4x17: The Short Review (S4 Spoilers)
Niall Harrison
/me corrects the header.
It's been a while...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'Inside Out'
Written and Directed by Steven S DeKnight
Man, I love a story with scope.
I mean, where do you start with an episode like this?
'Inside Out' is the complex, multilayered episode this
season has been crying out for. It's intense, it's clever,
and it's revelatory. From the pitch-perfect teaser
confrontation to the deeply intriguing ending, everything
just *works*.
And stirs up more than a little controversy along the way.
There's Connor. Poor, conflicted, confused, lost Connor.
He knows what Good and Evil are - that's clear; how could he
not, with Holtz as his father? - but to him, they're just
what Cordelia insists they are. Words. Abstract concepts. He
has no framework for applying them to the world, and he's
desperately groping to find it.
Darla tells Connor: 'listen to your heart'. I believe he does.
He just chooses to protect his child - the child he profoundly
wants to believe is going to change the world, and make it
all *better.*
(And what if he turns out to be right?)
And there's Skip. And the retcon, the sheer audacity of which
just takes your breath away.
Let's face it, we *know* this wasn't planned. It seems likely
they had a rough idea of how things were going to pan out
back in 'Tomorrow' - Cordelia was warned off her ascension
by a vision, after all - but earlier than that? I don't think
so. That doesn't matter, though. Somehow, they've taken
every disparate thread from the past three and a half years
and bound them together, given them *meaning*.
So what are they - helpless? Puppets?
No.
AI's choices were constrained, sure. But that happens to all
of us, every day - except in our world, it's down to
circumstances, not immensely powerful beings. As far as we know,
anyway. How many times have you looked back and realised
you didn't have the choice you thought you had?
As Gunn points out, we never know when our choices matter, so
we make them all count. And they do count; the fact that Cordelia
was steered onto the path she took doesn't mean she didn't take
that path. The fact that Angel had no choice but to try to kill
the woman he loves doesn't make that action *easy*. The fact that
our parents choose, say, our school, shapes who we become but
does not define it.
Because choice is important. In the same episode Skip is
crowing about the manipulation of Our Heroes, the importance
of Connor's choice is paramount. It's a beautiful comment on
Free Will and Destiny.
It's also a gift to fans, because it binds the series together.
Sure, you could believe that this is a last minute fix-up that
the writers pulled together - but given that it does fit so
nicely, why wouldn't you want to believe in the better story?
I love this episode. I love it for what it does for the characters
(you know I'm talking about *that* Angel/Wes scene, right?), I
love it for what it does for the arc, I love it for the themes
it tackles, and I love it for what it means for the series as
a whole.
Traditionally, at this point in the season things take a sharp
turn for the unexpected. I can't wait to find out where all
this is going.
Niall
--
A little charm and a lot of style.
Keith Gow
waxed lyrical:
Yes, Babylon 5 was a great TV series. ;-)
>I mean, where do you start with an episode like this?
>'Inside Out' is the complex, multilayered episode this
>season has been crying out for.
If by complex you mean "convoluted" then yeah.
If by multilayered... Nah, it wasn't multi-anything. Not even
multi-coloured. It was monochrome.
This season was crying out for Faith. It had her and then went back to
fumbling around, wishing things were planned better.
<snip>
>There's Connor. Poor, conflicted, confused, lost Connor.
>He knows what Good and Evil are - that's clear; how could he
>not, with Holtz as his father? - but to him, they're just
>what Cordelia insists they are. Words. Abstract concepts. He
>has no framework for applying them to the world, and he's
>desperately groping to find it.
>
>Darla tells Connor: 'listen to your heart'. I believe he does.
>He just chooses to protect his child - the child he profoundly
>wants to believe is going to change the world, and make it
>all *better.*
>
This thread of the episode was the only really interesting one for me.
If you are talking complexity, the scene with Darla and Connor (and
the poor virgin and later Cordelia) has it in spades. Unfortunately
while it's playing at being very memorable, it's being eroded by the
other half of the episode.
Was this written by Steven S DeKnight of "Spiral", "Dead Things" and
"Seeing Red" fame? I think he's been possessed by an evil entity, too.
>(And what if he turns out to be right?)
>
>And there's Skip. And the retcon, the sheer audacity of which
>just takes your breath away.
>
Yes, I found myself gagging, too.
>Let's face it, we *know* this wasn't planned. It seems likely
>they had a rough idea of how things were going to pan out
>back in 'Tomorrow' - Cordelia was warned off her ascension
>by a vision, after all - but earlier than that? I don't think
>so. That doesn't matter, though. Somehow, they've taken
>every disparate thread from the past three and a half years
>and bound them together, given them *meaning*.
>
No, they have in fact cast a lot of doubt on the first two absolutely
wonderful seasons with a retcon that tries to justify the very uneven
third and fourth year.
>So what are they - helpless? Puppets?
>
>No.
>
Yes. Whatever Gunn says. (His little speech sounded like a
justification for sleeping with Gwen, actually.)
>AI's choices were constrained, sure. But that happens to all
>of us, every day - except in our world, it's down to
>circumstances, not immensely powerful beings. As far as we know,
>anyway. How many times have you looked back and realised
>you didn't have the choice you thought you had?
>
I don't know. More often than not I marvel at where I can see my life
changing because of my own choices, but that's by the by.
Your point is a good one, we aren't completely in control of our
lives, but there's probably good reason why should never know this for
a certainty. Can you imagine how you'd feel if your entire life was
layed out before you and you were told who manipulated what to get you
to where you are?
Certainly that could make an interesting story *from now on* but to
infect the last four years - including the most heinous retcon of all,
somehow suggesting Doyle's impulsive kiss before he sacrificed his own
life was all part of some "gods" plan - makes for bad storytelling.
>As Gunn points out, we never know when our choices matter, so
>we make them all count. And they do count; the fact that Cordelia
>was steered onto the path she took doesn't mean she didn't take
>that path.
This comes back to "Birthday" which I've always had a love-hate
relationship with. On first look the episode seemed very inept, but I
always felt that while it didn't always make a lot of sense, it was
just a test for Cordy to pass.
Now we know Skip did it to manipulate Cordy into becoming part demon?
But why? Did she need to be part-demon to ascend? There's nothing to
say she had to be. Perhaps she had to be part-demon to survive with
this beautiful woman inside her? But, again, there's no proof of this.
>The fact that Angel had no choice but to try to kill
>the woman he loves doesn't make that action *easy*.
Certainly not. But it's a much more interesting story if he gets to
choose.
>The fact that
>our parents choose, say, our school, shapes who we become but
>does not define it.
>
>Because choice is important. In the same episode Skip is
>crowing about the manipulation of Our Heroes, the importance
>of Connor's choice is paramount. It's a beautiful comment on
>Free Will and Destiny.
>
Except, of course, and here's my major problem with the appearance of
Darla - who was she? What was she? Who sent her? Why? (The possibility
that this question will be answered eventually keeps me watching,
but...)
Connor's decision was made not because he listened to Darla and made a
choice, but because the vision and its meaning was manipulated by
Cordelia. He made a decision, but mostly he was manipulated into it.
>It's also a gift to fans, because it binds the series together.
Okay, Niall, a "gift to the fans"?
>Sure, you could believe that this is a last minute fix-up that
>the writers pulled together - but given that it does fit so
>nicely, why wouldn't you want to believe in the better story?
>
It's not the better story, though.
>I love this episode. I love it for what it does for the characters
>(you know I'm talking about *that* Angel/Wes scene, right?),
One very small scene in the episode.
>I
>love it for what it does for the arc, I love it for the themes
>it tackles, and I love it for what it means for the series as
>a whole.
>
Taken on its own, it's interesting. The themes are interesting. The
way it goes about opening this Pandora's box is pretty objectionable.
>Traditionally, at this point in the season things take a sharp
>turn for the unexpected. I can't wait to find out where all
>this is going.
I wanna know how Cordy is doing.
-- Keith Gow --
Niall Harrison
It was. :)
> This season was crying out for Faith. It had her and then went back to
> fumbling around, wishing things were planned better.
Whereas for me, this was the strongest episode of the season. Faith and
Angelus were entertaining...this builds on and adds to _Angel_'s own
mythology in a way that the previous episodes didn't.
>>Let's face it, we *know* this wasn't planned. It seems likely
>>they had a rough idea of how things were going to pan out
>>back in 'Tomorrow' - Cordelia was warned off her ascension
>>by a vision, after all - but earlier than that? I don't think
>>so. That doesn't matter, though. Somehow, they've taken
>>every disparate thread from the past three and a half years
>>and bound them together, given them *meaning*.
>
> No, they have in fact cast a lot of doubt on the first two absolutely
> wonderful seasons with a retcon that tries to justify the very uneven
> third and fourth year.
Doubt about what?
>>So what are they - helpless? Puppets?
>>
>>No.
>
> Yes. Whatever Gunn says.
No. The big moments come, and whether or not they're orchestrated by
some other being is irrelevant. They still happen, and they're still
meaningful.
Angel was manipulated by W&H until he was in a place where he'd walk
away from that wine cellar. Wesley was manipulated by Sahjan. This is
just an extension of those situations.
> Your point is a good one, we aren't completely in control of our
> lives, but there's probably good reason why should never know this for
> a certainty. Can you imagine how you'd feel if your entire life was
> layed out before you and you were told who manipulated what to get you
> to where you are?
Stunned, probably. Shocked.
Much like AI in this episode.
Makes a great story, though.
> somehow suggesting Doyle's impulsive kiss before he sacrificed his own
> life was all part of some "gods" plan
This, I think, is a misunderstanding of what Skip was saying. He wasn't
suggesting that Doyle was somehow taken over in that moment; he was
suggesting that the external factors - the Nazi demons and so on - were
arranged so as to create that situation, a situation where Doyle would
choose to kiss Cordelia.
(Alternatively, it just waited for Doyle to kiss Cordelia then took the
opportunity to metaphysically shunt over the visions. Either way - still
Doyle's choice. Still meaningful.
> Now we know Skip did it to manipulate Cordy into becoming part demon?
> But why? Did she need to be part-demon to ascend? There's nothing to
> say she had to be. Perhaps she had to be part-demon to survive with
> this beautiful woman inside her? But, again, there's no proof of this.
Why does it matter?
The need for concrete answers about these questions is something I don't
understand. Leave it open to interpretation; leave it ambiguous. Leave
room for debate, because either of your suggestions could be right *and
it makes no difference which is*. All that really matters is that it was
necessary for Cordelia to become part-demon, and that she made that
choice..
>>The fact that Angel had no choice but to try to kill
>>the woman he loves doesn't make that action *easy*.
>
> Certainly not. But it's a much more interesting story if he gets to
> choose.
He did get to choose. But he effectively had no choice. You see? :)
>>Because choice is important. In the same episode Skip is
>>crowing about the manipulation of Our Heroes, the importance
>>of Connor's choice is paramount. It's a beautiful comment on
>>Free Will and Destiny.
>
> Except, of course, and here's my major problem with the appearance of
> Darla - who was she? What was she? Who sent her? Why? (The possibility
> that this question will be answered eventually keeps me watching,
> but...)
Again, loving the ambiguity here. I'm going with 'the PTB', because
they've always been shown as emphasising the importance of independent
choice. I don't want it to be the First Evil because I have no interest
in seeing _Angel_'s arc polluted by _Buffy_'s. What Darla says is far
more important than who she is - particularly because, by not telling
us, the show puts us that much closer to Connor's position.
>>It's also a gift to fans, because it binds the series together.
>
> Okay, Niall, a "gift to the fans"?
Well, a gift to me, anyway. The writers love me. :)
>>Sure, you could believe that this is a last minute fix-up that
>>the writers pulled together - but given that it does fit so
>>nicely, why wouldn't you want to believe in the better story?
>
> It's not the better story, though.
Clearly, I disagree. :)
>>Traditionally, at this point in the season things take a sharp
>>turn for the unexpected. I can't wait to find out where all
>>this is going.
>
> I wanna know how Cordy is doing.
According to Skip, brain-dead.
Niall
--
When memes collide.
Dan Milburn
>>>So what are they - helpless? Puppets?
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>> Yes. Whatever Gunn says.
>
> No. The big moments come, and whether or not they're orchestrated by
> some other being is irrelevant. They still happen, and they're still
> meaningful.
I still can't get my head round how that's irrelevant.
> Angel was manipulated by W&H until he was in a place where he'd walk
> away from that wine cellar. Wesley was manipulated by Sahjan. This is
> just an extension of those situations.
