This is a potential topic for my website, and I’m thinking about it because ljash said something interesting under one of my posts (I’m not going to link to it because it’s in the spoiler post from last Friday):
they keep raising questions and they’re not yet giving us the answers. On purpose, I’m sure. What’s a hero, what’s a champion, is W&H a total mistake no matter what they manage to do there? Is the big picture or the little picture more important? How much wrong can they do in the name of doing right?
We’ll get those answers even if they don’t give them to us, just by what happens. But since they’ve been deliberately asking the question over and over, I think they’ll have to answer it.
It seems to me that ME has already answered this question, in Deep Down, and again in Underneath:
“Nothing in the world is the way it ought to be. It’s harsh, and cruel. But that’s why there’s us. Champions. It doesn’t matter where we come from, what we’ve done or suffered, or even if we make a difference. We live as though the world was what it should be, to show it what it can be.” –Angel
“You’re playing for the bad guys. Every day you sit behind your desk and you learn a little more how to accept the world the way it is. But here’s the rub. Heroes don’t do that. Heroes don’t accept the world the way it is. They fight it. …The world keeps sliding towards entropy and degradation. And what do you do? You sit in your big chair, and you sign your checks, just like the Senior Partners planned. The war’s here, Angel.” –Lindsey
In short, a hero is someone who doesn’t accept the world the way it is. Easy to dismiss the second quote because it comes from Lindsey and how did he get so wise all of a sudden?, but I think this genuinely is ME’s philosophy.
Does that mean the Angel gang can’t be heroes at W&H? Well, not if they spend their time accepting the world as it is, turning a blind eye to their client’s evil deeds and compromising, winning a good by purchasing it with a compromise with evil. That’s breaking even at best. That’s accepting that they must make compromises to get what they want (which is the pragmatic thing, but maybe true heroism isn’t pragmatic). That’s accepting the world as it is.
It’s interesting, then, that Illyria makes a big long speech about not adapting and not making compromises** last week, and it’s that speech that gets Angel jumping on some new plan. Of course, she’s lecturing him about How to Rule the World, but maybe that’s the point.
This is definitely an idealistic model of the Hero/Champion, rather than a pragmatic one. Angel says as much in Deep Down:
“It doesn’t matter… if we make a difference.”
“We live as though the world was what it should be, to show it what it can be.”
So in short, ME has answered the question, and Angel has had another epiphany (remembering what he seemed to know back in early season 4 and forgot in season 5 like so many things were forgotten) and now it’s time to act on that knowledge.
PS. I’m thinking about posting this on ATPo, but I’m thinking it’s already the topic of several threads that I haven’t read all the way through. Would it be redundant?
**dlgood, it occurs to me that this might be the reason Buffy displays such a puzzling stubborness in “The Gift” we were talking about, e.g., not even being willing to say she would kill Dawn even if she was ultimately not asked to do so in the episode. In ME’s “no compromise” model of the hero, the true hero would never even say they’d be anything less than heroic, much less do it. Or, in another example, it takes the slightly-less-heroic/more pragmatic hero (Giles) to kill Ben in that ep because Buffy refuses to compromise on her values.
Author Nancy E. Shaffer 
Before I get started, I did want to ask: are you familiar with the film “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” directed by John Ford, and starring John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart.
I’m starting to accept that this is ME’s argument. I think it’s a weak argument that falls apart when measured against the historical record, but such is the story.
ME seems to be driving the hero so much toward maintaining “heroic purity” that they seem to lose track of the values that made the characters heroic in the first place. I’m not bothered about how Angel et. al.’s complacency at W&H led to Fred’s death nearly as much as I’m bothered by the apparent signs that they’re circle of concern is restricted to the office doors. Just as I was dismayed in Seasons 5-7, that the Scoobies seemed to pay no mind to the citizens of the town they were supposed to defend. This has little to do with “compromise” or “world-weariness” as ME might paint, and far more to do with simple insularity.
