(no subject)
Feb. 5th, 2004 10:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rusty_halo![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
stakebait has some insightful comments about AtS here. This is close to what I feel, although I'd write it with a lot more bitterness and nothing positive about BtVS.Way back before I knew anything about fandom, when I was just a casual TV viewer, I was sort of interested in watching AtS (I had been a casual BtVS fan in seasons one and two, but stopped watching in season three because I was repulsed by "Dead Man's Party"). So anyway, I knew there was this new BtVS spin-off, so I started watching it. Episode one, okay, episode two, okay, but episode three turned me off for good.
Ironically, it was Spike's appearance, but that's not what bothered me. What turned me off the show forever was Angel smashing the ring. That was just the stupidest, most impractical, most ridiculous decision ever. Yeah, Angel, it's nice of you to want to save people at night, but you can still do that *and* keep the ability to help people during the day, too, just in case, y'know, one of those night people you're protecting happens to get in trouble when the sun also just happens to be up. It was just such that kind of self-rightous, ridiculous martyr-complex, ultra black-and-white nonsense that I have no patience for. So I stopped watching. (Not some big emotional thing, just "I checked out this new show and it's not worth my time.")
I really liked the Jasmine story at the end of last season, and some parts of the Connor story. I liked dark Wesley, and Lilah was awesome. Faith was always a much more interesting character on AtS. And I liked Cordelia when she was still cool. But the whole thesis of the show, the underlying ultra-simplistic black-vs-white morality, the idea that we're supposed to approve and root for Angel's pathetic martyr complex? The whole Powers That Be vs. Senior Partners silliness? "Champions"? No thanks. The show will play with such interesting ideas, just like BtVS, but in the end it'll always go back to black and white. I'll never enjoy that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-06 04:35 am (UTC)Amen. I think I love you. I've always hated that Angel smashed the ring, just so that he would look good and we'd think he was a 'hero' or whatever just for doing it. Well, they certainly didn't win me over because I thought he was a complete idiot.
I hope you don't mind, but I friended you.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-06 05:51 am (UTC)I've always hated that Angel smashed the ring, just so that he would look good and we'd think he was a 'hero' or whatever just for doing it. Well, they certainly didn't win me over because I thought he was a complete idiot.
My thoughts exactly.
Of course, you're welcome to friend me. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-06 05:25 am (UTC)IMO Angel smashed the ring because if he ever lost his soul ANGELUS would have it.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-06 06:09 am (UTC)That must explain it. :)
The Angelus thing actually makes sense. But I never got that from the episode. Refreshing my memory, from the transcript at Buffyworld.com:
Angel: "I've thought of it from every angle, and what I figure is I did a lot of damage in my day, more than you can imagine."
Doyle: "So what, you don't get the ring because your period of self-flagellation isn't over yet? I mean think of all the daytime people you could help between 9 and 5."
Angel: "They have help. The whole world is designed for them, so much that they have no idea what goes on around them after dark. They don't see the weak ones lost in the night, - or the things that prey on them. And if I join them, maybe I'd stop seeing, too."
Doyle: "And who'd look out for all the insomniacs?"
Angel: "I was brought back for a reason, Doyle, and as much as I would like to kid myself, I don't think it was for 18 holes at Rancho."
The sun sinks below the horizon. Angel takes off the ring, picks up a brick and smashes it. Big green flash of light.
This totally doesn't work for me, for a ton of reasons. First of all, if you're so devoted to helping the helpless, it really shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference whether you have the physical ability to go out in the daylight or not. That ability could be an immense benefit in your struggle to help the helpless, not a hindrance. It all depends on Angel, and how dedicated he really is to the cause. (The same is true of working at Wolfram and Hart, IMO).
I also don't like the idea that Angel has to make up for his sins, which is one of the basic tenets to the show and one that's never made sense to me. He horribly murdered and tortured those people; there's no way he can ever "balance the scales." And IMO there's no reason to expect him to. He's changed, he's doing good now, that's all that matters. Angsting over the past doesn't change anything. I don't think redemption is a goal you reach, I think it's just a way of living your life. (Also why the shanshu as reward doesn't work for me, and why I considered Spike redeemed post-"Intervention" -- whether you're good is determined by your behavior, not your inherent "nature").
