The soul gives them guilt, or at least the capacity to feel guilty. It
> doesn't stop them from doing bad things.
If it isn't the guilt that's stopping them, what is it?
> >>>(And we also run up against the rather silly idea that drugs have any
> >>>effect at all on vampires here, but that's been around at least since
> >>>"Dopplegangland" so it's hardly a new thing).
> >>>
> >>
> >>It's kind of strange that such a tiny amount could have that effect
> >>considering it takes loads and loads of alcohol for a vampire to get
> >>drunk.
> >
> >
> > We've seen Spike falling down drunk, in 'Lovers Walk.' It may take more
> > than it does for a regular person, but not so much to make it impossible
> > to get a vamp drunk.
> >
>
> But we don't know how much he had to drink to get that drunk. Wasn't the
> back seat full of empty bottles?
We don't know how long he'd been drunk. It might have been for days. I
expect that it might take longer for a vampire to get drunk, but that
they will also stay drunk longer.
Jr'ir frra Ohssl naq Naln zngpuvat Fcvxr qevax sbe qevax, naq juvyr ur
jnfa'g trggvat nf qehax nf gurl jrer, ur pregnvayl jnfa'g fgnlvat fbore,
rvgure. (Zhpu bs gurve qvssrerag fgngrf bs varoevngvba pbhyq or
rkcynvarq ol uvz orvat ovttre.)
Don Sample
Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:
> HeKS wrote:
>
> > "Mel" <melb...@uci.net> wrote in message
> > news:x7-dnbxaWJ1...@uci.net...
> >>Vg'f xvaq bs fgenatr gung fhpu n gval nzbhag pbhyq unir gung rssrpg
> >>pbafvqrevat vg gnxrf ybnqf naq ybnqf bs nypbuby sbe n inzcver gb trg
> >>qehax. (EBG-13rq 'pnhfr V qba'g erzrzore vs guvf unf orra zragvbarq lrg. V
> >>xabj Fcvxr fnlf nf zhpu va frnfba svir)
> >
> >
> > Ok, I need to ask ... what is this stuff? What kind of code is this that
> > some people seem to understand it. Clearly I have missed something.
> >
> > HeKS
> >
> >
>
> It's a code for saying stuff that is spoilery in the AOQ threads.
>
> Go here http://www.rot13.com/index.php for a place to encode and decode
> text.
Or check out the menus of your newsreader to see if there's something
called "ROT-13" there.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> You raise good points BUT the division is because of the curse. The
> human soul is gone, and only Willow's re-curse brings it back.
>
> That suggests to me two entities sharing the husk, but the human soul,
> when in occupancy, is the master of the domain with the demon soul
> reduced to observer.
I'm not really following the argument. Either interpretation (two
entities, or one entity with destructive impulses and a conscience)
jives with the idea that Angelus is what you get if you take the soul
out of Angel. The new wrinkle here is that the soul can be temporarily
incapacitated, as well as removed completely. It's plot-devicey as
hell, sure, but it doesn't btoher me because, as mentioned elsewhere,
the whole concept of soul-removal is hopelessly plot-devicey.
-AOQ
Daniel Damouth
news:1147971448.1...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
>
> Qba Fnzcyr jebgr:
>> Va negvpyr
>> <1147931538.0...@l43t2000pjp.tbbtyrtebhcf.pbz>,
>> oheg...@ubgznvy.pbz jebgr:
>>
>> > Qba Fnzcyr jebgr:
>> > > Va negvpyr
>> > > <1147923205....@h72t2000pjh.tbbtyrtebhcf.pbz>,
>> > > oheg...@ubgznvy.pbz jebgr:
>> > >
>> > > > Qba Fnzcyr jebgr:
>> > > > > Natry naq Natryhf orvat qvfgvapg vf n ubgyl qrongrq
>> > > > > fhowrpg. N ybg bs ivrjref, naq gur punenpgref, yvxr gb
>> > > > > guvax gung gurl'er gjb qvfgvapg crefbanyvgvrf, ohg gur va
>> > > > > fgbel rivqrapr cbvagf gb gur bccbfvgr pbapyhfvba.
>> > > >
>> > > > Jung va-fgbel rivqrapr jbhyq gung or?
>> > >
>> > > Fbzr bs vg jbhyq or guvf rcvfbqr.
>> >
>> > Naq zl cbvag vf gung guvf rcvfbqr qbrfa'g genpx jvgu gur erfg
>> > bs pnaba.