That Sunnydale is completely destroyed, yet Buffy and team had no role in either evacuating or mobilizing the townsfolk is IMHO a bigger indictment of their heroism than any other criticism I’ve seen lobbed at the group.
So I’m not sure I agree with the Jossverse argumentation, in large part because I’m not entirely certain I accept the terms.
Or, in another example, it takes the slightly-less-heroic/more pragmatic hero (Giles) to kill Ben in that ep because Buffy refuses to compromise on her values.
I disagree here, because I don’t think Buffy’s decision in “The Gift” re:Dawn has anything to do with values – or rather, her set of moral values as it defines what a hero is. In fact, I read it as Buffy tossing her moral values aside. IMHO, it wasn’t about protection of innocents or some Kantian categorical imperative. Rather, it was a case of ego overriding morality. She wanted to hold onto the idea of herself as hero rather than reality – she wanted to maintain possession and control over her sister and her sister’s destiny.
The ME case, I surmise, was supposed to be more Categorical Imperative. But I think it’s too cluttered for that straightline argument. Particularly given Buffy’s dictum to shoot the horses when chased by the knights just two episodes prior…
Certainly, I do have a bias, because of my own preference for Realpolitik. To me, the biggest heroes are those who recognize the world for what it is, live in the world as it is, but are also motivated by a moral vision to improve that world. It is one thing to not “accept” the world. Another to refuse to see it. There is a point where the heroes, IMHO, compromise their own values out of obstinacy and petulance, rather than actual principle.
It is interesting that, while I think we are to be reminded of this idealist model of the hero after Illyria makes her speech (Lindsey’s speech + Illyria’s speech = invokes the model) that Angel turns around and immediately compromises with Wolfram and Hart. That might be interpreted as rejecting the model, although what else he has in mind remains to be scene.
I disagree here, because I don’t think Buffy’s decision in “The Gift” re:Dawn has anything to do with values – or rather, her set of moral values as it defines what a hero is. In fact, I read it as Buffy tossing her moral values aside. IMHO, it wasn’t about protection of innocents or some Kantian categorical imperative. Rather, it was a case of ego overriding morality.
Well, you’re right, because she was willing to see the entire universe die rather than advocate a plan that involved the death of Dawn to save the world. But I think the Ben example still works for this ideal model, especially given Giles’ statement to Ben before he kills him, “She won’t do it, because she’s a hero, you see….”
It is one thing to not “accept” the world. Another to refuse to see it.
At its best, I think this idealist ME philosophy of the hero DOES see the world as it is, and fights it where it is bad, striving all the time as best it can not to use the methods of the world. Rejects “the ends justify the means” as a principle.
There was a debate on the board during season 2 of AtS, during Angel’s “Noir” period, whether it was OK for Angel to adopt the methods of the “bad guys” (i.e., killing, torture, etc) if it achieved good ends. A poster named Max was heavily involved in this debate, and his favorite argument was to refer to the Original Star Trek episode “The Savage Curtain” which essentially said, yes, it’s OK for the good guys to use the methods of the bad guys, the difference is in what they are fightng for, not the methods.
And of course the counter to this is, from the idealist hero model, is that the minute you are willing to use the same methods as the bad guys to achieve your ends, no matter how noble, you are not the good guys anymore.
I think the Ben example still works for this ideal model, especially given Giles’ statement to Ben before he kills him, “She won’t do it, because she’s a hero, you see….”
True. Buffy has a moral system, which she’s notably failed to adhere to when driven by emotion. As shown with Angelus and Dawn. But, I’m inclined to discount Giles because I do think Buffy would kill Ben, if she believed it necessary. I think she has a higher threshold than Giles, but I think she’d be willing to pass an execution order. Even if she didn’t do it herself, asking someone else to carry out the execution isn’t a large leap.
And of course the counter to this is, from the idealist hero model, is that the minute you are willing to use the same methods as the bad guys to achieve your ends, no matter how noble, you are not the good guys anymore.