And in general I have problems with the idea that there's this "chosen" class of "champions" who are better and have some inherent right to make decisions for everyone else. Which is a very common ME theme that creeps the hell out of me.
I know, I know, you totally disagree. :)
Re:
Date: 2004-02-06 06:19 pm (UTC)That was the conclusion I reached, as well.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-06 05:47 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-06 06:14 am (UTC)I agree with this. I guess I just tend to see these good moments as the exceptions, rather than the rule. (Same with BtVS -- we had wonderful episodes like "Dead Things," but the end was the laughable "Chosen").
When I look at AtS as a whole--sort of the underlying, recurring themes that it keeps coming back to--it seems very simplistic to me. Cordy's whole spiel about Angel being rightous, blah blah blah ... makes me want to gag. (I sort of expanded on this in my reply to Kita, above--the whole idea of "chosen" "champions" and so on.)
And also? Angel doing “right”? As in, you used to be righteous, what happened? Please, because just what Angel needs is to be more self-righteous. Let’s encourage him to do more things for other people’s “own good” without their consent, that’s always fun.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-06 11:27 am (UTC)Umm...no, it doesn't. That's the cool thing.
Last year's arc? Showed that The Powers That Be aren't any more interested in the human agenda than the Senior Partners. Both are manipulating humanity for their own purposes. (See: Jasmine)
All monsters were victims once upon a time. ("Damage")
Love doesn't conquer all, all the time. (the Lindsay/Darla arc)
"God doesn't want you, but I still do." ("Dear Boy")
Sometimes, doing the right thing gets you nothing but pain and hatred (the Wes&Connor arc). Sometimes, maybe doing the right thing isn't the right thing after all.
"A good host doesn't make these distinctions" - how moral is it to ignore baby-eating? (Lorne's arc)
Angel the Series is a giant morass of moral ambiguity. And as much as Angel would like, the show's never really backed that good/evil dualistic worldview of his.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-06 03:42 pm (UTC)The whole show is structured on these ideas like "destiny" and a class of "champions" chosen by "higher powers" who get to make decisions for everyone else. To me that's just a fancy way of justifying elitism and classism. (I'm pretty sure that if I were in this universe, I wouldn't be the one making the decisions for everyone else; I'd be, like, the wife of a caterer who got eaten because Angel was having a bad day.) Or this weird Catholic guilt thing where it's supposed to make sense that Angel and Spike have to suffer and suffer and suffer to "make up" for mistakes that they'll never be able to make up for. To me, that's self-defeating and stupid and they should just move on already and live their lives.
For every cool thing you mention above, there's also something ridiculous like "it's okay for Angel to let Darla and Dru kill all those lawyers (and spouses and caterers) because he's special" and so on. (Which is such a perfect example of ME playing with grey areas, but going back to black and white when it matters). Or this idea that Angel just "is" better than Spike, even though Angel's done so much worse with a soul than Spike has, and Angel was still eating people and trying to join up with Darla a year and a half after he was souled.
It really doesn't matter what they actually do; what matters is who is "chosen" (and what they're fighting over isn't even who's a better "champion," it's who gets the special seal of approval from the PtB--'cause it's blatantly obvious that they can both help the helpless, but that's not what matters--what they want to is to be that higher class of "special" beings). In the end, destiny and fate and "inherent nature" mean more than choice and free will and individual behavior.
Re: Reply of the first part
Date: 2004-02-06 04:39 pm (UTC)Yeah, but the show is written as if the audience is expected to agree with and share Angel's desire for black and white.
You're assuming that Angel is a)a reliable narrator, and b)the the viewer is being invited to view him as one. In my viewing, I've not found that to be the case. In fact, Angel is consistently presented as an unreliable narrator. His understanding is flawed, and his moral code is not internalized, but almost wholly external.
I think that, as well, is very ambiguous, because it's evident (as so nicely underlined by "Damage") that Angel is immoral in a way that prevents him from being a real hero, but at the same time, makes him yearn for it. Remember how he spoke of his 'art' in a quiet, almost wistful tone? His soul is a punishment, a source of torment - the torment not just being that he killed others, but that he still craves it. No wonder he's all broody.