>>
>> Except for episodes such a 'Orpheus' which really is the only one
>> to address the Angel/Angelus dichotomy.
>
> Jryy, fvapr jr'er gnyxvat nobhg frnfba 4, vs Natry naq Natryhf ner
> gur fnzr ragvgl, jul jbhyq gurve zrzbevrf or frcnengr? Jul jbhyq
> gurl arrq gb oevat Natryhf bhg va beqre gb svaq bhg jung ur xabjf
> nobhg gur Ornfg? Vs Natry naq Natryhf jrer gur fnzr, gurl pbhyq
> whfg nfx Natry.
V'z cerggl fher gung dhrfgvba jnf nafjrerq va gur fubj. V whfg qba'g
erzrzore gur rkcynangvba. V guvax Natryhf uvq gur xabjyrqtr fbzrubj.
-Dan Damouth
Arbitrar Of Quality
Don Sample wrote:
> In article <1147934338....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> > Yep. As Don points out, references to vamps on drugs actually goes as
> > far back as "School Hard." If vampires don't have a heartbeat, how do
> > bloodborne chemicals like alcohol get to their brains? The only answer
> > is that no one really cares.
>
> Except it's something that does get discussed from time to time. No
> heartbeat doesn't mean no blood circulation. It just means the blood
> doesn't move as fast. Simple movement will cause blood vessels to
> expand and contract, forcing the blood to move around the vampire's
> system.
The heart supplies a tremendous amount of force to keep the blood
flowing, particularly in the areas where it has to flow against
gravity. Given that mild heart failure will cause blood pooling and
edema, imagine hat being totally heartless would do.
I'd guess that vampires have *magic* circulation.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > The big problem for me is that Angelus shouldn't have been able to
> > > "find a way out" in this manner. This episode was a pretty big
> > > contradiction of the established mythology of both shows. It's not that
> > > Angel has a split personality that he keeps one side of under tight
> > > control at all times; Angelus is a *demon* that can only come out when
> > > Angel has lost his soul. This isn't to say that Angel can't do bad or
> > > evil things, but Angel and Angelus are two completely different beings.
> > > For Angelus to gain temporary control of Angel's body, as he
> > > apparentely does in this episode, simply shouldn't be possible.
> >
> > Disagreed. I think the established mythology is pretty clear that
> > they're aspects of the same person. Angel and Angelus both universally
> > refer to the other as "I," and feel deeply guilty/embarassed over
> > things that the other does. We also have the statement in "The
> > Prodigal" that "what we once were informs all that we have become;" see
> > One Bit Shy's excellent summary in that thread for more about the idea
> > that the un-souled and souled versions of a character are the same
> > being on some level.
>
> So Angel can't feel guilty about things that aren't his fault? People
> do that all the time, after all. Angel referring to Angelus as "I" just
> means he *feels* responsible for Angelus's actions, it doesn't mean he
> *is* responsible.
The reason he feels responsible is that he remembers doing them, given
that he remembers and knows everything that "Angelus" does. Whether or
not it's actually his fault, given that he had a demon's sou and was
missing his own, is more of a fundamental bit of ambiguity that defines
the character.
> And Darla's line was in reference to someone's human personality having
> influence over who they become as a vampire. First of all, that
> situation isn't equivalent to a vampire having their soul returned
Darla's line is clearly meant to reflect on Angel. What Angelus was
informs all of what Angel becomes. I don't see why it's not
equivalent; if taking away someone's soul leaves him the same person on
some level but different in other ways, why wouldn't giving a vampire a
soul also have that effect?
> , and
> second, even if some aspects of the personality carry over, the vampire
> is still a completely different creature from the human.
I don't think the show has borne that out, at least not since early S2
of BTVS. ATS in particular has emphasized the continuity of the
individual between life and undeath. Call it a retcon, or Watcher
propoganda, or whatever.
> Most human
> beings aren't remorseless serial killers, but every vampire we meet
> (Angel excepted)certainly is.
Most or all human beings have the capacity to enjoy and be deeply
satisfied by creulty; that just gets kept in check for a variety of
reasons, some pragamatic, and some because we've got the capacity for
good, an understanding of morality, and a conscience. Call it soul.
-AOQ
Mel
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
<fanwank on>
They have vampire circulation, which is of course not the same as human
circulation. It's probably a demonic property that is tranferred at the
point of siring, and not necessarily originating in the heart. It also
allows for super-fast healing and the poofing effect when they are killed.