I think both arguments are idealistic. The hero, ultimately, is fighting to defend a set of interests and ideals. To some extent, the means are the ideals such that some actions, no matter how nobly motivated, will ultimately compromise the hero’s “heroic integrity”. By the same token, to refuse certain means, simply because “the bad guys use them” is placing the hero’s sense of self over the very ideals and interests they purport to be trying to uphold.
If protecting the world is your chief value, and you let the world be destroyed when you had the power to save it, your integrity has been stained.
So to me – there is no such thing as a clean or pure hero. There is no heroism in promoting your purity over your interests and ideals. Just as there is no heroism in proving your willingness to sacrifice your honor as proof of your committment to the cause.
THat’s the world the hero lives in, and has to accept. Heroism lies in knowing which course is the right choice. Knowing when to take the ruthless tack because the end justifies a particular means. Knowing when not to be ruthless, when the means are unnecessary, or when an end does not justify it.
To pick an absolute – that all means are justifiable if the end is critical, or to say that means are unjustifiable regardless of the end – is IMHO abdicating the moral test of heroism.
True. Buffy has a moral system, which she’s notably failed to adhere to when driven by emotion.
I think in the Gift when she says that line about not killing Dawn to save the world, ME intends us to scratch our heads and say, “What the fuck, Buff’ because Giles calls her on it:
GILES: If the ritual starts, then every living creature in this and every other dimension imaginable will suffer unbearable torment and death … (looks up at Buffy) including Dawn.
BUFFY: Then the last thing she’ll see is me protecting her.
GILES: You’ll fail. You’ll die. We all will.
You want Buffy to make a statement of heroism, that she is willing to kill Dawn to save the world. She can’t. Because what Buffy does instead here in this moment is completely in character for her. I ask on my site “Is passion the source of Buffy’s greatest moments?” She lets her emotions rule her heroism, her decisions, and that leads to her greatest successes and greatest failures. Joss had to let her be Buffy in that moment no matter how frustrating it was to us that she couldn’t be our idea of a hero.
So there’s two things going on in ME’s story-telling, there is the putting forth of certain philosophies and values and there is characterization. Angel is as flawed an individual as Buffy, and so it makes interpreting his actions in “Time Bomb” even more complex. I doubt they can be interpreted as pure application of an philosophy, but perhaps that application within the limits of Angel’s characterization.
Still sussing out what that means. Because what characteristics have defined Angel’s actions in the past? Vanity, the willingness to make grandiose decisions without consulting those they effect, the determination to solve problems himself without help.
Still thinking…
You want Buffy to make a statement of heroism, that she is willing to kill Dawn to save the world. She can’t. Because what Buffy does instead here in this moment is completely in character for her.
That’s true. But it’s also a moment of failure that needs to be acknowledged – just as she does in S2 when she tells Giles “I’m sorry that I couldn’t kill him when I should have…”
Those “moments of passion” don’t happen in a vaccuum. They are big tests, presaged by months of homework and smaller quizzes. IMHO, we need to have the sign that our hero grows and learns. Because there will always be another test.
It’s easier for me to analyze Wes than Angel. Because with Wesley, in any situation, he will select the choice of the harder means, often as though being more morally questionable is a merit of the choice in and of itself. Wes, IMHO, has a need to show that he can make the toughest choice, and he is thus predisposed to do so whether or not such a choice is actually necessary, warranted, or particularly beneficial.
With Angel, he IMHO, feels a need to maintain some control over circumstances and his choices are predicated toward that choice which will most easily – and to his mind – most surely preserve his ends. One of those ends he most prizes is the preservation of innocence (the innocence he once destroyed with such relish) such that he preserves ignorance – conflating the two. And thus denying his “rescuee” choice in the process.
I think Lindsey’s comment is a lot like “love’s bitch”
It is brilliant misdirect that is a half-truth. The truth is that is the way things are. The lie is that it applies to the heroes. (it does apply to the person speaking and goes to his issues) Heroes don’t sit behind their desks learning to accept the world the way it is. The lie is that Angel is doing this.
We have another black/white dichotomy that itself is a lie. Either/or. Lindsey assumes that as long Angel is behind that desk, he is being corrupted. Cordelia said that Angel was “bigger than all this.” Whose assessment do you trust?
