AOQ Angel Review 1-14: "I've Got You Under My Skin"
Arbitrar Of Quality
episodes in these review threads
ANGEL
Season One, Episode 14: "I've Got You Under My Skin")
(or "No soul, no service")
Writer: Jeannine Renshaw; story by Renshaw and David Greenwalt
Director: R.D. Price
This episode is determined to trick us. It will have its plot twist or
die trying. Come hell or high water, the writers have declared, they
will at some point make us suspect someone other than Ryan of being the
big threat, and then we'll get all surprised when they give us the
evil kid. This is the kind of episode that lives to deceive.
That sounds all negative, but don't get me wrong, this episode is a
pretty reasonable manipulator. Those of us who have watched enough
movies and TV will gravitate towards the kid in a mystery like this,
and IGYUMS is eager to indulge us. Angel and his team dutifully and
logically suspect Seth slightly more than the others, but are willing
to entertain the possibility of the Ethros being in any of them, and
plan accordingly. Then, after seeing Ryan possessed all episode,
it's natural to assume that he's not a problem once the demon's
out.
And yeah, the final revelation surprised me. Others might have picked
up on it, depending on how closely they were paying attention to the
little details, especially the stuff from the beginning of the episode
like the suicide attempt and so on. And on a more construct level, the
way the show went to such lengths to get Angel invited into the house
could've been a clue that he'd be going back. The Ethros talking
about Ryan being "empty" leaves me with a question: is this meant
to mean that he's somehow supernatural, or just a message about how
humans can be more evil than Eeeevil things?
Beyond the plotting, IGYUMS is another in the string of ATS S1 episodes
that's more about the guest cast and their story, while our heroes
are content to crack the case and maybe juggle their personal issues in
the background. Here, the happy family doesn't really make much of
an impression. They're like character sketches that never got fully
drawn out. Paige is on the slightly annoying side, which I assume was
the intention, one of those well-meaning types who talks in gushes.
Her husband is the closest of the group to being developed; his natural
suspicion of a stranger makes sense, as does his desperation to help
his son once he recognizes an opportunity, and he keeps his head
impressively well during the whole ordeal. There're some good Seth
scenes early on, when he's still supposed to look suspicious to the
viewer, but he steadfastly refuses to actually do anything more
sinister than smoke and chew the scenery. I don't understand why
Angel was so soft on him at the end, though. Sure he's tried to hold
his family together, but he's also been covering up some nasty
things, including murder. Shouldn't he face some kind of
consequences? Bothersome. Maybe the show's giving him a free pass
because of the supernatural element, but I'm not so forgiving.
On the other hand, I was momentarily confused as to why Angel would
apparently kill the Ethros, after it was so helpful. Good to know that
someone doesn't forget about it when something's sucked tens of
thousands of souls...
Like all too many ATS episodes so far, IGYUMS is an entertaining enough
story, but doesn't seem to have much to it. I think I'm not much
caring for the guest-star-centric format mentioned above - it's
personal taste. I prefer my shows to be about a core cast, like BTVS.
_Angel_ is going to have to either start telling really captivating
one-off stories, or (preferably) get over what I'm hoping is its
equivalent of BTVS's early monster-of-the-week period. I of course
am deeply memorious, but if I think of this episode at all in the
future, it'll only be because of the continuation, or rather the
continuing lack of motion, of the story with Kate. I was waiting all
episode to see where Rohm would show up. My two guesses as the story
played out were that the Ethros would target her, or that we'd get a
quick scene like the one we got.
For once we see Wesley's arrogance put to good use. The others seem
to put a lot of trust in him (look at Angel's quiet nod when letting
him begin the exorcism. And later, the way he just assumes that Wesley
will know the difference between the right and wrong times to try to
stake him), and it's good to see him kinda living up to it. Quite
liked him tossing Angel the cross - ouch. Point made. Not
surprisingly, the Ryan-monster learns that Wes has some insecurities
(what is this show's thing with telepath/empath demons?!), and his
reactions make sense; he immediately recognizes what the monster's
trying to do, but ultimately fails anyway because he loses his temper.
Unfortunately for our villain, it doesn't know that making Angel
similarly angry can only end badly for it.
Some other random-er thoughts:
One thing I'd never brought up before was that I like the old-style
elevator in the AI office. Gives the place some character, even when
it's not being used as a device to build suspense.
The teasers have tended to be pretty important in setting things up,
more so than in most shows (including BTVS). This time the
introduction of brownies, which I thought was a dumb joke at first,
serves a plot purpose. Also, funny how just accidentally calling
someone "Doyle" can suck the life from the room, huh? I'd have
been fine with just that scene and maybe the followup with Cordelia
rather than have the Ryan-monster bring that up again, since the
repetition didn't tell us anything new.
Good: Moody detective hero having a way with kids, loosening up a
little. Bad: Babbling stupidly when explaining the brownie recipe.
That might work as dialogue for Buffy, but not for Angel.
I was not fond of the actor who played Ryan. The scenes where he's
calling to his mother for help are particularly weak; his delivery
could be described by finding a word that means exactly the opposite of
"natural and believable." That'll take the wind out of your big
dramatic central moments.
This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
- "I'm not unflappable." "Great. So, flap."
- "Handcrafted by blind Tibetan monks?" "Pieced together by mute
Chinese nuns."
So...
One-sentence summary: A respectable outing.