<fanwank off>
Mel
Arbitrar Of Quality
> What Usher said. The curse seems very stupid if you're thinking of it
> as an attempt to force Angel to be good. But that's not what it was. In
> fact, they specifically say they never wanted Angel to be able to live
> like a person. That's why they put in the escape clause in the first
> place -- on the off chance Angel ever really makes peace with having a
> human conscience, even that vanishes in a last little poof of sheer
> spite.
It's stupid because the idea of vengeance being more important than
self-preservation or justice is stupid. Vaguely sorta understandable,
but their descendants paid for their dumbassery, and the world almost
did too.
I have recanted a little, though. My biggest problem was always that
Angelus didn't exactly seem unhappy with the way things had turned out,
what with the actually smiling and laughing frequently. Then I
remembered Clairel's idea that given that he wanted to unmake the
world, maybe Angelus was even more fundamentally appalled by what he'd
been as Angel than vice versa.
-AOQ
Don Sample
Daniel Damouth <dam...@san.rr.com> wrote:
Actually, the whole thing about the separate memories was part of
Jasmine's con. The Beast (who was working for Jasmine) says he knows
Angelus. Angel doesn't remember the Beast so they come up with the
theory that Angelus is somehow hiding the information, and the
'brilliant' plan to release Angelus to find out what that was. They do
so. Angelus doesn't say anything about the Beast that Angel didn't
already know, until Cordelia (AKA Jasmine) spends a little alone time
with him. Then suddenly Angelus is all forthcoming with information
about the Svea Priestesses. The AI crew runs off to find them, only to
learn that the Beast got there ahead of them and has killed them, so the
whole thing has been for nothing.
Don Sample
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
Oops I forgot to do the ROT-13 again.
Mel
Don Sample wrote:
> In article <rI-dnZn2GuKAjfDZ...@uci.net>,
> Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Don Sample wrote:
>>
>>>In article <x7-dnbxaWJ1...@uci.net>, Mel <melb...@uci.net>
>>>wrote:
>
>
>>>>My explanation for everything is that he was faking it, just like he did
>>>>in "Enemies." They never say that on-screen but otherwise, as you say,
>>>>it doesn't make sense that a non-mystical drug would make someone's soul
>>>>ineffective. Inhibitions? Yes. Judgment? Yes. Soul? Doesn't seem likely.
>>>
>>>
>>>In the Buffyverse, it is the soul that gives someone their inhibitions.
>>
>>
>>The soul gives them guilt, or at least the capacity to feel guilty. It
>>doesn't stop them from doing bad things.
>
>
> If it isn't the guilt that's stopping them, what is it?
Choice. You ever see _The X-Files_ episode with Burt Reynolds as God?
He's trying to get through to a serial killer that bad things don't
happen by chance. The killer doesn't get it, even when Burt spells it
out plain as day that all he needs to do is simply "Choose better."
Natry qbrf onq guvatf juvyr ur unf n fbhy. Qbrf ur srry thvygl nobhg
gurz? Cebonoyl. Ohg srryvat thvygl qbrfa'g fgbc uvz sebz qbvat gurz
naljnl. Ur sverf uvf perj. Ybpxf gur ynjlref va gur pryyne. Hfrf Naar gb
trg onpx ng J&U. Gevrf gb xvyy Jrfyrl. Raqf jbeyq crnpr. Xvyyf Qebtla.
Bu lrnu, pnhfrf na ncbpnylcfr.
Gur fbhy qbrfa'g fgbc uvz sebz qbvat gurfr guvatf. Vg nyybjf uvz gb xabj
gurl nera'g creuncf gur orfg guvatf gb qb, be rira "tbbq" guvatf gb qb.
Ohg ur srryf gurl ner arprffnel guvatf gb qb, qrfcvgr gur pbfg naq gur
pbafrdhraprf. (Va gur pnfr bs raqvat jbeyq crnpr, gung jnf gur evtug
guvat gb qb, vzb.)
Inhibition is not the same thing as a moral compass. The former is
personal preference, which could easily change when under the influence
of drugs (alcohol for instance). The latter is what the soul is for, at
least in the Buffyverse. I don't think being under the influence of a
drug that doesn't act as a hallucigen (and thus detach one from reality)
is enough to make someone no longer able to distinguish between right
and wrong.
I hope this makes sense. I don't think I'm explaining it well.