We have to apply this to the people that are writing the show, who have taken every opportunity they have this season to refer to the network executives as evil. The metanarration has been wonderful and especially plentiful this season. Joss went into the belly of the beast to make this season. He agreed to many of the compromises the network wanted. His show may have been canceled, but was he digested? Did Joss lose his integrity?
Angel’s epiphany in “Epiphany” was built around several ifs, if there is no big picture, if there is no grand plan, if there is no glorious end to all this. What if there is? The show has been slanted to the smaller picture. I see this season as a corrective measure. What if there is a big picture? What is there is THE apocalypse to fight? Then how important is the small picture? The big picture is made up of smaller pictures, but without the big picture, there are NO pictures.
It is easy to focus on the small picture when you don’t have the resources to impact the big picture any other way. What about when you do? For example (and this is just an example), does the US have a responsibility to be a world leader because we have the resources to do this? Do we have a responsibility to help struggling nations develop democracies and use their natural resources wisely?
Does Joss have a responsibility to tell his story of empowerment? He would have greater control of his story if he wrote for a smaller audience. Trying to reach the masses involves compromises. I like how he used those compromises to make points. When we ask if Angel should be at Wolfram and Hart, we are asking if Joss should have gone for a Fifth season. Should he have told the WB where they can stick their bubble last year?
Just because we don’t accept the world the way it is, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be as effective as possible in changing it. Things can be changed from within. Look at everything that our country has undergone. Activists don’t accept the world the way it is. We still pay taxes and vote, though. We serve jury duty when they let us. We raise our families and belong to organizations.
I was having a talk with my husband about our recent violations of the Geneva Convention. Every soldier knows Geneva because it is what protects their ass should they get captured. It only protects soldiers. It is a compromise itself. It protects at least the human rights of POWs. It should protect the human rights of all humans. It is a step at least. It changed the system, even if not enough.
Same thing with the founding of our country. The overriding principle that guided our founding fathers wasn’t the lofty ideas of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We never would be a country if that was the case. Instead, it was compromise. Religious freedom wasn’t given because of a belief in liberty. It was given because of our religious diversity. The first colony that built religious tolerance into its charter/constitution was Maryland. That was because it was founded by Catholics that weren’t stupid. They knew they wouldn’t remain the majority for long and the only way to ensure they could practice their religion was to make sure that everyone could.
Compromise is a step on the road to the more perfect union. It is not accepting the world the way it is. It is changing it, maybe not enough to make THE perfect union, but it is better than the status quo. We just can’t stop until we get there. A change here, a change there and it keeps adding up.
I don’t think this would be redundant, because it helps clarify several threads that are going off on tangents/ I’ve given my two cents, but I’m happy to repeat myself.
You know, it occurs to me that the opposite of what I think is going on may be going on here. An ironic reversal.
There’s areason they repeat the Champion speech in “Underneath” and a reason they put it in Lindsey’s mouth. It’s the extreme idealism of the hero, and maybe it’s what Angel needs to reject. Illyria spouts a kind of extremism in the opposite direction that sets Angel off.
But one of the reasons W&H have succeeded so well at what they do is their lack of extremism. They let Angel et al do good in their offices because they’ve rigged the game to pay off not-good a certain percentage of the time.
Maybe Angel has finally figured out how to weild W&H’s resources the most effective way (don’t ask me what that is, though).
But it’s also a moment of failure that needs to be acknowledged – just as she does in S2 when she tells Giles “I’m sorry that I couldn’t kill him when I should have…”
Well, there was a moment when Buffy admitted failure in her stubbornness, from LMPTM:
BUFFY Giles, we had this conversation when I told you that I wouldn’t sacrifice Dawn to stop Glory from destroying the world.
GILES Ah, yes, but things are different, aren’t they? After what you’ve been through, faced with the same choice now, (paces) you’d let her die.
BUFFY If I had to…to save the world. Yes.