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]
Apteryx
news:1147324816....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later _Buffy_ and _Angel_
> episodes in these review threads
>
>
> ANGEL
> Season One, Episode 14: "I've Got You Under My Skin")
> (or "No soul, no service")
> Writer: Jeannine Renshaw; story by Renshaw and David Greenwalt
> Director: R.D. Price
And following on from Frankenstein in BtVS, ME brings us the next in their
series of remakes of classic movies.
> And yeah, the final revelation surprised me. Others might have picked
> up on it, depending on how closely they were paying attention to the
> little details, especially the stuff from the beginning of the episode
> like the suicide attempt and so on. And on a more construct level, the
> way the show went to such lengths to get Angel invited into the house
> could've been a clue that he'd be going back. The Ethros talking
> about Ryan being "empty" leaves me with a question: is this meant
> to mean that he's somehow supernatural, or just a message about how
> humans can be more evil than Eeeevil things?
Not all humans - just 10 year old boys.
>
> On the other hand, I was momentarily confused as to why Angel would
> apparently kill the Ethros, after it was so helpful. Good to know that
> someone doesn't forget about it when something's sucked tens of
> thousands of souls...
Plus he seemed so happy to go
>
> For once we see Wesley's arrogance put to good use. The others seem
> to put a lot of trust in him (look at Angel's quiet nod when letting
> him begin the exorcism. And later, the way he just assumes that Wesley
> will know the difference between the right and wrong times to try to
> stake him), and it's good to see him kinda living up to it. Quite
> liked him tossing Angel the cross - ouch. Point made.
Good point
>
> One-sentence summary: A respectable outing.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent
I'm not really this episode's target audience - I didn't like The Exorcist
to begin with. I'd put it just over the border in Weak territory, but that
is probably a result of the twist no longer being effective on rewatching. I
don't feel it's really worth the time spent watching, but have no strong
objections to it. Overall, its my 90th favourite AtS episode, 18th best in
Season 1.
--
Apteryx
Stephen Tempest
>Beyond the plotting, IGYUMS is another in the string of ATS S1 episodes
>that's more about the guest cast and their story, while our heroes
>are content to crack the case and maybe juggle their personal issues in
>the background.
Hmm. As I recall, this seemed to me to be a major move forward in
Wesley's story. We learn *why* he's like he is: a victim of child
abuse (physical, not sexual, as far as we can see) overcompensating
for an overbearing and demanding father who told him he'd never amount
to anything. And while he doesn't come through this episode entirely
triumphant, he does show some surprising strength of character
nonetheless.
In other words, I think he's graduating from silly comic relief to
something more than that.
Also, yet again it's the evil demon who gives us the insight into
someone's character...
>One thing I'd never brought up before was that I like the old-style
>elevator in the AI office. Gives the place some character, even when
>it's not being used as a device to build suspense.
Heh. Some of the writers apparently hated it, because it moved so
slowly. In the commentaries, they often joke that using the stairs
would have been quicker...
This was one of my favourite episodes of S1; the idea of the little
boy who's more evil than the demon was a nice twist on the
otherwise-standard Exorcist plot (although The Exorcist was a pretty
powerful film in itself, so that's not a bad thing).
Stephen
Sam
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:The Ethros talking
> about Ryan being "empty" leaves me with a question: is this meant
> to mean that he's somehow supernatural, or just a message about how
> humans can be more evil than Eeeevil things?
>
As near as I can tell, it's how they reconcile part of the show's
metaphysical premise with what could have been a tricky bit of the real
world. If, as we're told, the human soul is what gives people a moral
compass, a conscience, and so forth, how do we reconcile that with the
existence of genuine, born psychopaths? The ones who are already
torturing neighborhood pets to death at age four, who seem to have
something fundamentally wrong in their brains that makes them incapable
of morality?
(As opposed to someone like Faith, who has a conscience and just
learned to ignore it.)
Ryan is the answer. They're people who were born without souls.
--Sam
gree...@gmail.com
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> AOQ rating: Decent
This, along with "I Fall to Pieces", is one of those episodes I find
remarkably forgettable. I liked the twist with the kid being scarier
than the demon, but as you say, what of it?
On thing I actively disliked is the image at the end, attempting to
equate Ryan's father and Angel as both working hard to keep their
"family" together. Whatever your opinion of Wesley and Cordelia, I
think they're beyond needing a father-figure at this point in their
lives, and even if they did, Angel is hardly an ideal, or even good, or
adequate, father-figure.
Terry
jil...@hotmail.com
person without a soul is uncontrollable. Something dreadful and evil
tries to possess him and ends up stuck, helpless. This might point to
why the Mayor was so powerful. He sold his soul. However, he wasn't
born without one and therefore has to make deals and suchlike to
support his motion to become a true demon.
I kind of figured people like the Mayor worked long and hard to deaden
themselves to the call of their conscience.
William George Ferguson
>I'm not really this episode's target audience - I didn't like The Exorcist
>to begin with. I'd put it just over the border in Weak territory, but that
>is probably a result of the twist no longer being effective on rewatching. I
>don't feel it's really worth the time spent watching, but have no strong
>objections to it. Overall, its my 90th favourite AtS episode, 18th best in
>Season 1.
Wrong movie, and book. This episode isn't ME's take on The Exorcist, it's
ME's take on The Bad Seed.