Mel
Lord Usher
arjf:1147971448.1...@h72t2000pjh.tbbtyrtebhcf.pbz:
>> Except for episodes such a 'Orpheus' which really is the only one to
>> address the Angel/Angelus dichotomy.
>
> Well, since we're talking about season 4, if Angel and Angelus are the
> same entity, why would their memories be separate? Why would they need
> to bring Angelus out in order to find out what he knows about the
> Beast? If Angel and Angelus were the same, they could just ask Angel.
Normally they could -- as evidenced by the fact that Angel remembers
*everything else* that Angelus experienced. Sure, he doesn't remember
this particular thing, but that's presented as a strange and befuddling
turn of events that Our Heroes are at a loss to explain.
Now, eventually Our Heroes theorize that Angel's memories got wiped and
Angelus's didn't because the latter's "mind wasn't here where then spell
or whatever was cast." It's a weird supposition that doesn't totally
make sense, but it's the best explanation we ever get -- and if you can
accept that there's some truth to it, it actually suggests that Angel
and Angelus are *not* separate entities.
Because, if Angelus is a totally separate being inhabiting Angel's body,
why would Our Heroes think that he "wasn't here" when the Beast's master
cast her spell? He's right there in Angel's body where he's always been!
On the other hand, if Angel is an aggregate entity that contains
Angelus, one could argue that Angelus ceases to exist once he's
incorporated into the greater whole.
(Though I think a cleaner explanation is that Our Heroes' theory is just
crazy, and Angelus *actually* remembers the Beast because soulless
creatures are immune to Jasmine's mind-whammy powers, as we see later in
the season. In which case the whole thing is just a quirk of *Jasmine's*
power, and tells us nothing about the nature of Angelus at all.)
--
Ybeq Hfure
"V'z urer gb xvyy lbh, abg gb whqtr lbh."
Lord Usher
See the fixed version, below.
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns97C7F2278B9...@216.40.28.76:
>>> Rkprcg sbe rcvfbqrf fhpu n 'Becurhf' juvpu ernyyl vf gur bayl bar gb
>>> nqqerff gur Natry/Natryhf qvpubgbzl.
>>
>> Jryy, fvapr jr'er gnyxvat nobhg frnfba 4, vs Natry naq Natryhf ner
>> gur fnzr ragvgl, jul jbhyq gurve zrzbevrf or frcnengr? Jul jbhyq gurl
>> arrq gb oevat Natryhf bhg va beqre gb svaq bhg jung ur xabjf nobhg
>> gur Ornfg? Vs Natry naq Natryhf jrer gur fnzr, gurl pbhyq whfg nfx
>> Natry.
>
> Abeznyyl gurl pbhyq -- nf rivqraprq ol gur snpg gung Natry erzrzoref
> *rirelguvat ryfr* gung Natryhf rkcrevraprq. Fher, ur qbrfa'g erzrzore
> guvf cnegvphyne guvat, ohg gung'f cerfragrq nf n fgenatr naq
> orshqqyvat ghea bs riragf gung Bhe Urebrf ner ng n ybff gb rkcynva.
>
> Abj, riraghnyyl Bhe Urebrf gurbevmr gung Natry'f zrzbevrf tbg jvcrq
> naq Natryhf'f qvqa'g orpnhfr gur ynggre'f "zvaq jnfa'g urer jurer gura
> fcryy be jungrire jnf pnfg." Vg'f n jrveq fhccbfvgvba gung qbrfa'g
> gbgnyyl znxr frafr, ohg vg'f gur orfg rkcynangvba jr rire trg -- naq
> vs lbh pna npprcg gung gurer'f fbzr gehgu gb vg, vg npghnyyl fhttrfgf
> gung Natry naq Natryhf ner *abg* frcnengr ragvgvrf.
>
> Orpnhfr, vs Natryhf vf n gbgnyyl frcnengr orvat vaunovgvat Natry'f
> obql, jul jbhyq Bhe Urebrf guvax gung ur "jnfa'g urer" jura gur
> Ornfg'f znfgre pnfg ure fcryy? Ur'f evtug gurer va Natry'f obql jurer
> ur'f nyjnlf orra! Ba gur bgure unaq, vs Natry vf na nttertngr ragvgl
> gung pbagnvaf Natryhf, bar pbhyq nethr gung Natryhf prnfrf gb rkvfg
> bapr ur'f vapbecbengrq vagb gur terngre jubyr.