With Angel, he IMHO, feels a need to maintain some control over circumstances and his choices are predicated toward that choice which will most easily – and to his mind – most surely preserve his ends. One of those ends he most prizes is the preservation of innocence (the innocence he once destroyed with such relish) such that he preserves ignorance – conflating the two. And thus denying his “rescuee” choice in the process.
I guess the question is, will a personality flaw like this one interfere in whatever lesson he may be learning now. I’m arguing in a vacuum, of course, because I have no idea what he’s up to at the end of “Time Bomb”. That’s what this thread is for. To figure it out!
I do love this insight into his character, though. It’s the reason he gives Connor the new unblemished life in “Home” rather than pick some other solution to his son’s problems, the reason he’s willing to let his son fight Sahjhan rather than have vail break the Orlon Window, so his son won’t lose that innocence he has through most of “Origin”.
Will have to add that to my site.
It’s easier for me to analyze Wes than Angel. Because with Wesley, in any situation, he will select the choice of the harder means, often as though being more morally questionable is a merit of the choice in and of itself. Wes, IMHO, has a need to show that he can make the toughest choice, and he is thus predisposed to do so whether or not such a choice is actually necessary, warranted, or particularly beneficial.
I like this analysis of Wes, too, because I like to set him up as poster boy for the “Ends justify the means” philosophy, but he has personality flaws that make him less pragmatic than that philosophy, doesn’t he? He picks the most ruthless course of action sometimes when it isn’t the most cost-effective.
Re: I think Lindsey’s comment is a lot like “love’s bitch”
So what you’re saying is Angel & co made the right decision in coming to W&H, and they have been using its resources to greater good despite the appearance that they may be doing little better than breaking even with all the compromises they’ve had to make? That maybe there are cases where the compromises were necessary to bring about a greater good? And Lindsey was just trying to make Angel doubt that?
So what about Illyria’s speech? What in that was Angel hooking into, getting clues from?
Re: I think Lindsey’s comment is a lot like “love’s bitch”
It only protects soldiers. It is a compromise itself. It protects at least the human rights of POWs. It should protect the human rights of all humans.
It doesn’t have to. Geneva covers law of war. It covers conduct of soldiers and the treatment of Armed Combatants. Other aspects are covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Conventions on Torture, Genocide, the Helsinki Accords and so on… There are multiple conventions in effect, and they serve to combine to form an umbrella.
Religious freedom wasn’t given because of a belief in liberty. It was given because of our religious diversity. The first colony that built religious tolerance into its charter/constitution was Maryland.
Presuming you recognized Christ. Rhode Island extended this to those who recognized God (why that colony had such a relatively large Jewish population during colonial times) Pennsylvania, also founded by a persecuted sect, was the first colony to have full freedom of religion.
totally off topic
where’d you get your mood icons!?
totally love ’em
I like to set him up as poster boy for the “Ends justify the means” philosophy, but he has personality flaws that make him less pragmatic than that philosophy, doesn’t he? He picks the most ruthless course of action sometimes when it isn’t the most cost-effective.
Perhaps in Pylea. But in general, Wesley doesn’t engage in that sort of calculation. He looks and sounds like a chess player much of the time, but he’s a hot-head.
Travers and the Council, tradionally, I think were far more Machiavellian. Wes fails as a decisionmaker often, because he’s trying to be a Machiavellian (because he thinks leaders have to make unpopular choices) when he’s just not any good at it. Despite appearances, Wesley is driven by passion more than he is reason. And when it’s something he has a personal stake in, he can’t hold to the rational process…
Giles is much more a better fit, IMHO. He’s far better able (though not always) to put aside his emotions. Wesley, in attempting to put aside his emotions, is actually acting out his psychological pathologies.
Re: totally off topic
I made them myself, I’ve had them for a while now, and just added a few more after “Origin”.
Wesley, in attempting to put aside his emotions, is actually acting out his psychological pathologies.
Quote of the week!