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
Don Sample
"Sam" <hyperevol...@gmail.com> wrote:
Or the demon was just being metaphorical in its attempt to describe what
being in Ryan was like.
We have psychopaths because some souls are better than others.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
peachy ashie passion
That's why I love the episode.
Most of it is forgettable in practice, and not much worth watching too
many times. But the idea... I LOVE this idea.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> writes:
>
> >Beyond the plotting, IGYUMS is another in the string of ATS S1 episodes
> >that's more about the guest cast and their story, while our heroes
> >are content to crack the case and maybe juggle their personal issues in
> >the background.
>
> Hmm. As I recall, this seemed to me to be a major move forward in
> Wesley's story. We learn *why* he's like he is: a victim of child
> abuse (physical, not sexual, as far as we can see) overcompensating
> for an overbearing and demanding father who told him he'd never amount
> to anything. And while he doesn't come through this episode entirely
> triumphant, he does show some surprising strength of character
> nonetheless.
I'm not saying it's inconsquential. I'm just saying that I don't see
it as a Welsey show, unless you try to argue that the kid's resentment
of his family is really about Welsey or whatever (Scythe? Got a
minute? ;-)). The thing about his dad is sorta half-mentioned once, to
my recollection, and the demon plays with him for a few minutes. The
central focus of the story still seems to be about Ryan and his family,
while reveleations about and ongoing development of the main cast
happen quietly as we go.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
together, I think I'll hold off on posting "This Year's Girl" until
Friday night (USA), then we can do the next one and ATS 1-15 both on
Sat. and let those threads play out over the wekend at our leisure.
-AOQ
Sam
Don Sample wrote:
>
> Or the demon was just being metaphorical in its attempt to describe what
> being in Ryan was like.
>
> We have psychopaths because some souls are better than others.
>
I don't know, when a guy whose job description is literally devouring
people's souls, and he tells you a dude doesn't have one, that seems
like about as strong a testimony as you can get.
And true psychopaths don't really work with the whole soul thing as
they've set it up. There really is a small portion of the population
born with absolutely no moral sense whatsoever. Saying the reason for
that is that they're soulless seems an elegant explanation that fits in
with the overall metaphor of the whole thing.
--Sam
Don Sample
"Sam" <hyperevol...@gmail.com> wrote:
But it's also a bit of a cop-out. "Oh, he can't help being a
psychopath, he's got no soul." So it's now no one's fault for the
person being the way he is.
The soul/no soul thing also doesn't account for all the shades of grey.
If there are good people with souls, and bad people without souls,
what's with all the kinda okay people who are sometimes good and
sometimes bad?
One Bit Shy
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later _Buffy_ and _Angel_
> episodes in these review threads
>
>
> ANGEL
> Season One, Episode 14: "I've Got You Under My Skin")
> (or "No soul, no service")
> Writer: Jeannine Renshaw; story by Renshaw and David Greenwalt
> Director: R.D. Price
>
> That sounds all negative, but don't get me wrong, this episode is a
> pretty reasonable manipulator...
> And yeah, the final revelation surprised me...
> And on a more construct level...
Compared to the last couple episodes this plot is high art. And it
really is solidly put together, even if a bit derivative.
I've seen scarier possessions and exorcisms, but this had its moments.
Wesley's courage and determination was a nice change in pace even if he
remained a tad inept. I liked the demon catching box a whole lot, from
the jokes about its construction to its inevitable smashed to bits
failure. I liked Angel taking charge, grabbing the cross and
practically burning the demon out. And I liked the demon playing with
everybody's weaknesses during the exorcism scenes. (Though I did find
it difficult to understand his words sometimes with the way they chose
to distort his voice.)
The first plot twist of the demon being in Ryan rather than his father
was overplayed and not terribly effective. The later one of Ryan
without a soul works a lot better, plus providing the most thought
provoking idea. (Perhaps the only really substantive one.)
So it goes along ok... Still I found myself kind of just waiting for
the show to end. There's a dreary dismal mood through most of the
episode - especially in the family's house. Nobody in that family is
particularly likable - except maybe the daughter (the all little girls
are cute rule), who had a very small part. And I kept wondering if
this was really all Angel is about.
The net effect is that I don't much care that some of the elements are
crafted well if they're boring anyway.
> The Ethros talking
> about Ryan being "empty" leaves me with a question: is this meant
> to mean that he's somehow supernatural, or just a message about how
> humans can be more evil than Eeeevil things?
There is no suggestion that I saw in there that Ryan is any way
supernatural. Just that for some reason he has no soul. Kind of like
that part of him was stillborn.
I'm not sure what the definitive messages are from this, but it does
raise some thoughts. Yes, humans can be more evil than demons. Or
turn the phrasing a bit and you have there are worse things than being
possessed by a demon. In other words it's not just how bad humans can
be. It's that demons aren't the source of all evil. Which plays
nicely to the previously developing notion of there being good to find
in at least some demons. We seem to be further fuzzying the
distinction between human and demon. The continuum of good to bad is
being stretched to allow both ends to include both human and demon.
For purposes of the ongoing soul discussion, there are a couple things
I notice. The Ethros demon speaks generally of "nothing" being in
Ryan, but when he's more specific he refers to the lack of conscience,
fear and humanity. Qualities of character. (Which is everything to
him anyway, since his objective is corrupting the heart and sucking dry
the soul.) Since it seems pretty clear to me that Ryan does in fact
have consciousness and identity in the basic I think, therefore I am
sense; he's not really empty. Just empty of a soul. And the soul
would appear not to be the seat of consciousness and identity in
themselves, but rather some kind of aspect of character centered around
conscience.