>
> (Gubhtu V guvax n pyrnare rkcynangvba vf gung Bhe Urebrf' gurbel vf
> whfg penml, naq Natryhf *npghnyyl* erzrzoref gur Ornfg orpnhfr
> fbhyyrff perngherf ner vzzhar gb Wnfzvar'f zvaq-junzzl cbjref, nf jr
> frr yngre va gur frnfba. Va juvpu pnfr gur jubyr guvat vf whfg n dhvex
> bs *Wnfzvar'f* cbjre, naq gryyf hf abguvat nobhg gur angher bs Natryhf
> ng nyy.)
--
Lord Usher
"I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."
Daniel Damouth
news:1148011236.4...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Sam wrote:
>
>> What Usher said. The curse seems very stupid if you're thinking
>> of it as an attempt to force Angel to be good. But that's not
>> what it was. In fact, they specifically say they never wanted
>> Angel to be able to live like a person. That's why they put in
>> the escape clause in the first place -- on the off chance Angel
>> ever really makes peace with having a human conscience, even that
>> vanishes in a last little poof of sheer spite.
>
> It's stupid because the idea of vengeance being more important
> than self-preservation or justice is stupid. Vaguely sorta
> understandable, but their descendants paid for their dumbassery,
> and the world almost did too.
And yet the American system of punishment is based partly on vengeance.
You can hear calls for vengeance almost daily on Fox News. It's
certainly understandable that some persecuted ethnic minority might
also feel that way.
[...]
-Dan Damouth
ajs...@aol.com
-AOQ"
No I'd say they barely have any circulation at all, they never
bleed out when injured, at most they ooze a little bit.
Don Sample
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Argh, I got the ROT-13 backwards again. So sorry.
>
> See the fixed version, below.
Why? I already read the unrotted version.
(And I did the exact same thing just a little while ago.)
KenM47
ajs...@aol.com
is the basis of individuality when the mind is a separate issue.
Vampires have the minds of the original people, just without empathy
and the instincts of a predator. So as to the mind, the vampire is the
same person just changed.
So when Kathy switched Buffy's soul to herself did Kathy become
Buffy? So soulless Buffy wasn't Buffy anymore?
So is the Mayor, the same guy who loved Faith like a father and
still grieved for his dead wife a different person then the guy who
sold his soul for immortality?
In the buffyverse the soul has never been shown to be more than an
influence on the psyche of the person.
KenM47
did Angel bust through Rebecca's window without an invite? Or did I
miss it?
Ken (Brooklyn)
Paul Hyett
>
>They have vampire circulation, which is of course not the same as human
>circulation. It's probably a demonic property that is tranferred at the
>point of siring, and not necessarily originating in the heart. It also
>allows for super-fast healing and the poofing effect
What - staked vampires end up in West Hollywood? :)
> when they are killed.
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
KenM47
> I find it interesting that people are trying to claim that the soul
>is the basis of individuality when the mind is a separate issue.
The show set up the dichotomy:
Angelus = demon soul in human dead husk, no human soul
Angel = human soul sharing occupancy and dominant over demon soul in
same dead human husk, demon soul deeply submerged as observer (and
sometimes with a role to play as in The Dark Age)
>
> Vampires have the minds of the original people, just without empathy
>and the instincts of a predator. So as to the mind, the vampire is the
>same person just changed.
They have the memories. "Minds"? That presupposes a lot IMO.
>
> So when Kathy switched Buffy's soul to herself did Kathy become
>Buffy? So soulless Buffy wasn't Buffy anymore?
Well, we'll never know as the soul lifting was never completed. BUTR
as Buffy lost part of her soul she turned a tad bitchy and nasty.
>
> So is the Mayor, the same guy who loved Faith like a father and
>still grieved for his dead wife a different person then the guy who
>sold his soul for immortality?
Yes. Although obviously his willingness to sell his soul suggests that
the having of a human soul is no guarantee of goodness. This is
repeated throughout the series. Just having a human soul is no all
access backstage pass to goodness.
>
> In the buffyverse the soul has never been shown to be more than an
>influence on the psyche of the person.
Without a soul, there is no good. True they F'd it up later with the
demons and half demons. I don't believe they ever made it clear what
the "good" demons were in the hierarchy. As for humans and vamps, a
human soul (or conditioned substitute like Spike's chip) is a
necessity to be on the side of the angels.
IMO, of course,
Ken (Brooklyn)
Espen Schjønberg
> But Angel has repeatedly said that he always feels the demonic urges to
> commit evil. Look at "Somnambulist." Angel was still deeply upset by
> his experience there, even after he knew he wasn't the killer, because
> when he experienced committing Penn's murders, he still enjoyed them.