An extension to the point of utter ridiculousness. It's one thing to be
told that *some* of the things you've done were the result of manipulation
by an external force. To be told that *everything* you and all your
friends have ever done was makes it meaningless.
In any case, at least the first of those examples is a rather different
situation. Angel *knew* he was being manipulated. If he hadn't, I don't
think the story would have worked anywhere near as well. If there'd been
no indication that he was, then it had been revealed to him two years
later that he had been, that would have sucked. Oh wait...
>> Now we know Skip did it to manipulate Cordy into becoming part demon?
>> But why? Did she need to be part-demon to ascend? There's nothing to
>> say she had to be. Perhaps she had to be part-demon to survive with
>> this beautiful woman inside her? But, again, there's no proof of this.
>
> Why does it matter?
>
> The need for concrete answers about these questions is something I don't
> understand. Leave it open to interpretation; leave it ambiguous. Leave
> room for debate, because either of your suggestions could be right *and
> it makes no difference which is*. All that really matters is that it was
> necessary for Cordelia to become part-demon, and that she made that
> choice..
Or, y'know, not. Nobody's ever, ever going to convince me that Cordelia
actually had a choice in 'Birthday'.
>>>Because choice is important. In the same episode Skip is crowing about
>>>the manipulation of Our Heroes, the importance of Connor's choice is
>>>paramount. It's a beautiful comment on Free Will and Destiny.
>>
>> Except, of course, and here's my major problem with the appearance of
>> Darla - who was she? What was she? Who sent her? Why? (The possibility
>> that this question will be answered eventually keeps me watching,
>> but...)
>
> Again, loving the ambiguity here. I'm going with 'the PTB', because
> they've always been shown as emphasising the importance of independent
> choice. I don't want it to be the First Evil because I have no interest
> in seeing _Angel_'s arc polluted by _Buffy_'s. What Darla says is far
> more important than who she is - particularly because, by not telling
> us, the show puts us that much closer to Connor's position.
And by not telling Connor, it ensured that he had no reason to trust it
whatsoever, which is just one of the many things which make that scene
dreadful. Also, I keep saying this, but - why send Darla? Even if he had
known or believed it was her, he'd been raised to believe that she was
evil as much as Angelus. Why not send someone he might actually have a
reason to listen to, like say, Holtz?
Dan
Niall Harrison
Do you mean 'relevant'?
It's relevant because it means that all the character development we've
seen is still real.
>> Angel was manipulated by W&H until he was in a place where he'd walk
>> away from that wine cellar. Wesley was manipulated by Sahjan. This is
>> just an extension of those situations.
>
> An extension to the point of utter ridiculousness. It's one thing to be
> told that *some* of the things you've done were the result of manipulation
> by an external force. To be told that *everything* you and all your
> friends have ever done was makes it meaningless.
Makes what meaningless? Makes the actions themselves meaningless?
Makes the statement meaningless? Why?
>> The need for concrete answers about these questions is something I don't
>> understand. Leave it open to interpretation; leave it ambiguous. Leave
>> room for debate, because either of your suggestions could be right *and
>> it makes no difference which is*. All that really matters is that it was
>> necessary for Cordelia to become part-demon, and that she made that
>> choice.
>
> Or, y'know, not. Nobody's ever, ever going to convince me that
> Cordelia actually had a choice in 'Birthday'.
She could have chosen to die. It was a loaded choice, but still a
choice. Or, if you prefer, it was something she had to accept, but
something she accepted of her own free will rather than had forced on
her.
>>> Except, of course, and here's my major problem with the appearance of
>>> Darla - who was she? What was she? Who sent her? Why? (The possibility
>>> that this question will be answered eventually keeps me watching,
>>> but...)
>>
>> Again, loving the ambiguity here. I'm going with 'the PTB', because
>> they've always been shown as emphasising the importance of independent
>> choice. I don't want it to be the First Evil because I have no interest
>> in seeing _Angel_'s arc polluted by _Buffy_'s. What Darla says is far
>> more important than who she is - particularly because, by not telling
>> us, the show puts us that much closer to Connor's position.
>
> And by not telling Connor, it ensured that he had no reason to trust it
> whatsoever, which is just one of the many things which make that scene
> dreadful.
What would you have her say? Clearly, in some sense it's not Darla;
she's dead, dusted, and this version of her is incorporeal. To pop up
and say "I'm your mother" would be somewhat disingenuous, and given
Connor's distrust of all things mystical [1] it seems to me that it
would actually be likely to make him more suspicious.
Appealing to Connor by saying "I'm your mother, listen to what I say" or
"I speak for the Powers, listen to what I say" isn't going to work. What
she's trying is "what you're doing is wrong, listen to what I say." It's
not about the source, it's about the content.
> Also, I keep saying this, but - why send Darla? Even if he had
> known or believed it was her, he'd been raised to believe that she was
> evil as much as Angelus. Why not send someone he might actually have a
> reason to listen to, like say, Holtz?
Holtz died a bitter, unrepentant man. If it's the good guys that sent
Darla, what makes you think they'd have been *able* to send Holtz?
And what makes you think they'd have *wanted* to? Seems to me that one
life in exchange for a special baby that's going to save the world is
the sort of trade that Daniel Holtz might not dismiss out of hand. If
anyone understood necessary sacrifice, it was Holtz.
Niall
[1] Anyone else think that given Connor's nature, his repeated rants
about magic might be a form of externalised self-loathing?
--
When memes collide.
Dan Milburn
Ok, should have snipped that slightly - I can't get my head round how
whether or not they're orchestrated by some other being is irrelevant.
>>> Angel was manipulated by W&H until he was in a place where he'd walk
>>> away from that wine cellar. Wesley was manipulated by Sahjan. This is
>>> just an extension of those situations.
>>
>> An extension to the point of utter ridiculousness. It's one thing to be
>> told that *some* of the things you've done were the result of
>> manipulation by an external force. To be told that *everything* you and
>> all your friends have ever done was makes it meaningless.
>
> Makes what meaningless? Makes the actions themselves meaningless? Makes
> the statement meaningless? Why?
Makes the knowledge that you were manipulated meaningless, makes the
actions meaningless except on a very small scale.
>>> The need for concrete answers about these questions is something I
>>> don't understand. Leave it open to interpretation; leave it ambiguous.
>>> Leave room for debate, because either of your suggestions could be
>>> right *and it makes no difference which is*. All that really matters
>>> is that it was necessary for Cordelia to become part-demon, and that
>>> she made that choice.
>>
>> Or, y'know, not. Nobody's ever, ever going to convince me that
>> Cordelia actually had a choice in 'Birthday'.
>
> She could have chosen to die. It was a loaded choice, but still a
> choice.
Oh, come on. A choice between dying, and continuing to get the visions
and do good in the world?
> Or, if you prefer, it was something she had to accept, but something she
> accepted of her own free will rather than had forced on her.
But there's the thing. I see a lot of forcing going on, and very little
free will.
>>>> Except, of course, and here's my major problem with the appearance of
>>>> Darla - who was she? What was she? Who sent her? Why? (The
>>>> possibility that this question will be answered eventually keeps me
>>>> watching, but...)
>>>
>>> Again, loving the ambiguity here. I'm going with 'the PTB', because
>>> they've always been shown as emphasising the importance of independent
>>> choice. I don't want it to be the First Evil because I have no
>>> interest in seeing _Angel_'s arc polluted by _Buffy_'s. What Darla
>>> says is far more important than who she is - particularly because, by
>>> not telling us, the show puts us that much closer to Connor's
>>> position.
>>
>> And by not telling Connor, it ensured that he had no reason to trust it
>> whatsoever, which is just one of the many things which make that scene
>> dreadful.
>
> What would you have her say? Clearly, in some sense it's not Darla;
> she's dead, dusted, and this version of her is incorporeal. To pop up
> and say "I'm your mother" would be somewhat disingenuous, and given
> Connor's distrust of all things mystical [1] it seems to me that it
> would actually be likely to make him more suspicious.
>
> Appealing to Connor by saying "I'm your mother, listen to what I say"
But that's exactly what she does.
> or
> "I speak for the Powers, listen to what I say" isn't going to work. What
> she's trying is "what you're doing is wrong, listen to what I say." It's
> not about the source, it's about the content.
So if the source isn't important, why is it at all relevant that our not
knowing puts us closer to Connors position? Why go to the trouble of
getting Julie Benz back as a guest star if it could just as easily have
been a disembodied voice?
>> Also, I keep saying this, but - why send Darla? Even if he had known
>> or believed it was her, he'd been raised to believe that she was evil
>> as much as Angelus. Why not send someone he might actually have a
>> reason to listen to, like say, Holtz?
>
> Holtz died a bitter, unrepentant man. If it's the good guys that sent
> Darla, what makes you think they'd have been *able* to send Holtz?
>
> And what makes you think they'd have *wanted* to? Seems to me that one
> life in exchange for a special baby that's going to save the world is
> the sort of trade that Daniel Holtz might not dismiss out of hand. If
> anyone understood necessary sacrifice, it was Holtz.
And if anyone didn't understand how to do good, it was Darla.
If it *had* been Holtz, it would have meant that the message carried more
weight, surely? That's my whole point - it *isn't* just the message, and
the fact that Connor doesn't trust the bringer of that message *is*
important.
Dan
Niall Harrison
> Ok, should have snipped that slightly - I can't get my head round how
> whether or not they're orchestrated by some other being is irrelevant.
Ah, ok. Answered below.
>>>> Angel was manipulated by W&H until he was in a place where he'd walk
>>>> away from that wine cellar. Wesley was manipulated by Sahjan. This is
>>>> just an extension of those situations.
>>>
>>> An extension to the point of utter ridiculousness. It's one thing to be
>>> told that *some* of the things you've done were the result of
>>> manipulation by an external force. To be told that *everything* you and
>>> all your friends have ever done was makes it meaningless.
>>
>> Makes what meaningless? Makes the actions themselves meaningless? Makes
>> the statement meaningless? Why?
>
> Makes the knowledge that you were manipulated meaningless,
Why? You can still try to not be manipulated in the future, if that's
what you want.
> makes the actions meaningless except on a very small scale.
Meaningless in what sense? This is what I meant be the manipulation
being 'irrelevant'.
Say Skip is right, and the big bad arranged (say) the vampirisation of
Gunn's sister. Gunn staking his sister was a definitive event, and
started the train of events that lead to where he is now. You can see
how, if something Gunn has done with AI was necessary for this
confluence of events, how that event could be a necessary and useful
part of the plan.
But for Gunn, it's irrelevant. For one thing, it doesn't make any
difference whether a big bad pointed the vampire at his sister or
whether the vampire came up with the idea of his own accord; his sister
was still vamped, he still had to stake her. Either way, there is at
this point nothing he can do about it; either way, somebody else took
his sister away from him.
I can't see that it's meaningless except on a small scale, either,
because as we've seen, it's *fundamental* to the person Gunn has become.
>> Or, if you prefer, it was something she had to accept, but something she
>> accepted of her own free will rather than had forced on her.
>
> But there's the thing. I see a lot of forcing going on, and very little
> free will.
Forcing how? I suppose it's possible Skip was lying, and the visions
weren't kiling her, but that seems unlikely. There are medical records
and migraines to suggest otherwise. Even if you think he would have made
Cordy a demon no matter what she said, that's not relevant, because
that's not what happened. He only demonised her once she accepted it.
>>>> Again, loving the ambiguity here. I'm going with 'the PTB', because
>>>> they've always been shown as emphasising the importance of independent
>>>> choice. I don't want it to be the First Evil because I have no
>>>> interest in seeing _Angel_'s arc polluted by _Buffy_'s. What Darla
>>>> says is far more important than who she is - particularly because, by
>>>> not telling us, the show puts us that much closer to Connor's
>>>> position.
>>>
>>> And by not telling Connor, it ensured that he had no reason to trust it
>>> whatsoever, which is just one of the many things which make that scene
>>> dreadful.
>>
>> What would you have her say? Clearly, in some sense it's not Darla;
>> she's dead, dusted, and this version of her is incorporeal. To pop up
>> and say "I'm your mother" would be somewhat disingenuous, and given
>> Connor's distrust of all things mystical [1] it seems to me that it
>> would actually be likely to make him more suspicious.
>>
>> Appealing to Connor by saying "I'm your mother, listen to what I say"
>
> But that's exactly what she does.