That's not to say that the soul couldn't be a major modifier of
consciousness - or even that it's not so unique to the individual as to
be identifiably his alone. Indeed, by virtue of it seeming to be the
part that goes on to heaven (or wherever), one could still conclude it
is the most important human part. It's just that it doesn't appear to
be the seat of consciousness and identity in and of itself.
> Like all too many ATS episodes so far, IGYUMS is an entertaining enough
> story, but doesn't seem to have much to it. I think I'm not much
> caring for the guest-star-centric format mentioned above - it's
> personal taste. I prefer my shows to be about a core cast, like BTVS.
> _Angel_ is going to have to either start telling really captivating
> one-off stories, or (preferably) get over what I'm hoping is its
> equivalent of BTVS's early monster-of-the-week period.
BTVS did it better. ATS is struggling to be a character driven show
irrespective of its chosen format. And I'm not sure it's figured out
its format yet either.
> I of course
> am deeply memorious, but if I think of this episode at all in the
> future, it'll only be because of the continuation, or rather the
> continuing lack of motion, of the story with Kate. I was waiting all
> episode to see where Rohm would show up. My two guesses as the story
> played out were that the Ethros would target her, or that we'd get a
> quick scene like the one we got.
Drive by Kate. The quick scene was OK. Not willing to say anything to
Angel yet, but upon a moment's reflection, willing to acknowledge
Angel's thank you. That's progress.
> For once we see Wesley's arrogance put to good use. The others seem
> to put a lot of trust in him (look at Angel's quiet nod when letting
> him begin the exorcism. And later, the way he just assumes that Wesley
> will know the difference between the right and wrong times to try to
> stake him), and it's good to see him kinda living up to it. Quite
> liked him tossing Angel the cross - ouch. Point made. Not
> surprisingly, the Ryan-monster learns that Wes has some insecurities
> (what is this show's thing with telepath/empath demons?!), and his
> reactions make sense; he immediately recognizes what the monster's
> trying to do, but ultimately fails anyway because he loses his temper.
> Unfortunately for our villain, it doesn't know that making Angel
> similarly angry can only end badly for it.
When the demon spoke of Wesley being locked up under the stairs, all I
could think of was Harry Potter.
> Also, funny how just accidentally calling
> someone "Doyle" can suck the life from the room, huh?
One of the better moments.
> I'd have
> been fine with just that scene and maybe the followup with Cordelia
> rather than have the Ryan-monster bring that up again, since the
> repetition didn't tell us anything new.
Well, I think the idea was to link Angel's role of protector to Seth's
role of protecting Ryan. A notion I don't care to follow up on. I
suspect that this episode was supposed to somehow provide closure to
Angel concerning Doyle. But I'll be damned if I see why it actually
would.
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: A respectable outing.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent
Weak for me. While the idea isn't nearly as annoying and stupid as the
last episode was, I find very little on the positive side beyond the
idea of no soul. At least She had some engaging individual scenes -
like the art lecture. This episode made me twiddle my thumbs more than
anything I've watched to date.
OBS
Lord Usher
news:dsample-5F1791...@news.giganews.com:
>> I don't know, when a guy whose job description is literally devouring
>> people's souls, and he tells you a dude doesn't have one, that seems
>> like about as strong a testimony as you can get.
>>
>> And true psychopaths don't really work with the whole soul thing as
>> they've set it up. There really is a small portion of the population
>> born with absolutely no moral sense whatsoever. Saying the reason for
>> that is that they're soulless seems an elegant explanation that fits
>> in with the overall metaphor of the whole thing.
>>
>>
>> --Sam
>
> But it's also a bit of a cop-out. "Oh, he can't help being a
> psychopath, he's got no soul." So it's now no one's fault for the
> person being the way he is.
It's only a copout if it isn't true.
Truth is, there are people who are just void of morality, and sometimes
we tie ourselves in knots trying to explain their atrocities. For
instance, the evidence suggests that Columbine shooter Dylan Harris was
a clinical psychopath, incapable of empathy, but that doesn't stop folks
from blaming everything from video games to bullying to Lockheed Martin
for the fact that he was just an evil little shit.
Indeed, that's the very point of the episode -- to show that sometimes
people can't be saved no matter how hard you try, and it's no one's
fault, and you just have to learn how to live with it.
(Which is why I'm always mystified when people complain that this
episode isn't really about Our Heroes. It's *all* about Angel learning
to forgive himself for Doyle's death, accepting that you can lose a
family member without losing your family.)
--
Lord Usher
"I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."
Opus the Penguin
> One thing I'd never brought up before was that I like the old-style
> elevator in the AI office. Gives the place some character, even when
> it's not being used as a device to build suspense.
It looks a lot like the elevator in The Maltese Falcon, doesn't it?
It's the perfect noir accessory for any investigator's office.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Sam
Don Sample wrote:
>
> But it's also a bit of a cop-out. "Oh, he can't help being a
> psychopath, he's got no soul." So it's now no one's fault for the
> person being the way he is.