> Soul or not, Angel still enjoys hurting others just as much as Angelus
> ever did. He just *also* has a conscience which makes him regret it and
> control it.
>
> Angel is as much Angelus as he is Liam. He's Angelus with Liam's human
> conscience, and/or Liam with all of the demonic urges of Angelus.
Personally, I have thought of this is a soul, spirit and body
perspective: Angel is not exactly the one he was when he was Liam,
becaue Liams life-force (the spirit) is dead, and the animation of the
body is now left to Angelus. But on top of this, he has a soul. He
controls the demon-spirit a lot better than Xander did in The Pack,
where he let the spirit rule the package. Of course, that spririt was of
another class, possibly immensely strong: still, Xander felt like he
should have controlled it, and we might speculate if another person
would have. What happened in Eternity, was not that the soul
disappeared, but more like a The Pack-scenario, because Liams soul was
weakened by the drugs.
It is this demon-spirit which is refered to whenever they speak of the
vampires "soul" : just an urge to live. In a sense, for the vampires
case, this spirit does the job of both the spirit and the soul for the
humans. It's a rather inferior thing, ethically.
When Angel feels responsible of Angelus' crimes, he is of course wrong:
he wasn't there when it happpened. He knows this, but this is the kind
of irrationality a human has in his mind.
The above discussion could probably been done with the Id and ego and
all of that, but I prefer the "real" consepts, or my simplifications of
them. ;-)
--
Espen
Rowan Hawthorn
An even more obvious real-world example is the constant idiocy going on
in the Middle East - Palestine v. Israel, Iraq v. Iran, Al Qaida v.
everybody, etc. Suicide bombers, suicide skyjackers, the attitude that
"We don't care if we die along with our entire family, as long as we can
kill a bunch of other people in the process." It's the same belief
(vengeance more important than self-preservation or justice,) and it
*is* stupid; unfortunately, it's also very real.
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
Rowan Hawthorn
Different "breeds" of demons have different inclinations; some of the
more innocuous varieties appear to be less evil than simply amoral with
a strong sense of self-preservation (PYRZ: "...lbhe fvfgre’f gur Fynlre.
V’z n qrzba. Gung’f erny tbbq vapragvir gb trg nybat jvgu ure.")
And then, of course, there's Whistler. From "Becoming, pt 1":
ANGEL: You’re not a vampire.
WHISTLER: A demon... technically. I mean, I’m not a bad guy. Not all
demons are dedicated to the destruction of all life.
Sam
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> It's stupid because the idea of vengeance being more important than
> self-preservation or justice is stupid. Vaguely sorta understandable,
> but their descendants paid for their dumbassery, and the world almost
> did too.
>
Oh, sure. I don't think anybody is supposed to feel that the gypsies
were *right* to prioritize vengeance above everything else. Just that,
taking that priority as a given, the curse actually makes quite a bit
of sense.
I think the Punisher's priority system is a bit askew, too. But if you
take that as a given, his methods are quite sensible.
> I have recanted a little, though. My biggest problem was always that
> Angelus didn't exactly seem unhappy with the way things had turned out,
> what with the actually smiling and laughing frequently. Then I
> remembered Clairel's idea that given that he wanted to unmake the
> world, maybe Angelus was even more fundamentally appalled by what he'd
> been as Angel than vice versa.
>
I think at the very least, Angelus was every bit as appalled as Angel
is. The bit I always come back to is his reaction to the events of "I
Only Have Eyes For You," where he briefly experienced something very
like his old love for Buffy again and was so filled with self-revulsion
he was washing himself until he bled.
--Sam
Slayah
I was wondering the same thing. Did she at any previous point ask him to
come over? Even if, "come over" doesn't equal "come in," does it?
Slayah
> In article <Xns97C7F3E5BBF...@216.40.28.76>,
> Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Argh, I got the ROT-13 backwards again. So sorry.
>>
>> See the fixed version, below.
>
> Why? I already read the unrotted version.
The unrotted post was canceled.
> (And I did the exact same thing just a little while ago.)
Did you try canceling it?
Lord Usher
01.rdc-nyc.rr.com:
"Well, stop by. I'll give you a private screening of the episode I didn't
win the Emmy for."
"Thanks for the invitation, but..."
According to Tim Minear, the original screenplay made the invite even more
explicit -- Rebecca went on to say, "I was kidding, but not about the
invitation" -- but the elaboration got cut for time.