The whole show is structured on these ideas like "destiny" and a class of "champions" chosen by "higher powers" who get to make decisions for everyone else.
But it's not, that's the thing you're missing. Angel was sold a bill of goods (there's the unreliable narrator thing again), and the narrative over the past few years has shown that over and over. There is no such thing as "destiny" (in the shiny, star-struck rising music sense). We make our own destinies. That's why Spike was able to beat Angel to the cup. That's why instead of preventing Acathla, Angel summoned him. That's why a child destined to never be born (see: Nyazian scrolls) was taken from a vampire's ashes. AtS gives the lie to starry-eyed destiny every single time.
Or this weird Catholic guilt thing where it's supposed to make sense that Angel and Spike have to suffer and suffer and suffer to "make up" for mistakes that they'll never be able to make up for. To me, that's self-defeating and stupid and they should just move on already and live their lives.
Well...Spike is. But there's good reasons for presenting it that way.
First, Spike needs a bit of guilt. His character has always been a rush-ahead-and-don't-look-back fellow. He could use a little self-evaluation.
Angel still wants it, underneath the crushing weight of guilt. His is a never-ending cycle. It's supposed to be - the soul was a curse, not a blessing.
And - both of them came from religious eras (I'm assuming that Liam was Catholic, William CoE). It would make sense for them to fall back on their childhood understanding of sin and punishment and redemption, even if they didn't really believe it anymore. That stuff they cram in your head in CCD class? That shit lasts.
Re: Reply of the Second Part
Date: 2004-02-06 04:40 pm (UTC)But it wasn't ok - and the show didn't pretend it was. Kate (the police officer) was highly suspicious, the gang was horrified, and they tried to stop his descent into darkness. That whole arc culminated in him sleeping with Darla to try and lose his soul. Rock bottom. But the arc was presented as him slipping into evil, not being excused by virtue of his soul.
Or this idea that Angel just "is" better than Spike, even though Angel's done so much worse with a soul than Spike has, and Angel was still eating people and trying to join up with Darla a year and a half after he was souled.
I haven't seen any evidence of that. More like, Angel and Spike have this long-standing pissing contest that not so long ago resulted in Spike having hot pokers shoved through Angel. Angel doesn't like Spike, Spike doesn't like Angel. But, family.
and what they're fighting over isn't even who's a better "champion," it's who gets the special seal of approval from the PtB
Who have been shown to not be on anyone's side but their own (see: Jasmine). Spike doesn't know about this, so he's given a pass - he's just flailing around looking for a purpose. And if it pisses off Angel at the same time, that's just a bonus.
Angel is also losing focus, losing purpose. He looks at when he was sure of things, when he was a golden boy for the PtB, when it was easy: good, bad. But he is, don't forget, an unreliable narrator. That time was a lie. It was never that simple, and it never will be.
Come Writercon, I'm gonna make you sit and watch a couple of episodes with me, so we can philosophize. ;)
Re: Reply of the Second Part
Date: 2004-02-06 04:59 pm (UTC)As far as the lawyers thing, the final word was from Lorne: "But you didn't kill those lawyers, Angel. That was slated to happen with or without you. The Powers were just trying to work it so it'd be without you, that's all." And with that, Angel is effectively excused--which I just find repugnant. Who cares what was slated to happen; the fact is that Angel chose to let a ton of people die!
I think you're overestimating the extent to which we're supposed to see Angel as an unreliable narrator, and to which we're expected to question the show's underlying theses. To me, the series has a sort of double vision: on the surface, it will question ideas like "destiny" and "fate" and "chosen" and "champion," but it never deeply question them. They remain the underlying tenets to which the show repeatedly returns, and I don't think we're expected to question that. No tenable alternative is ever presented. Like, I see plenty of people suggesting that we're supposed to question Cordelia's spiel to Angel about how he's all "righteous," but I don't think we're expected to question it at all. I think that was effectively the voice of the writers spelling out the underlying thesis of the show, and it's one I'm never going to agree with.