>
But real psychopaths *can't* help being psychopaths. There really is
something physically wrong with the actual, physiological layout of
their brains that prevents them from ever being able to experience
morality in the way you or I do. They really are born wired up
differently, and there's never a point where they choose to be
psychopaths.
Real psychopaths aren't made. They're born.
> The soul/no soul thing also doesn't account for all the shades of grey.
> If there are good people with souls, and bad people without souls,
> what's with all the kinda okay people who are sometimes good and
> sometimes bad?
>
There are good people with souls, and bad people with souls, and okay
people with souls. They all have a basic, functioning conscience. Some
people choose to listen to it. Some people don't. Just like in the real
world.
Also like the real world, there are also a small handful of people born
without any sense of morality whatsoever, incapable of ever really
understanding ideas like "It is bad to hurt other people."
--Sam
Scythe Matters
> (Scythe? Got a minute? ;-)).
Based on recent output, there just aren't enough hours in a day. ;-)
Lord Usher
@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> On thing I actively disliked is the image at the end, attempting to
> equate Ryan's father and Angel as both working hard to keep their
> "family" together. Whatever your opinion of Wesley and Cordelia, I
> think they're beyond needing a father-figure at this point in their
> lives, and even if they did, Angel is hardly an ideal, or even good, or
> adequate, father-figure.
I think you're reading that metaphor a bit too literally. The point isn't
that Angel's a father-figure, just that he's a guy struggling to keep his
"family" together in the aftermath of a tragic loss. Fathers aren't the
only people life calls upon to do that.
Lord Usher
@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> Since it seems pretty clear to me that Ryan does in fact have
> consciousness and identity in the basic I think, therefore I am
> sense; he's not really empty.
Ryan destroyed everything around him "not for any reason at all." That
seems like an appropriate description of a being whose actions are not
directed by conscious will or informed by personal identity.
Don Sample
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "One Bit Shy" <ult...@mail.com> wrote in news:1147381912.757414.225820
> @i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Since it seems pretty clear to me that Ryan does in fact have
> > consciousness and identity in the basic I think, therefore I am
> > sense; he's not really empty.
>
> Ryan destroyed everything around him "not for any reason at all." That
> seems like an appropriate description of a being whose actions are not
> directed by conscious will or informed by personal identity.
He's got the ultimate in personal identity. So much that he just
doesn't care about anyone else.
gree...@gmail.com
> I think you're reading that metaphor a bit too literally. The point isn't
> that Angel's a father-figure, just that he's a guy struggling to keep his
> "family" together in the aftermath of a tragic loss. Fathers aren't the
> only people life calls upon to do that.
It was Tim Minear who brought up the father-figure metaphor. I figure
he'd know what ME was going for. Why they'd want to is an entirely
different question.
I searched for the post, but Google seems to have dropped it. The after
effects can be found though in a discussion between Mickey DuPree and
HGH in a thread starting with this message:
<88edfj$aob$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> .
But you are correct; Angel isn't a father-figure, no matter what ME
tried to shoehorn in. Which is why it's good they gave up on that
fairly quickly.
Terry
KenM47
>In article <Xns97C0F40CDA4...@216.40.28.76>,
> Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "One Bit Shy" <ult...@mail.com> wrote in news:1147381912.757414.225820
>> @i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Since it seems pretty clear to me that Ryan does in fact have
>> > consciousness and identity in the basic I think, therefore I am
>> > sense; he's not really empty.
>>
>> Ryan destroyed everything around him "not for any reason at all." That
>> seems like an appropriate description of a being whose actions are not
>> directed by conscious will or informed by personal identity.
>
>He's got the ultimate in personal identity. So much that he just
>doesn't care about anyone else.
I didn't care for the "message." As someone else noted, "Bad Seed" and
all. Born bad, no hope for good.
Yecch. But some OK bits, particularly Cordy in the magic store.
Decent(-)
Ken (Brooklyn)
Lord Usher
news:1147441721.8...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Lord Usher wrote:
>
>> I think you're reading that metaphor a bit too literally. The point
>> isn't that Angel's a father-figure, just that he's a guy struggling
>> to keep his "family" together in the aftermath of a tragic loss.
>> Fathers aren't the only people life calls upon to do that.
>
> It was Tim Minear who brought up the father-figure metaphor. I figure
> he'd know what ME was going for. Why they'd want to is an entirely
> different question.
>
> I searched for the post, but Google seems to have dropped it. The
> after effects can be found though in a discussion between Mickey
> DuPree and HGH in a thread starting with this message:
> <88edfj$aob$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> .
Is this the quote you're talking about?
>> But what was trying to be established was about Angel's
>> character not Wesley's and it was this: Angel was feeling
>> responsible for the loss of his "child," Doyle. He couldn't keep
>> his family together, so to speak. When Wesley was nearly killed
>> by the bad seed the first time, it was Angel who would not ALLOW
>> Wesley to go back in and make another attempt. Wesley, still
>> nursing his fresh wound, was ready to go right back in. It was
>> about Angel's own failed father feelings. Or that was the idea,
>> anyhow.
If so, I still think you're taking this "father" thing too literally.
Fatherhood is the symbol, not the thing being symbolized. I hardly think
Tim's comments invalidate that, just because he stopped putting the
metaphors in quotes halfway through.
gree...@gmail.com
Lord Usher wrote:
> Is this the quote you're talking about?
Might have been.
> If so, I still think you're taking this "father" thing too literally.