Slayah
> "Slayah" <Sla...@hellmouth.com> wrote in
> news:gxjbg.862$sb7.690@news-wrt-
> 01.rdc-nyc.rr.com:
>
>> KenM47 wrote:
>>> BTW, and maybe this was discussed in a post or posts I missed, but
>>> how did Angel bust through Rebecca's window without an invite? Or
>>> did I miss it?
>>
>> I was wondering the same thing. Did she at any previous point ask
>> him to come over? Even if, "come over" doesn't equal "come in," does
>> it?
>
> "Well, stop by. I'll give you a private screening of the episode I
> didn't win the Emmy for."
Oh, that's right!
> "Thanks for the invitation, but..."
>
> According to Tim Minear, the original screenplay made the invite even
> more explicit -- Rebecca went on to say, "I was kidding, but not
> about the invitation" -- but the elaboration got cut for time.
Well then, there's our answer. Thanks!
KenM47
Thanks. Missed that. A tad slim, but at least there was something.
Ken (Brooklyn)
One Bit Shy
The slim invite got established back in Room with a View.
Angel: You said when you got a place I was completely invited over.
Cordy: What? I didn't even have a place then. These rules are getting
all screwed up.
OBS
Don Sample
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "ajs...@aol.com" <ajs...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > So is the Mayor, the same guy who loved Faith like a father and
> >still grieved for his dead wife a different person then the guy who
> >sold his soul for immortality?
>
> Yes. Although obviously his willingness to sell his soul suggests that
> the having of a human soul is no guarantee of goodness. This is
> repeated throughout the series. Just having a human soul is no all
> access backstage pass to goodness.
And we don't know that he wasn't still in possession of his soul. We
just know that it wasn't available for sale. That could mean that he
had already promised it to someone else. The classic sell your soul for
fame/wealth/power/whatever story has the seller still keep his soul,
until the time is up on the deal.
HeKS
"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-274CFB...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <rI-dnZj2GuKWjvDZ...@uci.net>,
> Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:
>
>> HeKS wrote:
>>
>> > "Mel" <melb...@uci.net> wrote in message
>> > news:x7-dnbxaWJ1...@uci.net...
>
>> >>Vg'f xvaq bs fgenatr gung fhpu n gval nzbhag pbhyq unir gung rssrpg
>> >>pbafvqrevat vg gnxrf ybnqf naq ybnqf bs nypbuby sbe n inzcver gb trg
>> >>qehax. (EBG-13rq 'pnhfr V qba'g erzrzore vs guvf unf orra zragvbarq
>> >>lrg. V
>> >>xabj Fcvxr fnlf nf zhpu va frnfba svir)
>> >
>> >
>> > Ok, I need to ask ... what is this stuff? What kind of code is this
>> > that
>> > some people seem to understand it. Clearly I have missed something.
>> >
>> > HeKS
>> >
>> >
>>
>> It's a code for saying stuff that is spoilery in the AOQ threads.
>>
>> Go here http://www.rot13.com/index.php for a place to encode and decode
>> text.
>
> Or check out the menus of your newsreader to see if there's something
> called "ROT-13" there.
Thanks people ... I thought I was going crazy for a bit there : )
HeKS
Chris White
the show that she didnt win the emmy for... theres your invite, the only
time angel has entered a humans is when kate tried to kill herself but its
not clear if she was dead and he brought her back or not.
"KenM47" <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:5htq62p80vdb06klg...@4ax.com...
Mel
In their first meeting in his office she tells him to come over and
she'll show him the Raven episode she didn't win an Emmy for.
Mel
Mel
Mel
ajs...@aol.com
Other than being a predator how is vampire Harmony different from
living Harmony? Other than being a predator how was Angelus different
from Liam? Jesse? Xander?
peachy ashie passion
Wasn't cancelled for me, I just read it.
Lord Usher
$oA6.150@trnddc06:
>> The unrotted post was canceled.
>>
>>
>>>(And I did the exact same thing just a little while ago.)
>>
>>
>> Did you try canceling it?
>>
>>
>
>
> Wasn't cancelled for me, I just read it.
Cancel doesn't work very well. :)
A lot of newsreaders -- including Google, it seems -- just ignore cancel
orders.
KenM47
ajs...@aol.com
What makes you think Liam or Harmony had empathy to begin with?
Harmony's best friend almost died and found her boyfriend cheating on
her and Harmony's response was to humilate her in public.