Re: Reply of the Second Part
Date: 2004-02-07 03:09 pm (UTC)::gasp:: You shock me. ;)
the final word was from Lorne: "But you didn't kill those lawyers, Angel. That was slated to happen with or without you. The Powers were just trying to work it so it'd be without you, that's all." And with that, Angel is effectively excused
Except Lorne's not the moral compass of the show. In fact, we see that real clearly in "Life of the Party", when Angel objects to some of the more horrible guests on the guest list, and Lorne replies, "A good host doesn't make that kind of distinction."
Lorne's club was a sanctuary - frequented by baby-eaters and other mass-murderers. Lorne dispense advice to anyone and everyone, in their own language and for their own ends, evil or not, and keeps their confidences. The only time he comes to Angel to stop something planned by one of his clients is the one who's going to stop time for everybody. Lorne's telling Angel what he needs to hear, not necessarily the truth.
To me, the series has a sort of double vision: on the surface, it will question ideas like "destiny" and "fate" and "chosen" and "champion," but it never deeply question them
I see nothing but questioning. Even Wesley admits that's what is really important is not that it's true, but that Angel believes it. Because Angel needs that carrot, not because it's real.
It's underlined in Angel's mockery of Spike for believing "some guy who said he had visions" (the mirror image of Angel and the real Doyle). The implication is that Angel was also an idiot for believing it, because there aren't really any benevolent Powers who have our interests at heart. Because destiny doesn't matter. What we do is what's important.
Re: Reply of the Second Part
Date: 2004-02-07 04:54 pm (UTC)Oh, I certainly don't think he is. But IMO, he was the voice of the writers in that scene. He was effectively the final word on the issue--he explained to the audience how that scene would be handled within canon (as "not such a big deal since it was predestined anyway, nevermind that Angel chose to let them die"). (And given that Angel was *not* particularly held responsible for the lawyer buffet, it makes sense that the writers agree with that interpretation.)
I see nothing but questioning.
Sure, they question what their destiny might be, or whether they're "special" according to destiny or not. Or whether destiny is going to help them or hurt them.
But no one's saying "Who needs destiny anyway? Forget it; it's better to just make the best choices we can." There's all this waffling about what destiny means, but never any viable alternative presented.
Because destiny doesn't matter. What we do is what's important.
I don't think the show takes this position at all. Your "inherent nature" always means more than your choices.
Re: Reply of the Second Part
Date: 2004-02-08 08:59 pm (UTC)>>Because destiny doesn't matter. What we do is what's important.
>I don't think the show takes this position at all.
"In the greater scheme or the big picture, nothing we do matters. There's no grand plan, no big win.(...) I kinda - worked it out. If there is no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. 'cause that's all there is. What we do, now, today. I fought for so long. For redemption, for a reward - finally just to beat the other guy, but... I never got it. (...) All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because I don't think people should suffer, as they do. Because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness - is the greatest thing in the world."
Angel in "Epiphany"
"Epiphany", hon. It's all there. ;}
Re: Reply of the Second Part
Date: 2004-02-08 09:23 pm (UTC)"Epiphany" was written by Tim Minear. He's gone. "You're Welcome" was written by David Fury (Mr. Black and White). He's here to stay, as is his stupid simplistic worldview.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-06 03:40 pm (UTC)Heh, that's funny. That's what made my sister and brother-in-law (they're my BtVS-watching buddies) stop watching the show. I couldn't get them to watch again until last season. :)
Re:
Date: 2004-02-06 04:08 pm (UTC)I started watching again during the Pylea arc, because I was falling in love with Spike and AtS was vaguely relevant to his story. (I started watching BtVS again in early S5 because my college roommate had it on all the time.)
The Jasmine arc was probably the only actual story that I enjoyed. Mostly I liked characters despite the story (Lindsay, Lilah, Connor, pre-saint Cordelia, dark Wes). The same was true of BtVS, though--I liked the story in S2 and S5, but otherwise I liked characters (Spike, Anya, Tara, Andrew, Drusilla) despite overall stories that I found ridiculous and themes that I found repulsive.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-06 04:28 pm (UTC)