What do you think of his arguments in “Choices”? Because I think he had a darned good point in that episode about keeping the Box of Gavrok to stop the Mayor right then and there. The Mayor’s Ascension, had it succeeded, would have destroyed the town and Willow right along with it. But of course, Buffy is written as finding a third solution, just as in “The Gift”.
I do love this insight into his character, though. It’s the reason he gives Connor the new unblemished life in “Home” rather than pick some other solution to his son’s problems, the reason he’s willing to let his son fight Sahjhan rather than have vail break the Orlon Window, so his son won’t lose that innocence he has through most of “Origin”.
IMHO, it’s more than just Connor. I think quite a lot of his behavior can be fit around this trait. He cuts people out, (equally notably Buffy on numerous occaisions) in no small part because he wants to preserve their innocence – possibly the thing he’s lost and misses the most in himself. It’s what draws him so much to “helping the helpless” in the first place.
Just as I think their mutual jadedness is part of what kept Angelus and Darla going, and the innocence aspect was no small part of what initially drew Angel to Buffy.
IMHO, it’s more than just Connor.
Oh, I agree, I was just using Connor as an example ’cause I have Connor on the brain, but this has been a personality flaw of Angel’s for a very long time–paternalism. Breaking up with Buffy in “The Prom” without any prior discussion with her (although one with her mother). “Doing what’s best for her for her own good.” Making the decision to reverse the day in “IWRY” without talking to Buffy about it before hand.
His decision to dethrone Jasmine is a huge example of his making decisions that effect the world, although that one takes their innocence rather than preserving it and gives them the messier ickiness of a world with choice. Similar to his returning crime Anne’s neighborhood in “The Thin Blue Line”. He gives people back their liberty at the expense of returning crime.
Re: I think Lindsey’s comment is a lot like “love’s bitch”
First, allow me to introduce my wonderful Hubby. Say Hi wonderful Hubby.
Hi there. I’ve been lurking for a while on some of these threads and decided to throw in my 2 cents for what it’s worth.
Unfortunately this umbrella of yours is so full of holes as to be pretty much useless. The problem with most international law is its total lack of enforceability or accountability. International Law is only enforced when it is convenient and beneficial for the Great Powers to do so. In matters of human rights, unless it is a case of major crimes against humanity such as genocide, piracy etc. It is usually not perceived to be in the realpolitik self interest of the major players of the world to step in. Especially when they are the ones at fault.
International law was never designed to handle cases and problems dealing with individuals or small groups of people within a state. That was an issue for the sovereign state in question to deal with in whatever manner they felt best. International law is very good at setting up agreements on how nations should interact with each other but not how states should handle their own internal affairs. Up until the last 40-50 years the idea of actually having one nation or group of nations tell another nation how to handle their internal affairs was unheard of and would probably cause a war. There are lots of wonderful declarations and agreements that have been made in the last half century that have begun to change that, however they are for all intents and purposes meaningless.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a legally binding document. It is a United Nations General Assembly proclamation. It is basically about as effective as someone standing up on the floor of the US House of Representatives and saying “I believe that today should be National Turkey Day” and everyone applauding. This is in sharp contrast to the Geneva Accords which are actual treaties.
The Helsinki Accords – A 29 year old big warm fuzzy hug between nations that for most part all got along, respected each other’s rights and sovereignty anyway, all wrapped up in a nice big Cold War detente bow in which we actually believed the Soviets were going to respect the human rights of the dissidents they had locked away in Siberia.
It seems to me that people are trying to change the system here by working within it. It will not work. In order for the world to be able to effectively protect the human rights of all people the way the Geneva Accords is supposed to protect those of soldiers, the nations of the world must be willing to give up some amount of their sovereignty to make enforcement of these wonderful happy-happy declarations possible. The system must be changed.
Europe is starting to realize that with the recent changes in EU. Much of the rest of the world is making attempts to do so through actual treaties such as Kyoto and the International Criminal Court. These types of efforts are being stubbornly blocked by us because we are too afraid of giving up any amount of our precious sovereignty so that heaven forbid some one might be able to call us on our shit in exchange for being able to do it to others. Seems to me we ask our states to relinquish some of their sovereignty for the benefits and protection the federal government provides. If international human rights and environmental protection are important to us, we should be willing to suck it up and do the same. We should be the nation leading the way on these efforts, not throwing up road blocks to change and violating the agreements we do have in place.