No, it's not. Connor asks "Are you my mother?" Her answer is "I have her
memories, her feelings; isn't that what makes a person?"
But my question was, what would *you* have her say? If you were sending
Darla (and assume for the sake of argument that it does have to be
Darla; makes a certain mystical sense that his real mother would have to
counteract his 'fake' mother) to convince Connor not to go through with
it, what would you have had Darla do differently?
>> or
>> "I speak for the Powers, listen to what I say" isn't going to work. What
>> she's trying is "what you're doing is wrong, listen to what I say." It's
>> not about the source, it's about the content.
>
> So if the source isn't important, why is it at all relevant that our not
> knowing puts us closer to Connors position?
Um, because it confuses us in the way that Connor must be confused?
> Why go to the trouble of
> getting Julie Benz back as a guest star if it could just as easily have
> been a disembodied voice?
I see a difference between messenger and source. Clearly the fact that
it is Darla, or that it looks like Darla, is important; that's going to
have a particular effect on Connor. But the origin - the source of the
messenger - is not important, whether it's the Powers or the First. The
message itself is.
>>> Also, I keep saying this, but - why send Darla? Even if he had known
>>> or believed it was her, he'd been raised to believe that she was evil
>>> as much as Angelus. Why not send someone he might actually have a
>>> reason to listen to, like say, Holtz?
>>
>> Holtz died a bitter, unrepentant man. If it's the good guys that sent
>> Darla, what makes you think they'd have been *able* to send Holtz?
>>
>> And what makes you think they'd have *wanted* to? Seems to me that one
>> life in exchange for a special baby that's going to save the world is
>> the sort of trade that Daniel Holtz might not dismiss out of hand. If
>> anyone understood necessary sacrifice, it was Holtz.
>
> And if anyone didn't understand how to do good, it was Darla.
Except when she had Connor's soul, of course. Which I'd think is
relevant here.
> If it *had* been Holtz, it would have meant that the message carried more
> weight, surely?
Again, you're assuming Holtz would or could have carried that message. I
think it's debateable whether or not he would, and likely (given his
death) that he couldn't.
Keith Gow
waxed lyrical:
It plays with Angel's mythology, but whether it builds on it is still
open to debate.
>>>Let's face it, we *know* this wasn't planned. It seems likely
>>>they had a rough idea of how things were going to pan out
>>>back in 'Tomorrow' - Cordelia was warned off her ascension
>>>by a vision, after all - but earlier than that? I don't think
>>>so. That doesn't matter, though. Somehow, they've taken
>>>every disparate thread from the past three and a half years
>>>and bound them together, given them *meaning*.
>>
>> No, they have in fact cast a lot of doubt on the first two absolutely
>> wonderful seasons with a retcon that tries to justify the very uneven
>> third and fourth year.
>
>Doubt about what?
>
About *every* choice they made. About *every* alliance they have
created. I had a large problem with Sahjahn last season re-writing
prophecy because that then throws every prophecy they've ever read
into doubt. This is that on a much grander scale!
I would have much rather Skip just been this thing's bitch, *duped*
into turning Cordy into a vessel where this new thing could percolate,
but to extend it back further, to extended it back to Fred getting
thrown to Pylea, to Lorne leaving Pylea, it's too much.
Retcons can be done well. I'd much rather something be planned out in
advance, but that's not how TV usually works. So retcons are a way of
life on TV. But when they are this big, they overwhelm the story.
I know AtS has always been about big stories and I was almost
accepting that gothic melodrama was all I should ever expect from the
series. But this retcon makes the characters helpless. Even if things
before Birthday weren't a part of the plan (and certainly not planned
to be a part of this arc) everything since then *is* and it's not
helping.
>>>So what are they - helpless? Puppets?
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>> Yes. Whatever Gunn says.
>
>No. The big moments come, and whether or not they're orchestrated by
>some other being is irrelevant. They still happen, and they're still
>meaningful.
>
Let's take another look at Babylon 5. Much of that series was about
the Shadows and the Vorlons manipulating the younger races into doing
what they wanted. But none of the characters on B5 came away looking
like a pale version of themselves once we realised that the Vorlons
weren't as nice and the Shadows weren't as bad as we always thought.
Cordelia, as a character, has been ruined. "Birthday" could have
spawned a great story about taking on a burden that would change you -
about doing things because they *need* to be done. But what it created
was a few whacky demon jokes and some glowy deus ex machina last
season.
Some suspected, at least by the time of "Tomorrow," that Skip wasn't
exactly what he seemed. And that also could have worked. Unfortunately
now even that character has been consumed by the force of Higher
Beings (one or more) and we can't ever appreciate his piece of the
puzzle either.
>Angel was manipulated by W&H until he was in a place where he'd walk
>away from that wine cellar. Wesley was manipulated by Sahjan. This is
>just an extension of those situations.
>
It's too, too much. It's the hand of God. But, more disturbingly, it's
the hand of Joss (and Tim and Steven and Jeff and Greenwalt), etc.
Great stories can come from being shown something where we are forced
to re-evaluate what has come before. But this retcon is too big.
Things don't fit. And more retconning won't solve that.
<snip>
>> somehow suggesting Doyle's impulsive kiss before he sacrificed his own
>> life was all part of some "gods" plan
>
>This, I think, is a misunderstanding of what Skip was saying. He wasn't
>suggesting that Doyle was somehow taken over in that moment; he was
>suggesting that the external factors - the Nazi demons and so on - were
>arranged so as to create that situation, a situation where Doyle would
>choose to kiss Cordelia.
>
Okay, well you can always explain away bits and pieces. But my biggest
problem is that it wasn't just a manipulation of him, it was a
manipulation of everyone.
>(Alternatively, it just waited for Doyle to kiss Cordelia then took the
>opportunity to metaphysically shunt over the visions. Either way - still
>Doyle's choice. Still meaningful.
>
I'd much rather watch that episode a never think about he was
manipulated into that.
>> Now we know Skip did it to manipulate Cordy into becoming part demon?
>> But why? Did she need to be part-demon to ascend? There's nothing to
>> say she had to be. Perhaps she had to be part-demon to survive with
>> this beautiful woman inside her? But, again, there's no proof of this.
>
>Why does it matter?
>
Well clearly it has to matter for any of this to make one whit of
sense. If we just accept random machinations then anything goes.
>The need for concrete answers about these questions is something I don't
>understand. Leave it open to interpretation; leave it ambiguous. Leave
>room for debate, because either of your suggestions could be right *and
>it makes no difference which is*. All that really matters is that it was
>necessary for Cordelia to become part-demon, and that she made that
>choice..
>
She was given *no choice*. Become part demon or die. That's not a
choice, especially now we know Skip manipulated her into it.
>>>The fact that Angel had no choice but to try to kill
>>>the woman he loves doesn't make that action *easy*.
>>
>> Certainly not. But it's a much more interesting story if he gets to
>> choose.
>
>He did get to choose. But he effectively had no choice. You see? :)
>
Actually this is true, too. And I feel like you will be able to knock
back every example I throw your way. And that's fine. But the problem
is *everything* they have *ever* done has been manipulated.
Sure, we are affected by outside forces, but if we're not partly in
charge - if the characters aren't - what's the point?
>>>Because choice is important. In the same episode Skip is
>>>crowing about the manipulation of Our Heroes, the importance
>>>of Connor's choice is paramount. It's a beautiful comment on
>>>Free Will and Destiny.
>>
>> Except, of course, and here's my major problem with the appearance of
>> Darla - who was she? What was she? Who sent her? Why? (The possibility
>> that this question will be answered eventually keeps me watching,
>> but...)
>
>Again, loving the ambiguity here. I'm going with 'the PTB', because
>they've always been shown as emphasising the importance of independent
>choice. I don't want it to be the First Evil because I have no interest
>in seeing _Angel_'s arc polluted by _Buffy_'s.
As lacklustre as the First Evil has been on Buffy this year, at least
it has some internal consistency.
>What Darla says is far
>more important than who she is - particularly because, by not telling
>us, the show puts us that much closer to Connor's position.
>
Well, dramatically, you are right. But it should be important where
that vision comes from.
>>>Sure, you could believe that this is a last minute fix-up that
>>>the writers pulled together - but given that it does fit so
>>>nicely, why wouldn't you want to believe in the better story?
>>
>> It's not the better story, though.
>
>Clearly, I disagree. :)
>
You'd rather believe they've all been manipulated all the time?
>>>Traditionally, at this point in the season things take a sharp
>>>turn for the unexpected. I can't wait to find out where all
>>>this is going.
>>
>> I wanna know how Cordy is doing.
>
>According to Skip, brain-dead.
And we all know how trust-worthy he is.
-- Keith Gow --
Keith Gow
waxed lyrical:
>Forcing how? I suppose it's possible Skip was lying, and the visions
>weren't kiling her, but that seems unlikely. There are medical records
>and migraines to suggest otherwise. Even if you think he would have made
>Cordy a demon no matter what she said, that's not relevant, because
>that's not what happened. He only demonised her once she accepted it.
>
Here's the problem, Niall. Because so very much needs to be
questioned, now *everything* has to be.
If Cordy can be manipulated into getting the visions, surely the
"gods" (I'm not convinced it's the Powers or the First or none of
these things or all of these things at the same time) could also make
her have headaches and migraines just so she is more willing to accept
Skip's story.
She accepted the visions because she was given *no choice*. She was
shown a false vision. It's not really an alternate future at all - or
else she would never have found the writing on the wall inside the
Hyperion. The whole thing was a construct to force her into choosing
something.
So with just that one episode where we think Cordelia - of all people
- has made a great sacrifice, really has just been pushed. Sure, the
fact she said "okay, demon me up" (or whatever) is significant - if
the character had been allowed to develop. But at this point we
haven't really seen Cordelia since then.
-- Keith Gow --
Niall Harrison
>>>>Let's face it, we *know* this wasn't planned. It seems likely
>>>>they had a rough idea of how things were going to pan out
>>>>back in 'Tomorrow' - Cordelia was warned off her ascension
>>>>by a vision, after all - but earlier than that? I don't think
>>>>so. That doesn't matter, though. Somehow, they've taken
>>>>every disparate thread from the past three and a half years
>>>>and bound them together, given them *meaning*.
>>>
>>> No, they have in fact cast a lot of doubt on the first two absolutely
>>> wonderful seasons with a retcon that tries to justify the very uneven
>>> third and fourth year.
>>
>>Doubt about what?
>
> About *every* choice they made.
But in what way? They still made those choices. Why does it matter if the
external situation was constrained beforehand?
> Some suspected, at least by the time of "Tomorrow," that Skip wasn't
> exactly what he seemed. And that also could have worked. Unfortunately
> now even that character has been consumed by the force of Higher
> Beings (one or more) and we can't ever appreciate his piece of the
> puzzle either.
I'm confused. Isn't Skip not being what he seemed exactly what we just
got?
>>Angel was manipulated by W&H until he was in a place where he'd walk
>>away from that wine cellar. Wesley was manipulated by Sahjan. This is
>>just an extension of those situations.
>
> It's too, too much. It's the hand of God. But, more disturbingly, it's
> the hand of Joss (and Tim and Steven and Jeff and Greenwalt), etc.
Another reason why I love it. I'm a sucker for meta, and for the show to
turn around and basically say "Look! There is a Writer!" tickles me no
end.
> Great stories can come from being shown something where we are forced
> to re-evaluate what has come before. But this retcon is too big.
> Things don't fit. And more retconning won't solve that.
What doesn't fit? What is inconsistent with the idea that events were
steered towards the birth of Gina Torres?
>>> Now we know Skip did it to manipulate Cordy into becoming part demon?
>>> But why? Did she need to be part-demon to ascend? There's nothing to
>>> say she had to be. Perhaps she had to be part-demon to survive with
>>> this beautiful woman inside her? But, again, there's no proof of this.
>>
>>Why does it matter?
>
> Well clearly it has to matter for any of this to make one whit of
> sense. If we just accept random machinations then anything goes.
Any explanation would be entirely arbitrary, though; making up something
for the sake of it. It wouldn't add any depth or interest to the story.
>>The need for concrete answers about these questions is something I don't
>>understand. Leave it open to interpretation; leave it ambiguous. Leave
>>room for debate, because either of your suggestions could be right *and
>>it makes no difference which is*. All that really matters is that it was
>>necessary for Cordelia to become part-demon, and that she made that
>>choice..
>
> She was given *no choice*. Become part demon or die. That's not a
> choice, especially now we know Skip manipulated her into it.