> Fatherhood is the symbol, not the thing being symbolized. I hardly think
> Tim's comments invalidate that, just because he stopped putting the
> metaphors in quotes halfway through.
I stand by my comment. If they didn't want to associate Angel as
father-figure, they could have used another scenario that didn't equate
Angel and an actual father. ME chose to do what they did the way they
chose to do it, and Minear using the phrase "failed father-feelings"
confirms that.
Naq vg vfa'g whfg va guvf rcvfbqr. Guvf vf whfg gur ortvaavat. Vg'f
pneevrq guebhtu frnfba gjb jvgu gur vanar punenpgrevmngvba bs Pbeql naq
Jrfyrl nf gur fdhnooyvat fvoyvatf jub arrq "Qnqql'f" pbeerpgvba gb trg
nybat. Gur jubyr guvat jnf gur jbefg cneg bs _Natry_, hc hagvy frnfba
sbhe. Gura vg jnf whfg gur frpbaq jbefg cneg bs _Natry_.
Terry
peachy ashie passion
Is that not liking it because you feel it's too realistic, or not
realistic enough?
One Bit Shy
> "One Bit Shy" <ult...@mail.com> wrote in news:1147381912.757414.225820
> @i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Since it seems pretty clear to me that Ryan does in fact have
> > consciousness and identity in the basic I think, therefore I am
> > sense; he's not really empty.
>
> Ryan destroyed everything around him "not for any reason at all." That
> seems like an appropriate description of a being whose actions are not
> directed by conscious will or informed by personal identity.
Ryan: She has nine marshmallows, and I only have seven.
I see no evidence that Ryan didn't act with conscious will. If and
when his actions were informed by personal identity I have no idea.
I'm not sure that it matters, though I suppose that depends on what one
means by identity and informed. Ryan knew who he was and had a sense
of self.
OBS
Arbitrar Of Quality
> The first plot twist of the demon being in Ryan rather than his father
> was overplayed and not terribly effective. The later one of Ryan
> without a soul works a lot better, plus providing the most thought
> provoking idea. (Perhaps the only really substantive one.)
I wouldn't characterize the first one a "plot twist" at all. The
viewer and the main characters are all aware that although Seth seems
creepiest, anyone in the family could be harboring a demon, and things
play out accordingly. We're only supposed to be mildly surprised by
Ryan transforming, since there was never an explicit or implicit
attempt exclusde him as a suspect.
> That's not to say that the soul couldn't be a major modifier of
> consciousness - or even that it's not so unique to the individual as to
> be identifiably his alone. Indeed, by virtue of it seeming to be the
> part that goes on to heaven (or wherever), one could still conclude it
> is the most important human part. It's just that it doesn't appear to
> be the seat of consciousness and identity in and of itself.
Where was this episode when people were rambling about this several
threads ago? (Of course maybe it was in the ROT13.)
> > I'd have
> > been fine with just that scene and maybe the followup with Cordelia
> > rather than have the Ryan-monster bring that up again, since the
> > repetition didn't tell us anything new.
>
> Well, I think the idea was to link Angel's role of protector to Seth's
> role of protecting Ryan. A notion I don't care to follow up on. I
> suspect that this episode was supposed to somehow provide closure to
> Angel concerning Doyle. But I'll be damned if I see why it actually
> would.
Yeah, that does seem to be the intention, as Lord Usher and one or two
other people have pointed out. To show Angel trying to hold his
"family" together and dealing with the fact that sometimes someone
close to you can't be saved. I'm in full agreement with you that it's
not a very good analogy, and I'm not buying it as a convincing way for
Angel to forgive himself either.
-AOQ
One Bit Shy
news:1147469083.0...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> One Bit Shy wrote:
>> That's not to say that the soul couldn't be a major modifier of
>> consciousness - or even that it's not so unique to the individual as to
>> be identifiably his alone. Indeed, by virtue of it seeming to be the
>> part that goes on to heaven (or wherever), one could still conclude it
>> is the most important human part. It's just that it doesn't appear to
>> be the seat of consciousness and identity in and of itself.
>
> Where was this episode when people were rambling about this several
> threads ago? (Of course maybe it was in the ROT13.)
In one of the soul discussions I saw reference to Ryan (perhaps in ROT13),
but I didn't know who that was at the time. That's what prompted me to
mention it here since he's an unusual case of a living human without a soul.
OBS
KenM47
It's not liking it for it's simplistic message.
Ken (Brooklyn)
peachy ashie passion
Fair enough.
Do you not believe then, that some mental health issues are a matter
of how you are born?
KenM47
Of course, as in fetal alcohol syndrome. Many things can negatively
impact the unborn child.
But this was the "evil" child. I don't believe people are born "evil."
Ken (Brooklyn)
BTR1701
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> peachy ashie passion <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >KenM47 wrote:
> >
> >> peachy ashie passion <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>KenM47 wrote:
> >>>>Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> >>>>>In article <Xns97C0F40CDA4...@216.40.28.76>,
> >>>>>Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>"One Bit Shy" <ult...@mail.com> wrote in news:1147381912.757414.225820
> >>>>>>@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>Since it seems pretty clear to me that Ryan does in fact have
> >>>>>>>consciousness and identity in the basic I think, therefore I am
> >>>>>>>sense; he's not really empty.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Ryan destroyed everything around him "not for any reason at all." That
> >>>>>>seems like an appropriate description of a being whose actions are not
> >>>>>>directed by conscious will or informed by personal identity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>He's got the ultimate in personal identity. So much that he just
> >>>>>doesn't care about anyone else.