My turn
Say bye Darling Hubby,
Bye Darling Hubby.
Isn’t he cute?
It doesn’t have to. Geneva covers law of war.
And how does this contradict my original contention that things are done in compromises, in stages? The date of the Geneva Accords was 1949. This would be Before all the things you mention with the exception of the UDHR, which as 1948 and as Hubby said a nice warm fuzzy, not anything legally binding. This is why Geneva was necessary. If everyone was covered under your wonderful umbrella, why include Geneva III, which deal specifically with the Treatment of POWs?
And interestingly enough, one of the things that makes me so proud to be called American is we haven’t ratified the Geneva Protocols I and II of 1977. This is a further extension of human rights which we fail to even be a part of. This umbrella of yours seems to be working so well.
Presuming you recognized Christ.
And this negates my point how? That was remarkable and unheard of for its time and constituted what they would consider religious tolerance. By our standards the founding father were a bunch of intolerant bigots.
Re: I think Lindsey’s comment is a lot like “love’s bitch”
It depends if you look at it as working for the Senior Partners or in charge of the assets of Wolfram and Hart’s LA Branch. We’ve heard mention lots of good they have been doing off-screen, from shutting down evil warlocks, to opening orphanages. Just getting the employees to behave, even if out of fear, is a HUGE deal. Most of them are just opportunists. If they are given a profitable way of being good, or at least not evil, they will be. Look at the good Angel has done for Harmony, since Wolfram and Hart isn’t evil any more.
Also, there is still the future ahead of them. Even if they are breaking even now, who knows what will happen in the future. Most businesses that open operate in the red for a while before they make a profit. Same could happen on a good/evil balance sheet. It is hard to say it is a mistake at this point.
I don’t think Lindsey was trying to get Angel to doubt. I think he honestly believed what he said, just like Spike honestly believed what he said in “Lover’s Walk.” I don’t think it is right. It is colored by his own issues with Wolfram and Hart.
There is still a power theme. It runs through both Lindsey and Illyria. What is power for? That is what Joss closed Buffy with. Illyria talks about using it to serve your ambitions. Angel bought into this, but we have to remember what his ambitions are. If he combines Illyria’s speech with season 7 BtVS, things aren’t so dark for our hero.
All they knew was that the Box of Gavrok was a necessary component to the ascension. What they didn’t know, was what denying him the box would do. It might prevent the ascension, but it might not actually stop the mayor – still leaving him as an invincible sorceror of some significant power and very much a threat.
They also don’t know what other steps the mayor had to go through that might also have been disrupted, and they have weeks to learn more. In chess, one is usually willing to sacrifice most chess pieces to take out a queen. This is not to say they don’t have a case, but in life, IMHO, one needs to be a bit more certainty before you make sacrifices like that.
Besides preserving innocence, Angel also tries to preserve others’ good opinion of himself. He’ll go to a lot of trouble to hide his mistakes and what he is. He tried to lie to Cordy when she came back from the upper realm so she wouldn’t know he was a vampire, and I think part of the reason he didn’t want the Orlon thing to break is that everyone would know that he failed them and (arguably) used them. People who are hounded for their faults in childhood become secretive and deeply ashamed of being flawed, and many will go to great lengths to preserve an illusion of perfection.
Re: My turn
And this negates my point how? That was remarkable and unheard of for its time and constituted what they would consider religious tolerance.
My initial comment didn’t undermine your point because I didn’t flesh out the case of Rhode Island. Upon doing so, it very much does undermine your point. Maryland’s act wasn’t unheard of, Religious toleration in other colonies was about greater liberty.
Maryland was founded by the Calverts in 1631 to be a Catholic Colony. In 1649, they passed the Toleration act.