It *is* a choice. It's just not a pleasant choice.
> Sure, we are affected by outside forces, but if we're not partly in
> charge - if the characters aren't - what's the point?
Then all that matters...is what we do.
To coin a phrase. :)
>>> Except, of course, and here's my major problem with the appearance of
>>> Darla - who was she? What was she? Who sent her? Why? (The possibility
>>> that this question will be answered eventually keeps me watching,
>>> but...)
>>
>>Again, loving the ambiguity here. I'm going with 'the PTB', because
>>they've always been shown as emphasising the importance of independent
>>choice. I don't want it to be the First Evil because I have no interest
>>in seeing _Angel_'s arc polluted by _Buffy_'s.
>
> As lacklustre as the First Evil has been on Buffy this year, at least
> it has some internal consistency.
Uh-huh. Explain to me the whole business with the Seal in 7x07-09, again?
>>What Darla says is far
>>more important than who she is - particularly because, by not telling
>>us, the show puts us that much closer to Connor's position.
>
> Well, dramatically, you are right. But it should be important where
> that vision comes from.
It *could* be, I suppose. It would be possible to write a story in which
that was important. I don't see why it *has* to be, though; as I've said
to Dan, I think the message is more important than the guy that sent the
messenger.
>>>>Traditionally, at this point in the season things take a sharp
>>>>turn for the unexpected. I can't wait to find out where all
>>>>this is going.
>>>
>>> I wanna know how Cordy is doing.
>>
>>According to Skip, brain-dead.
>
> And we all know how trust-worthy he is.
And yet, you seem quite happy to take everything he said about the Grand
Plan at face value...
Niall
--
Verbing weirds language.
Dan Hartland
news:10530685...@urchin.earth.li...
>
>
> /me corrects the header.
>
> It's been a while...
\o/
That's ... a lot of spoiler space.
<snip>
> I mean, where do you start with an episode like this?
> 'Inside Out' is the complex, multilayered episode this
> season has been crying out for. It's intense, it's clever,
> and it's revelatory. From the pitch-perfect teaser
> confrontation to the deeply intriguing ending, everything
> just *works*.
Absolutely. It truly answered the prayers I was making a couple of weeks
back in that thread where everyone told me to stop being so picky. :)
Seminal, truly. Superb exchanges, penetrating ideas.
<snip>
> Darla tells Connor: 'listen to your heart'. I believe he does.
> He just chooses to protect his child - the child he profoundly
> wants to believe is going to change the world, and make it
> all *better.*
Indeed. In many ways, Connor's approach to his child is the same as Angel's:
he clearly wants the child to both be better than him and help him. In that
child, Connor sees his own salvation and the chance to do a better job that
the people who looked after him when *he* was a baby.
<snip>
> Let's face it, we *know* this wasn't planned. It seems likely
> they had a rough idea of how things were going to pan out
> back in 'Tomorrow' - Cordelia was warned off her ascension
> by a vision, after all - but earlier than that? I don't think
> so. That doesn't matter, though. Somehow, they've taken
> every disparate thread from the past three and a half years
> and bound them together, given them *meaning*.
But, I don't think they've obliterated the meaning they had before. If Gunn
is correct, and his argument is precisely the one I've been using in the
prophecy/free will debates we've been having for three years, then we don't
know which actions were individual and which nudged. And, in a sense, it
doesn't matter. Every action has both dimensions, and each could be trivial
or crucial.
<snip>
> AI's choices were constrained, sure. But that happens to all
> of us, every day - except in our world, it's down to
> circumstances, not immensely powerful beings.
Exactly.
<snip>
> As Gunn points out, we never know when our choices matter, so
> we make them all count. And they do count; the fact that Cordelia
> was steered onto the path she took doesn't mean she didn't take
> that path. The fact that Angel had no choice but to try to kill
> the woman he loves doesn't make that action *easy*. The fact that
> our parents choose, say, our school, shapes who we become but
> does not define it.
No one has a choice in this episode: Connor feels he has no choice but to
kill the girl; Angel has no choice but to murder Cordelia; Skip, when
threatened by Fred, has no choice but to relent.
> Because choice is important. In the same episode Skip is
> crowing about the manipulation of Our Heroes, the importance
> of Connor's choice is paramount. It's a beautiful comment on
> Free Will and Destiny.
Precisely. And, ironically, Connor wasn't even conscious just how up to him
it all was. Brilliant.
Dan
<snip>
Niall Harrison
Say they did. Say this big bad manipulated every single aspect of Our
Heroes' external reality. I don't think that's what the episode is saying,
since then I can't see a reason for the big bad to want to manifest
itself, but let's run with it - we can't trust anything except the
characters. Everyone is an unreliable narrator; the entire of their
reality is created.
In that case, they've been living in _The Matrix_. And this story arc is
their chance to break free.
I don't think that invalidates previous stories, though. Again, it's the
meta thing; it's a direct acnowledgement that the world of AI *is* a
created, directed world, and it always has been.
Keith Gow
waxed lyrical:
Hopefully explained below... somewhere :-)
>> Some suspected, at least by the time of "Tomorrow," that Skip wasn't
>> exactly what he seemed. And that also could have worked. Unfortunately
>> now even that character has been consumed by the force of Higher
>> Beings (one or more) and we can't ever appreciate his piece of the
>> puzzle either.
>
>I'm confused. Isn't Skip not being what he seemed exactly what we just
>got?
>
Yes. But it's not even that he's a manipulative sonofabitch, just that
he's also a pawn.
>>>Angel was manipulated by W&H until he was in a place where he'd walk
>>>away from that wine cellar. Wesley was manipulated by Sahjan. This is
>>>just an extension of those situations.
>>
>> It's too, too much. It's the hand of God. But, more disturbingly, it's
>> the hand of Joss (and Tim and Steven and Jeff and Greenwalt), etc.
>
>Another reason why I love it. I'm a sucker for meta, and for the show to
>turn around and basically say "Look! There is a Writer!" tickles me no
>end.
>
Ah, well, this is the reason we'll never agree. Meta is great, but
once it *infects* the story, everything becomes meaningless.
I don't need to be reminded I'm watching a TV series. The TV set does
that well enough for me. I do like nods and winks, but nothing that
takes me out of a show. This has taken me out. Thrown me out and spat
at me, really.
>> Great stories can come from being shown something where we are forced
>> to re-evaluate what has come before. But this retcon is too big.
>> Things don't fit. And more retconning won't solve that.
>
>What doesn't fit? What is inconsistent with the idea that events were
>steered towards the birth of Gina Torres?
>
Well, again, everything can be made to fit if we believe that
everything can be manipulated. And if you love to see the writer's
pulling the strings, have fun!
>>>> Now we know Skip did it to manipulate Cordy into becoming part demon?
>>>> But why? Did she need to be part-demon to ascend? There's nothing to
>>>> say she had to be. Perhaps she had to be part-demon to survive with
>>>> this beautiful woman inside her? But, again, there's no proof of this.
>>>
>>>Why does it matter?
>>
>> Well clearly it has to matter for any of this to make one whit of
>> sense. If we just accept random machinations then anything goes.
>
>Any explanation would be entirely arbitrary, though; making up something
>for the sake of it. It wouldn't add any depth or interest to the story.
>
And yet you like "Inside Out" which is also arbitrary.
As much as I hated the "here's why Cordy is evil" sequence because it
was so heavy-handed, at least things fit (if not well). But for Skip
to spout off about Gunn's sister dying and Lorne being brought from
Pylea and Wes sleeping with Lilah (!?!) as being part of the grand
plan makes little to no sense.
Just saying "I love a story with scope" does not make a story with
scope.
>>>The need for concrete answers about these questions is something I don't
>>>understand. Leave it open to interpretation; leave it ambiguous. Leave
>>>room for debate, because either of your suggestions could be right *and
>>>it makes no difference which is*. All that really matters is that it was
>>>necessary for Cordelia to become part-demon, and that she made that
>>>choice..
>>
>> She was given *no choice*. Become part demon or die. That's not a
>> choice, especially now we know Skip manipulated her into it.
>
>It *is* a choice. It's just not a pleasant choice.
>
It was a choice before, it aint now.
>> Sure, we are affected by outside forces, but if we're not partly in
>> charge - if the characters aren't - what's the point?
>
>Then all that matters...is what we do.
>
>To coin a phrase. :)
>
>>>> Except, of course, and here's my major problem with the appearance of
>>>> Darla - who was she? What was she? Who sent her? Why? (The possibility
>>>> that this question will be answered eventually keeps me watching,
>>>> but...)
>>>
>>>Again, loving the ambiguity here. I'm going with 'the PTB', because
>>>they've always been shown as emphasising the importance of independent
>>>choice. I don't want it to be the First Evil because I have no interest
>>>in seeing _Angel_'s arc polluted by _Buffy_'s.
>>
>> As lacklustre as the First Evil has been on Buffy this year, at least
>> it has some internal consistency.
>
>Uh-huh. Explain to me the whole business with the Seal in 7x07-09, again?
>
I said First Evil, not the Seal. However, I have no huge problem with
the Seal either.
>>>What Darla says is far
>>>more important than who she is - particularly because, by not telling
>>>us, the show puts us that much closer to Connor's position.
>>
>> Well, dramatically, you are right. But it should be important where
>> that vision comes from.
>
>It *could* be, I suppose. It would be possible to write a story in which
>that was important. I don't see why it *has* to be, though; as I've said
>to Dan, I think the message is more important than the guy that sent the
>messenger.
>
Given the fact you love this whole retcon, it has to be important
where the information comes from! If you really think it's not
important, then it automatically becomes suspect - from every point of
view. And if that's the case, the whole universe collapses in on
itself.
>>>>>Traditionally, at this point in the season things take a sharp
>>>>>turn for the unexpected. I can't wait to find out where all
>>>>>this is going.
>>>>
>>>> I wanna know how Cordy is doing.
>>>
>>>According to Skip, brain-dead.
>>
>> And we all know how trust-worthy he is.
>
>And yet, you seem quite happy to take everything he said about the Grand
>Plan at face value...
We can't not. Given the amount of time the episode took out to explain
it to us all, if they double back on this retcon... I can't even bare
thinking about it.
-- Keith Gow --
Dan Milburn
>>>>> Angel was manipulated by W&H until he was in a place where he'd walk
>>>>> away from that wine cellar. Wesley was manipulated by Sahjan. This
>>>>> is just an extension of those situations.
>>>>
>>>> An extension to the point of utter ridiculousness. It's one thing to
>>>> be told that *some* of the things you've done were the result of
>>>> manipulation by an external force. To be told that *everything* you
>>>> and all your friends have ever done was makes it meaningless.
>>>
>>> Makes what meaningless? Makes the actions themselves meaningless?
>>> Makes the statement meaningless? Why?
>>
>> Makes the knowledge that you were manipulated meaningless,
>
> Why? You can still try to not be manipulated in the future, if that's
> what you want.
And know that you have almost no chance of succeeding.
>> makes the actions meaningless except on a very small scale.
>
> Meaningless in what sense? This is what I meant be the manipulation
> being 'irrelevant'.
>
> Say Skip is right, and the big bad arranged (say) the vampirisation of
> Gunn's sister. Gunn staking his sister was a definitive event, and
> started the train of events that lead to where he is now. You can see
> how, if something Gunn has done with AI was necessary for this
> confluence of events, how that event could be a necessary and useful
> part of the plan.
>
> But for Gunn, it's irrelevant. For one thing, it doesn't make any
> difference whether a big bad pointed the vampire at his sister or
> whether the vampire came up with the idea of his own accord; his sister
> was still vamped, he still had to stake her. Either way, there is at
> this point nothing he can do about it; either way, somebody else took
> his sister away from him.
>
> I can't see that it's meaningless except on a small scale, either,
> because as we've seen, it's *fundamental* to the person Gunn has become.
That's what I meant by small scale.
I've been thinking about this a lot, and I've come up with an analogy. I
don't think it really fits, but what the hell:
Say you have a football team. They're a small team, the odds are against
them, and they struggle through match after match. But they win them, and
eventually they win the FA cup. Then, some time later, they find out that
it was all fixed. Every single match they've played, money has been paid
to the opposing side to ensure that they lose. None of the other teams
lost easily, they put up a good show, and our team had thought they won
because they deserved to.
Now, what does this mean for our team? In and of themselves, their
actions, the struggles they went through, aren't affected. It was still
their will to win, and given the circumstances they were in it was their
actions that brought them victory, their players scoring the goals. But
the big picture? It wasn't what they did that determined the outcome, it
was the machinations of whoever was manipulating things. All their
struggles, their victories and setbacks, have become meaningless.