Liam's idea of a good time was to mooch, drink too much, hit
people, and use women for his own pleasure. Angelus' idea of a good
time was to drink, hurt people, and use them for his own pleasure, I'm
sensing a pattern here. :)
So here's a thought experiment, a wizard removes your soul and
puts it into a potted plant. Would you really argue that you are now a
potted plant and that it would be irrelevent that your mind and body
sans empathy is still running around?
KenM47
Let's go with Wesley then in "5X5":
"He may be a ruffian, but he’s already got a
soul, and therefore - deep down inside - an urge to
do what’s right."
And no, I don't give a crap about hypothetical potted plants with
souls.
Ken (Brooklyn)
One Bit Shy
news:1148188269.8...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "No empathy for the living."
>
> What makes you think Liam or Harmony had empathy to begin with?
> Harmony's best friend almost died and found her boyfriend cheating on
> her and Harmony's response was to humilate her in public.
Cordelia was hardly Harmony's best friend at that point. Not after Cordelia
had humiliated Harmony in public back in BB&B. As far as Harmony was
concerned, Cordelia had abandoned her - Cordy's best friend - for Xander.
And Harmony's payback was only what Cordelia had taught her to do through
years of training.
OBS
ajs...@aol.com
"He may be a ruffian, but he’s already got a
soul, and therefore - deep down inside - an urge to
do what’s right."
And no, I don't give a crap about hypothetical potted plants with
souls."
So morality (and empathy) is the end all and be all of your
identity? You get knocked on the head or brainwashed or something
equally soap opera and your morality was changed you would be a
different person despite having the same memories and other personality
aspects?
Providing morality (and empathy) is the only thing we've seen
that the soul is good for in the buffyverse, and I find it a poor
excuse for logic to argue that one's morality is the cornerstone of
identity. And I'm not aware of a darn thing to suggest that the soul
does more than influence the mind in the buffyverse.
So feel free to come up with an argument that's credible as to why
ones ethical compass is the sole determination of identity or provide
evidence that the soul does more in the buffyverse.
KenM47
>Let's go with Wesley then in "5X5":
>"He may be a ruffian, but he? already got a
>soul, and therefore - deep down inside - an urge to
>do what? right."
>
>
>And no, I don't give a crap about hypothetical potted plants with
>souls."
>
> So morality (and empathy) is the end all and be all of your
>identity? You get knocked on the head or brainwashed or something
>equally soap opera and your morality was changed you would be a
>different person despite having the same memories and other personality
>aspects?
>
> Providing morality (and empathy) is the only thing we've seen
>that the soul is good for in the buffyverse, and I find it a poor
>excuse for logic to argue that one's morality is the cornerstone of
>identity. And I'm not aware of a darn thing to suggest that the soul
>does more than influence the mind in the buffyverse.
>
> So feel free to come up with an argument that's credible as to why
>ones ethical compass is the sole determination of identity or provide
>evidence that the soul does more in the buffyverse.
Um. No. Tired of playing. Bored now. Thx anyway.
Ken (Brooklyn)
(Harmony) Watcher
"HeKS" <he...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Nnbg.9307$aa4.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
seasons worth of AoQ discussion threads, or at least four seasons worth of
"gobbledygook", :)
==Harmony Watcher==
James Craine
Rowan Hawthorn wrote:
>
> Different "breeds" of demons have different inclinations; some of the
> more innocuous varieties appear to be less evil than simply amoral with
> a strong sense of self-preservation (PYRZ: "...lbhe fvfgre’f gur Fynlre.
> V’z n qrzba. Gung’f erny tbbq vapragvir gb trg nybat jvgu ure.")
>
> And then, of course, there's Whistler. From "Becoming, pt 1":
>
> ANGEL: You’re not a vampire.
>
> WHISTLER: A demon... technically. I mean, I’m not a bad guy. Not all
> demons are dedicated to the destruction of all life.
>
Thousands of years ago all wolves, like any other wild
animal, were bad. Bad meaning that they would eat us if
given the chance. But some wolves hung around near human
settlements. They preformed a useful service. They kept
other animals at bay and became an intelligent alarm system.
They would eat scraps and not the people. Any who did attack
the people were killed. Over time these wolves became dogs.
A different specie from wolf. And their nature was
different. Dogs are generally good. They don't attack us
even when they can. They protect us and are beneficial to us.
I see whistler and any good demon like the good wolf
evolving into a dog.