> >>>>I didn't care for the "message." As someone else noted, "Bad Seed" and
> >>>>all. Born bad, no hope for good.
> >>> Is that not liking it because you feel it's too realistic, or not
> >>>realistic enough?
> >> It's not liking it for it's simplistic message.
> > Fair enough.
> >
> > Do you not believe then, that some mental health issues are a matter
> >of how you are born?
>
>
> Of course, as in fetal alcohol syndrome. Many things can negatively
> impact the unborn child.
>
> But this was the "evil" child. I don't believe people are born "evil."
They may not be born evil but some people are definitely born amoral, as
in without a conscience.
Lord Usher
news:btr1702-9A0AF1...@news.giganews.com:
>> > Do you not believe then, that some mental health issues are a
>> > matter of how you are born?
>>
>> Of course, as in fetal alcohol syndrome. Many things can negatively
>> impact the unborn child.
>>
>> But this was the "evil" child. I don't believe people are born
>> "evil."
>
> They may not be born evil but some people are definitely born amoral,
> as in without a conscience.
Which is exactly what Ryan was -- a standard psychopath. As I said
elsewhere in the thread, it's hardly "simplistic" to point out that, yes,
such people do exist, especially considering how desperately our society
sometimes labors to deny exactly this fact, to insist that all children
must be innocent and if they do something monstrous it must be the fault of
an external force like violence in the media or a militaristic culture or
some other bugaboo.
peachy ashie passion
I think the problem comes in on step two though, because most
children who do something monstrous are not psychopaths.
BTR1701
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> news:btr1702-9A0AF1...@news.giganews.com:
>
> >> > Do you not believe then, that some mental health issues are a
> >> > matter of how you are born?
> >>
> >> Of course, as in fetal alcohol syndrome. Many things can negatively
> >> impact the unborn child.
> >>
> >> But this was the "evil" child. I don't believe people are born
> >> "evil."
> >
> > They may not be born evil but some people are definitely born amoral,
> > as in without a conscience.
>
> Which is exactly what Ryan was -- a standard psychopath.
Not really. A psychopath is someone who has suffered a break from
reality. They can no longer distinguish what is real from what is not.
Ryan was a sociopath. He's the type of person who has a perfectly normal
view of the world around him, is not disconnected from reality, and
knows right from wrong. He just doesn't care. Sociopaths have no moral
center or emotional connection to others, which enables them to do
incredibly horrific things to other people and not be bothered by it in
the least. The only thing they truly care about is themselves. It's true
that many sociopaths go their whole lives without ever committing a
crime but their sole motivation for doing so, for living by the rules,
is the threat of being caught and punished. Their only concern is for
themselves, so the idea that their unrestrained actions could lead to
their own suffering keeps them in check.
Lord Usher
@news.giganews.com:
>> Which is exactly what Ryan was -- a standard psychopath.
>
> Not really. A psychopath is someone who has suffered a break from
> reality.
No, that's a psychotic. A psychopath is exactly what you go on to describe
-- someone with a normally developed rational sense but an inability to
empathize with other people.
Arbitrar Of Quality
Lord Usher wrote:
> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:btr1702-856004.00010814052006
> @news.giganews.com:
>
> >> Which is exactly what Ryan was -- a standard psychopath.
> >
> > Not really. A psychopath is someone who has suffered a break from
> > reality.
>
> No, that's a psychotic. A psychopath is exactly what you go on to describe
> -- someone with a normally developed rational sense but an inability to
> empathize with other people.
Main Entry: psy·cho·path
Pronunciation: 'sI-k&-"path
Function: noun
: a mentally ill or unstable individual; especially : one having an
antisocial personality
Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster,
Inc.
psychopath
n : someone with a sociopathic personality; a person with an antisocial
personality disorder (`psychopath' was once widely used but has now
been superseded by `sociopath') [syn: sociopath]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
-AOQ
Lord Usher
news:rQv9g.1208$Nw6.1107@trnddc03:
>> Which is exactly what Ryan was -- a standard psychopath. As I said
>> elsewhere in the thread, it's hardly "simplistic" to point out that,
>> yes, such people do exist, especially considering how desperately our
>> society sometimes labors to deny exactly this fact, to insist that
>> all children must be innocent and if they do something monstrous it
>> must be the fault of an external force like violence in the media or
>> a militaristic culture or some other bugaboo.
>
> I think the problem comes in on step two though, because most
> children who do something monstrous are not psychopaths.
And most of the humans in the Buffyverse who do something monstrous are not
soulless -- this episode just wasn't about them. It also wasn't about the
people in the real world who aren't psychopaths. But I fail to see the
problem with that.
If an episode chooses to focus on one particular truth of human nature, can
you really brand a failure because it doesn't focus on *every other* truth
at the same time?
And if your argument is that juvenile psycopathy is so rare and
insignificant in the real world that it's pointless to center an episode
around the phenomenon, I think you're very much mistaken. I've already
pointed out a *hugely* significant real-world event -- the Columbine
massacre -- in which a genuinely psychopathic child played a central role.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> Inc.
> Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
if you want to use the words as psychiatrists use them
you have to consult dsm iv
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
peachy ashie passion
Well then, feel free to point out the specific locations. :)
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
peachy ashie passion <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,170,000 for dsm iv. (0.09 seconds)
Sponsored Links
Dsm Iv at Amazon.com
Buy books at Amazon.com and save.
Qualified orders over $25 ship free
Amazon.com/books
Dsm Iv
Looking for Dsm Iv?
Find exactly what you want today.
www.eBay.com
Online Access to DSM-IV
Access DSM codes, diagnosis,
criteria lists, decision trees.
www.PsychiatryOnline.com
See Photos of Hot Women
See Free Photos and Email Hot Women
Who Want to Find Bed Partners. Free
holaangels.com
DSM-IV - Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ...
DSM-IV - Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition.
www.psychologynet.org/dsm.html - 29k - Cached - Similar pages
DSM V-Codes
DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, ... The primary
goal of the DSM-IV-TR was to maintain the currency of the DSM-IV text, ...
www.psyweb.com/Mdisord/DSM_IV/jsp/dsm_iv.jsp - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
BehaveNet® Clinical Capsule : DSM-IV-TR Classification
Diagnostic terminology of psychiatric and psychoactive substance use disorders
classified by APA DSM-IV.
www.behavenet.com/capsules/ disorders/dsm4TRclassification.htm - 32k - Cached -
Similar pages
BehaveNet® Clinical Capsule : DSM-IV-TR
It is expected that DSM-V will replace DSM-IV-TR sometime in the future. ...
American Psychiatric Association (CD-ROM) Electronic DSM-IV-TR Plus, ...
www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/dsm4tr.htm - 8k - Cached - Similar pages
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV)
Mental illness, disorders, symptoms and treatment.
allpsych.com/disorders/dsm.html - 30k - Cached - Similar pages
DSM-IV Made Easy
Complete DSM-IV Diagnosis Criteria. for Mental Disorders. This website has moved
to http://mysite.verizon.net/res7oqx1/. Same content, new location. ...
www.geocities.com/morrison94/ - 3k - Cached - Similar pages
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Wikipedia ...
In 1994, it evolved into DSM-IV. This work is currently in its fourth edition.
The most recent version is the 'Text Revision' of the DSM-IV, also known as ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-IV - 32k - Cached - Similar pages
Complete List of DMS-IV Codes
The following 2 tables give basic codes for all DSM-IV diagnoses. Note that the
numbers are ... Alphabetical DSM-IV Codes. Table 1. DSM-IV Codes by Number ...
www.psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/_misc/complete_tables.htm - 198k - Cached -
Similar pages
DSM-IV Diagnoses and Codes
DSM-IV Diagnoses and Codes. These are just two listings of diagnoses and codes,
... As far as I know, the complete DSM-IV isn't available on the web, ...
www.dr-bob.org/tips/dsm4.html - 3k - Cached - Similar pages
Amazon.com: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ...
Desk Reference to the Diagnostic Criteria From DSM-IV-TR (Desk Reference to the
... Like other reviewers, I agree that if you own DSM-IV (burgundy cover), ...
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ tg/detail/-/0890420254?v=glance - 133k - May 13,
2006 - Cached - Similar pages
Daniel Damouth
news:mair_fheal-2FE2A...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
>> Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002
>> Merriam-Webster, Inc.
>
>> Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
>
> if you want to use the words as psychiatrists use them
> you have to consult dsm iv
Is there a word for someone who has a perfectly normal
view of the world around him, is not disconnected from reality, and
knows right punctuation/capitalization from wrong, but just doesn't
care? A writer who has no moral center or emotional connection to his
readers, which enables him to do incredibly horrific things to the
English language and not be bothered by it in the least?
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Daniel Damouth <dam...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:mair_fheal-2FE2A...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
>
> >> Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002
> >> Merriam-Webster, Inc.
> >
> >> Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
> >
> > if you want to use the words as psychiatrists use them
> > you have to consult dsm iv
the moon is rising dragging seas to rim
the breakers charge upon the boulders grim
the sea crashes invades the hollowed world
from birth to age and mortal combat hurled
one afternoon includes their hopes and hells
while children gather kelp and pretty shells
> Is there a word for someone who has a perfectly normal
> view of the world around him, is not disconnected from reality, and
> knows right punctuation/capitalization from wrong, but just doesn't
> care? A writer who has no moral center or emotional connection to his
> readers, which enables him to do incredibly horrific things to the
> English language and not be bothered by it in the least?
poet
BTR1701
Apparently that takes eight words to describe.
peachy ashie passion
> In article <5SO9g.1555$343.307@trnddc06>,
> peachy ashie passion <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster,
>>>>Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
>>>
>>>
>>>if you want to use the words as psychiatrists use them
>>>you have to consult dsm iv
>>>
>>>arf meow arf - nsa fodder
>>>al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
>>>if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
>>
>>
>> Well then, feel free to point out the specific locations. :)
>
>
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 4,170,000 for dsm iv. (0.09 seconds)
>
>
>
>
> Sponsored Links
Thanks, I actually have the link to the entire dsm online.
I wasn't asking for that, but for you to cite specifically WHERE in
the DSM.
peachy ashie passion
First you'll have to convince me that this one has a perfectly normal
view of the world.. I haven't observed that to be the case.
kenm47
Currently: "POTUS"
Ken (Brooklyn)