>>> Or, if you prefer, it was something she had to accept, but something
>>> she accepted of her own free will rather than had forced on her.
>>
>> But there's the thing. I see a lot of forcing going on, and very little
>> free will.
>
> Forcing how? I suppose it's possible Skip was lying, and the visions
> weren't kiling her, but that seems unlikely.
No, he wasn't lying about that, just about absolutely everything else.
> There are medical records
> and migraines to suggest otherwise. Even if you think he would have made
> Cordy a demon no matter what she said, that's not relevant, because
> that's not what happened. He only demonised her once she accepted it.
And she only accepted it once she had no option.
>>>>> Again, loving the ambiguity here. I'm going with 'the PTB', because
>>>>> they've always been shown as emphasising the importance of
>>>>> independent choice. I don't want it to be the First Evil because I
>>>>> have no interest in seeing _Angel_'s arc polluted by _Buffy_'s. What
>>>>> Darla says is far more important than who she is - particularly
>>>>> because, by not telling us, the show puts us that much closer to
>>>>> Connor's position.
>>>>
>>>> And by not telling Connor, it ensured that he had no reason to trust
>>>> it whatsoever, which is just one of the many things which make that
>>>> scene dreadful.
>>>
>>> What would you have her say? Clearly, in some sense it's not Darla;
>>> she's dead, dusted, and this version of her is incorporeal. To pop up
>>> and say "I'm your mother" would be somewhat disingenuous, and given
>>> Connor's distrust of all things mystical [1] it seems to me that it
>>> would actually be likely to make him more suspicious.
>>>
>>> Appealing to Connor by saying "I'm your mother, listen to what I say"
>>
>> But that's exactly what she does.
>
> No, it's not. Connor asks "Are you my mother?" Her answer is "I have her
> memories, her feelings; isn't that what makes a person?"
Well of course she's not *actually* his mother. Even Connor's not that
stupid.
> But my question was, what would *you* have her say? If you were sending
> Darla (and assume for the sake of argument that it does have to be
> Darla; makes a certain mystical sense that his real mother would have to
> counteract his 'fake' mother) to convince Connor not to go through with
> it, what would you have had Darla do differently?
If it could only be Darla, I wouldn't have bothered. She couldn't have
said anything which would make Connor trust her. This is the basis of my
complaint.
>>> or
>>> "I speak for the Powers, listen to what I say" isn't going to work.
>>> What she's trying is "what you're doing is wrong, listen to what I
>>> say." It's not about the source, it's about the content.
>>
>> So if the source isn't important, why is it at all relevant that our
>> not knowing puts us closer to Connors position?
>
> Um, because it confuses us in the way that Connor must be confused?
So, to lessen Connors already rather great confusion, why didn't it tell
him?
>> Why go to the trouble of
>> getting Julie Benz back as a guest star if it could just as easily have
>> been a disembodied voice?
>
> I see a difference between messenger and source. Clearly the fact that
> it is Darla, or that it looks like Darla, is important; that's going to
> have a particular effect on Connor.
Yes. The effect of him automatically not trusting a word she says. Good
job, miscellaneous source!
>>>> Also, I keep saying this, but - why send Darla? Even if he had known
>>>> or believed it was her, he'd been raised to believe that she was evil
>>>> as much as Angelus. Why not send someone he might actually have a
>>>> reason to listen to, like say, Holtz?
>>>
>>> Holtz died a bitter, unrepentant man. If it's the good guys that sent
>>> Darla, what makes you think they'd have been *able* to send Holtz?
>>>
>>> And what makes you think they'd have *wanted* to? Seems to me that one
>>> life in exchange for a special baby that's going to save the world is
>>> the sort of trade that Daniel Holtz might not dismiss out of hand. If
>>> anyone understood necessary sacrifice, it was Holtz.
>>
>> And if anyone didn't understand how to do good, it was Darla.
>
> Except when she had Connor's soul, of course. Which I'd think is
> relevant here.
Well, it would be if Connor knew that or had any reason to believe her
when she tells him. The relevance might work for the viewers benefit, of
course, because we saw Darla in 'Lullaby', but internally to the story?
Uh-uh.
>> If it *had* been Holtz, it would have meant that the message carried
>> more weight, surely?
>
> Again, you're assuming Holtz would or could have carried that message. I
> think it's debateable whether or not he would, and likely (given his
> death) that he couldn't.
I'm not assuming anything, just pointing out that because it was Darla,
the whole thing was pointless because there was no chance he would listen
to her, and that it would have made far more sense, if the intent was
actually to influence Connors decision in any way at all, to send someone
he might actually take any notice of. If it couldn't have been Holtz,
that's a constraint created by the writers, and one not even based on
anything which is present in the text, because *we don't know who sent
Darla*.
Dan
Dan Hartland
<snip>
> Say Skip is right, and the big bad arranged (say) the vampirisation of
> Gunn's sister. Gunn staking his sister was a definitive event, and
> started the train of events that lead to where he is now. You can see
> how, if something Gunn has done with AI was necessary for this
> confluence of events, how that event could be a necessary and useful
> part of the plan.
>
> But for Gunn, it's irrelevant. For one thing, it doesn't make any
> difference whether a big bad pointed the vampire at his sister or
> whether the vampire came up with the idea of his own accord; his sister
> was still vamped, he still had to stake her. Either way, there is at
> this point nothing he can do about it; either way, somebody else took
> his sister away from him.
This is precisely it. At no point is it suggested that the Big Bad takes
over people. Rather, it nudges external events. Gunn, meanwhile, still has a
choice: be vamped by his 'sister' or stake her. The fact that this is no
choice at all (a la Cordy - death or visions?) is the irrelevant thing.
Awww. No choice. Poor things. And why no choice? Not because of the Big Bad
... because of, in Gunn's case, a moral belief that vampires are evil.
Because, in Cordy's case, the natural survival instinct. Thus, the choices
presented to us by external events out of our control are not constrained by
whatever led to those events, but by our own personality. Hence, Connor has
no control over Cordy being possessed or whatever, or over the pregnancy ...
but he does have control over the choice he is forced to make by this
confluence of events. His choice, however, is constrained by his desire to
keep the baby safe.
Dan
<snip>
Keith Gow
waxed lyrical:
Nothing suggests they will be able to break free from manipulation
overall, just in this instance. They'll change that but they and *we*
can never know if they are still being manipulated.
>I don't think that invalidates previous stories, though. Again, it's the
>meta thing; it's a direct acnowledgement that the world of AI *is* a
>created, directed world, and it always has been.
Well, if you keep brining it back to "meta" then I give up. If
storytelling becomes as much about the storyteller as the story then
they both lose their power.
-- Keith Gow --
Niall Harrison
>>I don't think that invalidates previous stories, though. Again, it's the
>>meta thing; it's a direct acnowledgement that the world of AI *is* a
>>created, directed world, and it always has been.
>
> Well, if you keep brining it back to "meta" then I give up. If
> storytelling becomes as much about the storyteller as the story then
> they both lose their power.
Not a fan of the postmodern thing, huh?
Dan Hartland
news:3ec4e460...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
<snip>
> Nothing suggests they will be able to break free from manipulation
> overall, just in this instance. They'll change that but they and *we*
> can never know if they are still being manipulated.
So you are suggesting to me that when Buffy defeated Glory, the world ended
anyway?
No. AI have been manipulated by this season's big bad. If and when it
becomes necessary to defeat her, and if they succeed, then they will be free
of its manipulation.
> >I don't think that invalidates previous stories, though. Again, it's the
> >meta thing; it's a direct acnowledgement that the world of AI *is* a
> >created, directed world, and it always has been.
>
> Well, if you keep brining it back to "meta" then I give up. If
> storytelling becomes as much about the storyteller as the story then
> they both lose their power.
Not really, but never mind. As Manny said - "I don't speak college-boy." :)
Dan
Dan Hartland
<snip>
> > It's too, too much. It's the hand of God. But, more disturbingly, it's
> > the hand of Joss (and Tim and Steven and Jeff and Greenwalt), etc.
>
> Another reason why I love it. I'm a sucker for meta, and for the show to
> turn around and basically say "Look! There is a Writer!" tickles me no
> end.
Grant Morrison did this years ago on 'Animal Man' to a much more explicit
extent. I'm not a big comics fan, but everyone should read it ...
particularly people who don't like 'Inside Out.' It's been collected, I
think.
Dan
<snip>
Niall Harrison
>>>> Makes what meaningless? Makes the actions themselves meaningless?
>>>> Makes the statement meaningless? Why?
>>>
>>> Makes the knowledge that you were manipulated meaningless,
>>
>> Why? You can still try to not be manipulated in the future, if that's
>> what you want.
>
> And know that you have almost no chance of succeeding.
*Know*? How? If they kill Zoe, why would they *know* that some other
being is still manipulating them?
>> I can't see that it's meaningless except on a small scale, either,
>> because as we've seen, it's *fundamental* to the person Gunn has become.
>
> That's what I meant by small scale.
Ah. :-)
> I've been thinking about this a lot, and I've come up with an analogy. I
> don't think it really fits, but what the hell:
<snip football team>
That's a good analogy. I think you're right that it doesn't fully fit, but
I better understand where you're coming from now, I think. Here's my
reply:
The difference between AI and a football team is that arguably, the
football team's victories and struggles don't mean a whole lot anyway.
They mean something to the team members, but in the larger picture,
they're just football tournaments.
The things AI have been doing these past few years have *measurable
outcomes*. They have value in and of themselves. Helping Bethany in
'Untouched' was a good thing, regardless of the circumstances that caused
it to come about.
>> There are medical records
>> and migraines to suggest otherwise. Even if you think he would have made
>> Cordy a demon no matter what she said, that's not relevant, because
>> that's not what happened. He only demonised her once she accepted it.
>
> And she only accepted it once she had no option.
Other than to die. Which is still an option. There is no indication
(groosalugg aside) that there was any other escape for her.
We're going round in circles here, aren't we? :)
>> But my question was, what would *you* have her say? If you were sending
>> Darla (and assume for the sake of argument that it does have to be
>> Darla; makes a certain mystical sense that his real mother would have to
>> counteract his 'fake' mother) to convince Connor not to go through with
>> it, what would you have had Darla do differently?
>
> If it could only be Darla, I wouldn't have bothered. She couldn't have
> said anything which would make Connor trust her. This is the basis of my
> complaint.
Hmm. I thought I read you say that Darla didn't tell Connor the one thing
that could have made him trust her. Was that someone else?
Anyway, I think Darla could - and in fact, I think she *did* - get through
to Connor. As I said in the original review, I think Connor was trying to
listen to his heart at the end; it was just that his heart told him to
protect his child.
>>> And if anyone didn't understand how to do good, it was Darla.
>>
>> Except when she had Connor's soul, of course. Which I'd think is
>> relevant here.
>
> Well, it would be if Connor knew that or had any reason to believe her
> when she tells him.
Connor's already been told about Darla's sacrifice this season.
pikelet
news:3ec4e306...@News.CIS.DFN.DE:
>>> Great stories can come from being shown something where we are
>>> forced to re-evaluate what has come before. But this retcon is too
>>> big. Things don't fit. And more retconning won't solve that.
>>
>>What doesn't fit? What is inconsistent with the idea that events were
>>steered towards the birth of Gina Torres?
>>
>
> Well, again, everything can be made to fit if we believe that
> everything can be manipulated. And if you love to see the writer's
> pulling the strings, have fun!
Um. Hang on a tick.
MR GOW: "The retcon doesn't work! Things don't fit!"
MR HARRISON: "Why not? What doesn't fit about it?"
MR GOW: "Oh, well, if you're going to take the attitude that *it
actually happened*, then of course it all fits!"
At the risk of sounding rude, I am rather tempted to go 'well, duh'.
If the first instinct that you have to the episode is an inner, screaming
voice going 'BUT THEY JUST CAN'T *DO* THAT!', then it's going to seem
that things don't fit. Just because it's different to What We Think We
Know.
Well, we've learned something knew today. No idea of the ramifications of
it. No idea how far it extends. But things fitting into it? They really
kinda do, y'know.
Tim.
Andrew Hogg
It's beeing collected. Not all done. I like it. I do not like Inside Out.
Dan Hartland
message news:Z68xa.23050$xd5.1...@stones.force9.net...
Well, you can go to GirlyDanVillas with Christy, then. :)
Good, though, innit? (Animal Man, not GirlyDanVillas.)
Dan
Andrew Hogg
Excellent.
> Good, though, innit? (Animal Man, not GirlyDanVillas.)
>
Oh very much so. Enjoying Morrison's New X Men too.
That said GirlyDanVilla's is pretty good too. Better class of people. :P
--
Andrew Hogg
Su
wrote:
<big snip>
>>> There are medical records
>>> and migraines to suggest otherwise. Even if you think he would have made
>>> Cordy a demon no matter what she said, that's not relevant, because
>>> that's not what happened. He only demonised her once she accepted it.
>>
>> And she only accepted it once she had no option.
>
>Other than to die. Which is still an option. There is no indication
>(groosalugg aside) that there was any other escape for her.
>
Joining in the big scary debate in a very small way.
Surely in "Birthday" the original choice offered to Cordy was either
to return to her body, and then die; or to never have met Angel in LA,
but to have become a rich and famous actress? It was only when she
refused to accept the latter choice that demonisation was mentioned.
OK, she was clearly manipulated into that choice - but she was given
choices.
And as an aside that no-one has mentioned, I quite liked the inversion
of Buffy having to kill Angel in "Becoming" to save the world - here
it's Angel who has to kill the woman he loves.
Su
--
A dirty mind is a joy forever
S McDonnell
Karl Marx, Louis Althusser, Rene Girard and Jacques Lacan are just a
handful of a swarm of thinkers that make *damn* fine arguments on how
things we are unaware of influence our choices. I happen to think the
majority of Girard and Althusser's stuff is watertight and they're,
well, downers. I think the point I'm in search of is that we, real
people, operate under constraints we never realise are there. What
gives our lives meaning is how we operate within in and in relation to
those constraints. I can't watch 'Inside Out' and conclude that the
characters' lives are meaningless because I see myself in them and
practically and philosophically I don't see my life as being
meaninglessness. But that's just me. Your mileage may vary.
[Snipping the rest 'cause Niall has already said what I was thinking]
S McDonnell
> >> the hand of Joss (and Tim and Steven and Jeff and Greenwalt), etc.
> >
> >Another reason why I love it. I'm a sucker for meta, and for the show to
> >turn around and basically say "Look! There is a Writer!" tickles me no
> >end.
> >
>
> Ah, well, this is the reason we'll never agree. Meta is great, but
> once it *infects* the story, everything becomes meaningless.
>
Why?
Keith Gow
<dan.ha...@btinternet.com> waxed lyrical:
Not a good analogy. Buffy wasn't manipulated by Glory for several
years from beyond her reach.
>No. AI have been manipulated by this season's big bad.
They have been manipulated for years - unless of course all of this is
a lie...
>If and when it
>becomes necessary to defeat her, and if they succeed, then they will be free
>of its manipulation.
>
Even if that's true, I still don't like the idea that they've been
toyed with so much in the past four years.
-- Keith Gow --
Keith Gow
waxed lyrical:
It's a question of degrees. I have enough problems with this
"explanation" as it is.
The problem I most have with a deconstructionist point of view is that
it most often robs art of emotion. If I were to reconsider "Angel"
through "meta" eyes, I might be able to appreciate it on an
intellectual level...
Hang on, that might be the key. I haven't really been emotionally
connected to most of these characters for a long time. If I
intellectualise it, the show might have some promise again.
But I'll never care about these people as much as I used to
pre-"Birthday". (Unless Season 5 somehow makes me forget everything in
between, but I doubt that.)
-- Keith Gow --
Keith Gow
<tkp...@SMAPTRAP.bham.ac.uk> waxed lyrical:
Point taken.
I just don't happen to like what it says about the characters and the
show itself. Unfortunately this magic retcon means anything is
possible and that robs the story of its power.
-- Keith Gow --
Keith Gow
waxed lyrical:
As I've said somewhere else, if I can't watch a story without dodging
the author's hands, then we have a problem.
Yes, all art is manipulation. But within the context of the show now,
things have also been manipulated to a huge degree.
I happen to think there was some very weak writing last year. This
retcon might seem to tie threads together, but it doesn't excuse *plan
bad writing*. The fact that Cordelia was moved into a position to be
used is one thing, the fact they *all were* takes away a lot of the
emotion.
Again, I don't mind "meta" but if I have to see the series through
"meta" eyes just to enjoy it - I can't. When I'm watching Wes & Angel
talking to each other, I don't want to have the picture of Joss & Tim
stroking each other in the writer's room.
-- Keith Gow --
pikelet
@News.CIS.DFN.DE:
Now, that's fair enough. I disagree, since I quite like it, but I think
it's fair enough :)
> Unfortunately this magic retcon means anything is
> possible and that robs the story of its power.
My perspective is that 'Angel' has always been an ambiguous show,
normally ambiguous with its morality. This doesn't change *everything*.
Just a lot of things. At the heart of it all is a realisation, voiced by
Gunn, that since there's no way they know what is and what isn't being
manipulated to prompt a certain decision about it, there's no use
worrying about it. It's a very adult perspective, being able to shrug
your shoulders, say that you did the best you can, there's nothing more
you can really do. For me, the undertones of this episode do 'Oh, grow
up' far better than, say, season six of a certain other popular show
involving vampires. Because it doesn't make the characters look stupid.
Because they know it doesn't matter. Because they accept their
powerlessness in the past, and then *do* something about it.
That AI don't give in, and manage to shoot Skip and kill him, is a
testament to the fact that they keep on going. So what if they were being
manipulated before? This is their chance to do something that they *know*
is guided by no other hand but their own.
We're shown that decision making is an important thing - that's the whole
point of the (rather overblown) Darla/Cordelia/Connor scenes. And in an
episode that sees Connor having to make possibly the most brutal choice
we've seen on the show, and Angel having to choose to kill the woman he
loves, it's one of the more powerful stories I've seen 'Angel' do.
Tim.
Keith Gow
I'm starting to come around, I really am.
My opinion mostly stems from the fact I don't enjoy Angel as much as I
used to. I am trying not to be hyper-critical just for the sake of it,
but I hate that it has become a "turgid soap opera". And as much as
they know it themselves, I don't think that forgives them for such
grand soap *stories* that undermine the characters.
IMHO, the only characters to escape being dumbed down are Angel and
Wesley.
The retcon feels like a soap twist, without much thought or care
placed in it. I suppose they've done quite well to make it seem
plausible, but I'm not buying it.
And with Minear's confession that they had to fix something they
hated, I'm not the only one :-)
>That AI don't give in, and manage to shoot Skip and kill him, is a
>testament to the fact that they keep on going. So what if they were being
>manipulated before? This is their chance to do something that they *know*
>is guided by no other hand but their own.
>
>We're shown that decision making is an important thing - that's the whole
>point of the (rather overblown) Darla/Cordelia/Connor scenes. And in an
>episode that sees Connor having to make possibly the most brutal choice
>we've seen on the show, and Angel having to choose to kill the woman he
>loves, it's one of the more powerful stories I've seen 'Angel' do.
Now that I agree with. Both shows still have great scenes, but both
are suffering weak arc stories. Angel's is far more audacious,
however, and probably impossible to pull off.
-- Keith Gow --
Andrew Poulter
> /me corrects the header.
>
> It's been a while...
It really has...
> And stirs up more than a little controversy along the way.
Indeed...
<SNIP>
I can't disagree with too much of that, so I'll snip it - but I will
leave the the following...
> Traditionally, at this point in the season things take a sharp
> turn for the unexpected. I can't wait to find out where all
> this is going.
The trouble is that I can *guess* where it's heading, and I'm far from
sure I like it. But saying that, the Angel writing team have enough
collective talent to pull even the most unlikely stuff off, and make it
good. And of course, I might be wrong.
--
AJP
Andrew Poulter
> Previously, on uk.media.tv.angel - Keith Gow wrote:
>> On 16 May 2003 07:02:16 GMT, Niall Harrison
>> <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> waxed lyrical:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's been a while...
>>>
>
> According to Skip, brain-dead.
Well no, not necessarily. He said that labour would kill her - but she
did the mystical c-section; so I'm guessing she's weak, but not dead.
--
AJP
Andrew Poulter
> Previously, on uk.media.tv.angel - Dan Milburn wrote:
> [1] Anyone else think that given Connor's nature, his repeated rants
> about magic might be a form of externalised self-loathing?
Now you mention it, yes actually. You could be onto something there.
--
AJP
Andrew Poulter
>>
>>
>> /me corrects the header.
>>
>> It's been a while...
>
"Make sure you eat something green..." - oh wait, wrong show...
> <snip>
>
>> Darla tells Connor: 'listen to your heart'. I believe he does.
>> He just chooses to protect his child - the child he profoundly
>> wants to believe is going to change the world, and make it
>> all *better.*
>
> Indeed. In many ways, Connor's approach to his child is the same as
> Angel's: he clearly wants the child to both be better than him and
> help him. In that child, Connor sees his own salvation and the chance
> to do a better job that the people who looked after him when *he* was
> a baby.
But only because of the way that Cordy has manipulated him. Sure she's
taken advantage of the situation, and of Connor's past - but this level
of detailed thought has been imposed on him, from her.
>> Because choice is important. In the same episode Skip is
>> crowing about the manipulation of Our Heroes, the importance
>> of Connor's choice is paramount. It's a beautiful comment on
>> Free Will and Destiny.
>
> Precisely. And, ironically, Connor wasn't even conscious just how up
> to him it all was. Brilliant.
Yup; that was clever.
--
AJP
Paul Hyett
<kw...@vicnet.net.au> wrote :
>>
>>It's been a while...
>>
>>Written and Directed by Steven S DeKnight
>>
>>Man, I love a story with scope.
>>
>>And there's Skip. And the retcon, the sheer audacity of which
>>just takes your breath away.
What is 'retcon' short for?
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
Website at http://www.activist.demon.co.uk/USsitcoms/
Niall Harrison
> On 16 May 2003 13:18:30 -0700, S_A_Mc...@hotmail.com (S McDonnell)
> waxed lyrical:
>>> >>>>>
> When I'm watching Wes & Angel
> talking to each other, I don't want to have the picture of Joss & Tim
> stroking each other in the writer's room.
I think that, at least, is something we can all agree with...
Niall Harrison
'Retroactive continuity'. Telling us something about the past that we
didn't know before.
As originally coined (IIRC), it was a value-neutral term. And there are
various different types of retcon; WGF (I think) posted a good guide to
ata back when this first aired, but I can't find it.
Anyway, 'Inside Out' retcons the past three years because it tells us that
the story we thought we were watching is not the story we were actually
watching. On the other hand, back in _Buffy_ S2, 'The Dark Age' is also a
retcon, because it tells us something about Giles we didn't know and had
no reason to think of. 'Fool For Love' and 'Darla' retcon as well, by
fitting together various disparate pieces of continuity into a cohesive
whole.
In recent years, the term has come to be have negative associations -
think JR stepping out of the shower.
Niall
--
When memes collide.
Niall Harrison
> It really has...
>> Traditionally, at this point in the season things take a sharp
>> turn for the unexpected. I can't wait to find out where all
>> this is going.
>
> The trouble is that I can *guess* where it's heading, and I'm far from
> sure I like it.
Please, share... :)
Andrew Poulter
I did. In my random thoughts; but at the risk of repeating myself:
I'm guessing that the way to defeat this biggest bad will some how
involve Cordelia sacrificing herself. Either physically, or in some
kind of mystical, magical inside her mind kind of way. The guys seemed
to have no desire to even try to hurt this thing - and by extension, if
it has some kind of power over men (and I'm not sure I like that idea
BTW), then it seems logical that it will be a woman that will kill it.
All of which seems to be setting up Cordy making the ultimate sacrifice
for her friends, and the world - and taking vengeance against the thing
that used her. Her sacrifice may possibly also involve Connor in a
"first step to redemption" kind of way. If we assume that's going to be
the finale - then it's just as well that TM's penning it; because there
are plenty of ways to execute that story badly (ranging from cheese to
sugar).
Just my 2p's worth - and it's only a guess - I've not seen anything
beyond 4x17 yet.
--
AJP
Dan Milburn
>>> There are medical records
>>> and migraines to suggest otherwise. Even if you think he would have
>>> made Cordy a demon no matter what she said, that's not relevant,
>>> because that's not what happened. He only demonised her once she
>>> accepted it.
>>
>> And she only accepted it once she had no option.
>
> Other than to die. Which is still an option. There is no indication
> (groosalugg aside) that there was any other escape for her.
I suppose for me, the decision was so heavily weighted towards her taking
the other option - what *possible* reason could she have for choosing to
die? - that it's not really a decision at all.
This is of course now compounded by the fact that she was completely
mislead about the option she did take. She did it because she wanted to
help people, to be of use to Angel. In reality, with perhaps a couple of
small exceptions, she got to do none of those things.
Dan
Dan Milburn
No, she didn't refuse to accept the latter choice. She was given the
lifestyle of the rich and famous actress, but the personality of our
Cordy, and the details of the hotel and the writing on the wall were
planted in her head.
She wasn't just manipulated, her mind was messed with, and that, I think,
is not allowing free will.
> And as an aside that no-one has mentioned, I quite liked the inversion
> of Buffy having to kill Angel in "Becoming" to save the world - here
> it's Angel who has to kill the woman he loves.
If only he'd actually done it...
Dan
Dan Hartland
<snip>
> >No. AI have been manipulated by this season's big bad.
>
> They have been manipulated for years - unless of course all of this is
> a lie...
Yes, for years. But that just means that this Big Bad had a more long-term
plan than any of the others we've ever seen. There is no suggestion from
Skip that anyone else has been this insanely interested in the micro-level.
Just the Big Bad. So ... if it is defeated ... end of manipulation, surely?
> >If and when it
> >becomes necessary to defeat her, and if they succeed, then they will be
free
> >of its manipulation.
> >
>
> Even if that's true, I still don't like the idea that they've been
> toyed with so much in the past four years.
And that's fair enough, since it's very obvious neither side is gonna
convince the other. :)
Dan
cein
> think JR stepping out of the shower.
>
Or even Bobby stepping out of the shower
ceindreadh
Andrew Poulter
And to be fair, something that directly contradicts at least one line of
dialogue.
--
AJP
Paul Hyett
<s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote :
>
>'Retroactive continuity'.
That's more or less what I thought - I'd just never seen the long form
written down.
> Telling us something about the past that we
>didn't know before.
>
>In recent years, the term has come to be have negative associations -
>think JR stepping out of the shower.
Ah.
Mind you, I'd rather think about CC stepping out of a shower. :)
pikelet
>> Surely in "Birthday" the original choice offered to Cordy was either
>> to return to her body, and then die; or to never have met Angel in
>> LA, but to have become a rich and famous actress? It was only when
>> she refused to accept the latter choice that demonisation was
>> mentioned.
>
> No, she didn't refuse to accept the latter choice. She was given the
> lifestyle of the rich and famous actress, but the personality of our
> Cordy, and the details of the hotel and the writing on the wall were
> planted in her head.
>
> She wasn't just manipulated, her mind was messed with, and that, I
> think, is not allowing free will.
But I can't help but feel that you're missing the point again. Cordelia
*consents* to having her head messed with. To changing the past. She
accepts the lifestyle of the rich and famous *by choice*. Mills would
argue that a man cannot sell himself into slavery, but Cordy's done
something that's only one step removed - she's placed herself into the
arms of the Powers, and let them do what they please. She does it again
at the end of the season, in 'Tomorrow', yet it's obvious in both cases
that *it's not what she should be doing*.
In 'Birthday' we get her 'feeling' that there's something else she
should be doing .We, the audience, know at that point that Skip's
talking balderdash and her place is with AI. In 'Tomorrow' Cordelia has
a vision - a warning - about her imminent ascension, yet she still goes
along with it. She's too willing to trust others, and so she places her
trust in Skip. He screws with her mind, but only after he's got her
permission.
So yes, mind-messing. But consensual mind-messing. Far from 'allowing'
free will, Skip *required* her to exercise her free will and make a
choice in both cases. That she made a choice that, later, served
to restrict her freedom of will is neither here nor there.
Tim.
pikelet
$1...@ID-98124.news.dfncis.de:
>>> Because choice is important. In the same episode Skip is
>>> crowing about the manipulation of Our Heroes, the importance
>>> of Connor's choice is paramount. It's a beautiful comment on
>>> Free Will and Destiny.
>>
>> Precisely. And, ironically, Connor wasn't even conscious just how up
>> to him it all was. Brilliant.
>
>
> Yup; that was clever.
I liked it, but for slightly different reasons. I liked that bit because
it validates every single damn thing that Gunn says on the stairs.
Tim
Dan Hartland
news:Xns937F9051F8C73tk...@195.8.68.206...
Indeed so. The critics of 'Inside Out' seem to be under the impression that
the episode sets out to prove Gunn wrong, whereas it in fact does quite the
opposite.
Dan
Linda
If what Skip said is true, then why stop at four years? Whistler convinced
Angel to come out of the alleys and meet Buffy. There was a snowfall that
saved Angel's unlife. Darla brought him a Gypsy girl so that he'd be cursed.
Perhaps his whole unlife has been manipulated. How far back do you want to
go?
--
Best Regards,
Linda
Lindsay - "How did you think this would end?" - The Trial
Stewart Tolhurst
lindaDE...@susieword.com says...
Which gets us back to the pieces on a chess board thing again. Do you have
free will in the Angel-verse? Or is it all some cosmic game of chess being
played out by the higher beings? I actually think that - if you follow the
logic through - that W&H or Sahjan weren't any more than pieces in this
game either. W&H may have been manipulating Angel into going beige - but
who is to say that they weren't being manipulated because that was the
state of mind that was needed to get Angel to sleep with Darla......
Sahjan may have thought he was manipulating Wesley - but presumably he too
was being manipulated to make sure that Connor was the right age at the
right time.....
Etc etc......
This being that has appeared is Machevellian to the extreme - and presuably
has had a long time to put together a plan of such complexity......
Stewrt
--
"Don't believe everything you're foretold." Angel (Angel: To Shashu In LA)
Stewart Tolhurst
IQC 22636339 http://www.foxbasealpha.co.uk
Linda
"Stewart Tolhurst" <ne...@stolhurst.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1931c6749...@news.claranews.com...
I agree.
The only thing that makes me believe that Skip may be lying is that he
didn't know his own destiny. That he was being manipulated as well. If he
knew all these things we've mentioned, then why didn't he get the hell away
from his hell dimension knowing that if he didn't he'd be dead.
I'll wait until next week to say more. And no, that wasn't a Meta spoiler.
Iain Clark
Which, to me, is what seals something as a retcon and not just a new
development. A retcon relies not just on a revelation - since any
show is bound to reveal new facts as it goes along - but a revelation
that contradicts what we *thought* we knew previously.
I do think it's a value neutral term, though. I suppose the question
is how bad the contradiction is, and whether the benefits outweigh the
continuity problems. (In the case of Giles the coolness of the new
revelation outweighs any problems <g>)
Sometimes the retcon only contradicts implicit assumptions, so it can
be rationalised, even if it seems a bit jarring. (Without spoilers,
Smallville's second season introduces a slightly uneasy retcon over
Clark's adoption that doesn't actually contradict anything, but seems
pretty contrived.)
At other times, explicit statements are now directly contradicted.
For me, it really depends on what is being contradicted - a single,
off-hand conversational remark or reliable facts that have been
referred to several times.
(For example, Dru being Spike's sire directly contradicts Spike in
School Hard, who calls *Angel* his sire. But Spike may have been
speaking metaphorically, or using verbal shorthand, so we can fanwank
away the implausibility without much trouble.)
It also depends whether the retcon provides an excuse for the
contradiction (When I said Darth Vader killed your father I was
speaking metaphorically.)
The best kind of retcon is one that actually fixes past problems (I'm
a bit hazy on this but didn't the episode "Darla" 'fix' the question
of whether Angel was evil or not at the turn of the last century, by
introducing a retcon that he was faking it?)
Looking specifically at "Inside Out": it fixes past problems with
Cordy and explains long-standing mysteries like Connor's conception,
so that's good. It also provides the mother of all excuses by saying
that a hugely powerful force has been secretly working on an
unimaginably complex scale. It's hard to pick holes in an explanation
that adapts to any eventuality! And it also makes a virtue out of
its very implausibility, because of the sheer audaciousness of the
plan that's revealed, and the sheer scale of the forces arrayed
against our heroes.
On the other hand, it's so huge, and so jarring, that I do understand
why people have a problem with it. Unlike the 'Dawn' retcon, it
genuinely affects past events and not just the characters' memories of
them.
Does it achieve enough to justify itself? Personally I think so, but
it's walking a fine line.
Iain
--
"You have forgotten something."
Neil Sluman
>
> And there's Skip. And the retcon, the sheer audacity of which
> just takes your breath away.
>
I think I'll throw in my opinion on this bit.
I hated the whole retcon thing!
> Let's face it, we *know* this wasn't planned. It seems likely
> they had a rough idea of how things were going to pan out
> back in 'Tomorrow' - Cordelia was warned off her ascension
> by a vision, after all - but earlier than that? I don't think
> so. That doesn't matter, though. Somehow, they've taken
> every disparate thread from the past three and a half years
> and bound them together, given them *meaning*.
>
And that's WHY I hated it. It wasn't planned. The writers just fooled
around with the whole history of the show, for the sake of a single and
not hugely remarkable episode.
Are we to believe that all this time we've been routing for the wrong
side? That we should have let W&H and countless vampires kill cordy
because they were all the unwitting dupes of pure evil? There's nothing
wrong with them deciding a lot of things had been manipulated, but
everything we've seen? I thought they were heroes. Knights and kings.
Not pawns!
Why do we still care about these guys? How do we know that what they're
doing now is their choice rathjer than some manipulation that will be
revealed by Phantom Dennis in season 32?
> So what are they - helpless? Puppets?
>
> No.
>
> AI's choices were constrained, sure. But that happens to all
> of us, every day - except in our world, it's down to
> circumstances, not immensely powerful beings. As far as we know,
> anyway. How many times have you looked back and realised
> you didn't have the choice you thought you had?
>
> As Gunn points out, we never know when our choices matter, so
> we make them all count. And they do count; the fact that Cordelia
> was steered onto the path she took doesn't mean she didn't take
> that path. The fact that Angel had no choice but to try to kill
> the woman he loves doesn't make that action *easy*. The fact that
> our parents choose, say, our school, shapes who we become but
> does not define it.
>
> Because choice is important. In the same episode Skip is
> crowing about the manipulation of Our Heroes, the importance
> of Connor's choice is paramount. It's a beautiful comment on
> Free Will and Destiny.
>
But we're led to believe they had no choice.
The plan wouldn't have wroked if they chose wrong. Since the plan has
worked, every possible action they could have taken was predicted. What
if Cordy had decided to remain as a TV star? Or if Angel had remained
in Pylea? Or if any of these characters had been killed? They didn't
even have a mole, or any means of directing angel.
If Wolfram and Hart had been invloved directly then it would have made
sense.
And Skip's crwoing about everything being planned? What a horrible
complicated plan! Why send them to Pylea? Why involve Fred at all in
this complicated plot? Fred has had virtually no effect on any of the
events leading up to cordy's ascention and Connors birth. Neither had
Gunn or Wesley.
All the bad guys needed to do was cause Connor's birth, cause him to age
18 years in the wrong direction, make cordy's visions stronger, and
harmful to her to force her to choose ascension.
Everything else would have happened with or without Fred and Gunn being
involved.
--
Squigs
Keith
> > Even if that's true, I still don't like the idea that they've been
> > toyed with so much in the past four years.
>
> If what Skip said is true, then why stop at four years? Whistler convinced
> Angel to come out of the alleys and meet Buffy. There was a snowfall that
> saved Angel's unlife. Darla brought him a Gypsy girl so that he'd be cursed.
> Perhaps his whole unlife has been manipulated. How far back do you want to
> go?
As Gina Torres (aka The Woman, aka Cordy's baby) has existed
*forever*, you might be onto something here.
As far as how far back I want to go - "Birthday". That's it and all
that was necessary.
Keith Gow
Head of Toast
"Neil Sluman" <squ...@NOSPAM.postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:v169ab...@192.168.0.5...
This is why I think Skip was lying, to some extent.
Toast.
Dan Milburn
That's not the mind-messing I'm objecting to. If they were going to
change the past, then they should have done that. What they did was
change the past, but make Cordys personality and memories inconsistent
with that alternate reality, so that she would, for no reason whatsoever,
go to a hotel she'd never heard of before and scratch away the wallpaper
in a particular room, which of course must also have been planted there,
then go to the womans house where she encountered Gunn and Wesley..
Of course, in actuality, it wasn't an alternative reality at all. It was
a construct with the specific intent of making Cordy 'realise' that her
place was with AI in 'our' reality. It was *not* about allowing Cordy
free will, on any level whatsoever.
Dan
Niall Harrison
Y'know, despite appearance of busy-ness, we've only managed to clock up
about 60 posts in this thread. And that's with the help of OT-ness. I
remember the days of the great 'Billy' debate, when threads spiralled into
the hundreds within days of the episode airing... :)
> I hated the whole retcon thing!
Gotcha. I suspect we're not going to agree on much, then. :)
>> Let's face it, we *know* this wasn't planned. It seems likely
>> they had a rough idea of how things were going to pan out
>> back in 'Tomorrow' - Cordelia was warned off her ascension
>> by a vision, after all - but earlier than that? I don't think
>> so. That doesn't matter, though. Somehow, they've taken
>> every disparate thread from the past three and a half years
>> and bound them together, given them *meaning*.
>
> And that's WHY I hated it. It wasn't planned. The writers just fooled
> around with the whole history of the show, for the sake of a single and
> not hugely remarkable episode.
> Are we to believe that all this time we've been routing for the wrong
> side?
I don't see any reason why we should. As I've said elsewhere, the fact
that events were directed towards this end does not mean that the good
acts performned en route to this end lose their value. Bethany's soul, for
example, was still saved.
This plot twist takes many elements previously used in the show and just
expands them. Sahjan's manipulation of Wesley in S3; Wolfram and Hart's
manipulation of Angel in S2. Saving Darla's soul was still a noble aim.
> That we should have let W&H and countless vampires kill cordy
> because they were all the unwitting dupes of pure evil?
If you believe that the ends justify the means, perhaps so. If you think
Our Heroes have lost, and can never come back from this, then maybe.
> I thought they were heroes. Knights and kings. Not pawns!
Or Champions? :)
But this, to me, is a key point in the episode. To a certain extent,
*none* of us are masters of our own destiny - not knights, not kings.
Everything we do, to a greater or lesser extent, is constrained by the
circumstances in which we do it. This is a fact of life: We *don't* always
have free choice.
All 'Inside Out' does is literalise this, in classic Mutant Enemy
tradition. Instead of unthinking events, we get a scheming...something. In
the same way that over on _Buffy_, dear old Caleb is an embodiment of
misogyny and everything that Buffy is against, here Zoe is an embodiment
of fate and circumstance.
> Why do we still care about these guys? How do we know that what they're
> doing now is their choice rathjer than some manipulation that will be
> revealed by Phantom Dennis in season 32?
We don't, of course. And if that did happen, it would surely be boring;
it's kind of a one-time trick. But the fact that it might be true does
not, in my view, diminish the characters, because of what I said above:
Even if they were directed towards this end, the events that we saw in the
past three and a half years had meaning in and of themselves.
>> Because choice is important. In the same episode Skip is
>> crowing about the manipulation of Our Heroes, the importance
>> of Connor's choice is paramount. It's a beautiful comment on
>> Free Will and Destiny.
>
> But we're led to believe they had no choice.
Did Connor have a choice?
> The plan wouldn't have wroked if they chose wrong. Since the plan has
> worked, every possible action they could have taken was predicted.
I don't think that follows. It could very well be that the choices of Our
Heroes have derailed the grand plan more than once, and intervention has
been necessary to get it back on track. Indeed, the fact that the
manipulator was improvising right down to the wire seems to support this
interpretation.
> If Wolfram and Hart had been invloved directly then it would have made
> sense.
How so?
> And Skip's crwoing about everything being planned? What a horrible
> complicated plan! Why send them to Pylea? Why involve Fred at all in
> this complicated plot? Fred has had virtually no effect on any of the
> events leading up to cordy's ascention and Connors birth. Neither had
> Gunn or Wesley.
Wesley was clearly crucial in the Connor story, given his role in the
rapid-aging of Angel's son. Gunn and Fred's presence was instrumental in
the alienation that went towards that action.
Here's the thing: With the exception of Angel, and likely Darla, it
probably didn't have to be these specific characters. You're right to say
that the plan could have happened another way - but that's the point. The
fact that what we saw is the way the plan unfolded does not imply that it
was the only possible way it could have unfolded.
Andrew Poulter
I'd argue that it's when a writer suddenly thinks of a new way to
re-interpret something that happened in the past.
> I do think it's a value neutral term, though. I suppose the question
> is how bad the contradiction is, and whether the benefits outweigh the
> continuity problems. (In the case of Giles the coolness of the new
> revelation outweighs any problems <g>)
Indeed - and you could always argue he might have been lying...
<SNIP>
> Looking specifically at "Inside Out": it fixes past problems with
> Cordy and explains long-standing mysteries like Connor's conception,
> so that's good. It also provides the mother of all excuses by saying
> that a hugely powerful force has been secretly working on an
> unimaginably complex scale. It's hard to pick holes in an explanation
> that adapts to any eventuality! And it also makes a virtue out of
> its very implausibility, because of the sheer audaciousness of the
> plan that's revealed, and the sheer scale of the forces arrayed
> against our heroes.
I guess so.
> On the other hand, it's so huge, and so jarring, that I do understand
> why people have a problem with it. Unlike the 'Dawn' retcon, it
> genuinely affects past events and not just the characters' memories of
> them.
Indeed.
> Does it achieve enough to justify itself? Personally I think so, but
> it's walking a fine line.
Well, as I seem to say quite often - I'll reserve judgement until we see
where this is going.
--
AJP
pikelet
$gV1.32...@news-text.cableinet.net:
[on 'Birthday' and messing with minds]
> Of course, in actuality, it wasn't an alternative reality at all. It was
> a construct with the specific intent of making Cordy 'realise' that her
> place was with AI in 'our' reality. It was *not* about allowing Cordy
> free will, on any level whatsoever.
Well, yes, but then Cordy already knew that her place was with AI. Or are
you telling me that the Cordy we'd seen up until 'Birthday' would, if
originally presented with the chance to be 'demonised' and stay with AI,
always choose to be rich and famous?
Cordelia's character is such that she would always have chosen to be part
of AI were it even a slight possibility for her to do so. The only reason
the construct in 'Birthday' exists is, it turns out, to get her to accept
that partial demonisation is a good option, and to accept that without
question.
However - everything that happens is still Cordelia's choice. She still has
the option of dying from the visions, she still has the option of living in
the construct, but she chooses not to do either.
Yes, her *circumstances* are manipulated. But when else does anyone make a
choice but when circumstances compel them to do so? This isn't cheapening
the choice, this isn't about Cordy having her free will abrogated. If
anything, the fact that a construct is needed is a specific acknowledgement
of the primacy of free will - that it's necessary in the first place
implies that there is a respect for the importance of the individual's
choice. Even if that respect is down to a recognition of the importance of
choice for the individual itself, rather than an emphasis on the importance
of actual self-determination, it's still there.
That Cordy is forced to make a choice doesn't indicate a negation of her
free will - it confirms it. Her choice is not cheapened because the
circumstances are arranged by an outside force, it's just that she would
make that choice under the particular circumstances - it's just as valid a
choice, whether manipulated circumstances are in play or not.
Tim.
Dan Milburn
> Cordelia's character is such that she would always have chosen to be
> part of AI were it even a slight possibility for her to do so. The only
> reason the construct in 'Birthday' exists is, it turns out, to get her
> to accept that partial demonisation is a good option, and to accept that
> without question.
And to demonstrate to the viewer that the Cordy we have now is radically
different from the Cordy we saw in 'City Of', who would've taken the rich
and famous option and never looked back. I *get* that it tells us
something about her character, honestly, and while the point is somewhat
overmade, that's hardly new for ME. What I object to is that it doesn't
play fair in doing so.
Dan
pikelet
But in telling us something about her character, it's telling us that
this is what her character would do, surely? That's not an abrogation of
free will, that's an emphasis on Cordelia's character compelling her to
exercise her free will in a particular way. So I can't see that you can
suggest Cordy doesn't have free will in the episode, given that you've
just admitted that the entire episode focuses on Cordelia's being in
character.
And as for the 'doesn't play fair bit' - did you think that at the time,
or only after 'Inside Out'?
Tim.
Loz Pycock
<squ...@NOSPAM.postmaster.co.uk> mumble, "A bidet of evil!", mumble,
mumble wrote:
>And that's WHY I hated it. It wasn't planned. The writers just fooled
>around with the whole history of the show, for the sake of a single and
>not hugely remarkable episode.
Umm, no, for the sake of a pivotal episode in a season of almost
complete pivotal episodes, with ramifications that are sure to last at
least to the end of the season if not in to the next.
>
>Are we to believe that all this time we've been routing for the wrong
>side?
Huh? Where did this come from?
> That we should have let W&H and countless vampires kill cordy
>because they were all the unwitting dupes of pure evil?
Or this?
> There's nothing
>wrong with them deciding a lot of things had been manipulated, but
>everything we've seen? I thought they were heroes. Knights and kings.
>Not pawns!
So you've got nothing against the story itself, it's just how it makes
you feel. And just think, what's more exciting, when 'knights' and
'queens' win a game, or when 'pawns' do it? Surely, if AI who have
been manipulated for who knows how long in to this position can now
win it, thereby overturning fate, or predestination or whatever, isn't
that better than if this creature stepped out fully formed through a
spatial rift? Isn't it more exciting?
>
>Why do we still care about these guys? How do we know that what they're
>doing now is their choice rathjer than some manipulation that will be
>revealed by Phantom Dennis in season 32?
But we've been here before. It seemed that no sci-fi fantasy show can
resist the lure of the 'everything was foretold to lead to this
moment' episode, B5 did it, Buffy has done it and Angel has already
done it with prophesies.
I would argue that something like 'To Shanshu in LA' is a crasser use
of this whole idea than this episode.
>
Would it help if I pointed out that Free Will is a myth anyway? <g>
Loz
'This regime has a pathological affinity to provoking conflicts so it can
just stay in power. There have been so many incidents in a short time that
it is difficult to absorb them all.'
Women in Black, quoted in 'This is Serbia Calling' by Matthew Collin.
Linda
"Keith" <ke...@bttf.com> wrote in message
news:f8005574.03051...@posting.google.com...
Spoiler space just in case this is a Meta Spoiler
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
>
> As Gina Torres (aka The Woman, aka Cordy's baby) has existed
> *forever*, you might be onto something here.
I haven't seen the eppy in a while but is that what Skip told them? If not
then that was a spoiler for next week. Gotta be careful.
>
> As far as how far back I want to go - "Birthday". That's it and all
> that was necessary.
But Skip himself went back farther then that. He told them that Cordy got
the visions from Doyle on purpose. It's canon that this so-called retcon
goes back much further.
--
Best regards,
Linda
Angel's purpose will never leave. Not unless we all become angels, or he
human. And even human his purpose is still there. There's not a lack of
stories because you'll never run into the metaphor problems that BtVS has
had. - Stephen Weick
Keith Gow
<lindaDE...@susieword.com> waxed lyrical:
Ah, shit. I apologise.
>
>>
>> As far as how far back I want to go - "Birthday". That's it and all
>> that was necessary.
>
>But Skip himself went back farther then that. He told them that Cordy got
>the visions from Doyle on purpose. It's canon that this so-called retcon
>goes back much further.
But purposely getting the visions because Doyle was about to die is
one thing, things being orchestrated so that Doyle would die so he'd
kiss Cordy so she'd take the visions... and then one day opt to become
part-demon because of them... (even though Doyle always felt pain and
he was part-demon too), etc. etc.
It's a matter of how many coincidences do we accept before we call the
whole thing convoluted to the point of stupidity? In any other show
we'd have stopped watching ;-)
-- Keith Gow --
Dan Milburn
Of course I can. The fact that she would have made that choice in other
circumstances has no bearing on whether she had a choice in that
particular instance.
If someone places a bar of chocolate in front of me, chances are I'm going
to eat it. If someone does so, then holds a gun to my head and threatens
me with death unless I eat it, I didn't, by any sensible meaning of the
word, have a choice, even though it's most likely what I would have done
without the coercion. Moreover, the fact that I had a gun to my head
means that an observer can't determine from my behaviour what I would have
done had I not.
> And as for the 'doesn't play fair bit' - did you think that at the time,
> or only after 'Inside Out'?
At the time. 'Inside Out' makes it even clearer, of course, but I've
always thought that.
Dan