Rhode Island was founded in 1636 by puritan dissenter, Roger Williams – and religious tolerance solely for the sake of libertay was a large point of his action. RI was noteworthy for being the first colony to codify separation of Church and State. RI just didn’t specifically address religious toleartation in state constitution/charter until the 1650’s. When the Calverts wrote the religious toleration act in 1649, they used William’s own discussions on Rhode Island as a model – but unlike RI it wasn’t for religious toleration, but for preserving the freedom to be whichever stripe of Christian you wished. But primarily Catholicism.
It’s a notable contrast because there were Jews in the colonies, and those Jews would consequently head primarily to Newport because of Rhode Island’s stance on religious liberty.
Re: My turn
Many of the founding fathers were deists or atheists.
Jefferson-atheist
Geo. Washington-Deist
Franklin-Deist
John Adams-skeptic who believed in keeping religion out of gov’t
Just so we are clear for future discussions
You believe in realpolitik, yet somehow certain people are above that and act on lofty principles such as freedom for freedom’s sake?
I’m a bleeding heart liberal. I’ll admit that. What I forgot to add yesterday was to see how well this umbrella protects human rights check out amnesty international.It would take too long to list the US’s violations of human rights and international agreements, and those are just the ones we have signed.
Even I am not naive enough to believe that people grant freedom for freedom’s sake. It is all part of that move toward what they consider a more perfect union. Have freedom taken away, such as in the case of the various colonies, and that is what you fight for. It isn’t freedom, freedom, freedom. It is let me do what I want. It is that pursuit of happiness thing. I’ll let you do what you want, if you let me do what I want. People aren’t stupid and only grant as much freedom to others as they think is required for them to get what they want.
Freedom is a rallying cry. It is rhetoric. It is beautiful half naked women in art. The Federalist Papers are not footnotes to the Constitution. Speeches given and papers written are written for a purpose. To discount that purpose and take them out of historical context is a great way to evaluate the idea itself by contemporary standards, but it does nothing to address the time itself. The history of England at this time is about religious intollerance and its effects on national/international politics. The colonies are still a part of England. English history is American history.
What are you saying is that even though what Maryland did by granting freedom to Christians was in stark contrast to what was going on over in England, which is why the Puritans and Catholics left in the first place, because it didn’t include the Jews, it doesn’t count. That is like saying because the American Revolution didn’t extend rights to slaves or women that it doesn’t count as a monumental step forward.
A Catholic Colony, founded so that Catholics could practice their religion (we even have a crosses on the flag and it is in the Charter) didn’t make Catholicism the state religion, like they tried to do over in England with disasterous results. Instead they passed the Toleration Act. I will not diminish this. In historical context it was a huge deal. As far as I can see 1650’s is AFTER 1649. At least that is what my math teacher taught me. Maryland is the precedence for the legal codification of that. Roger Williams and his wonderful speeches are just speeches, about as effective as that umbrella of human rights you talked about earlier. They didn’t give Maryland the idea. They were rhetoric used to justify what they did. Codifying religious tolerance was unheard of. There is a reason Maryland codified it. That doesn’t diminish what they did.
When all this came to a head in the colonies needs to be examined against the backdrop of what was going on over in Mother England, namely James I, Charles I and Cromwell. The colonies cannot be examined in a vacuum, even though isolationism is taught from the very beginnings of US History in how it is taught. Maryland and Massachusettes/Rhode Island cannot be taken apart from the religious strife that was tearing England apart.
You are saying that Cordy knew nothing of the supernatural and the only character we have ever seen react well to finding out about it was Oz probably had nothing to do with Angel’s reluctance to let her in on what he was. He was giving her time to adjust to being back and regain her memory. Angel has issues, but people can deal with them and move on.
I’m not sure why everyone’s memories had to be altered. I’m not sure we will ever find out. Did Angel make that part of the deal or did Wolfram and Hart? Did Angel do it to cover up his mistake (though Wesley’s was even greater) or was it required? He covered up not only his failure, but his success. Unlike IWRY, he didn’t have Doyle to confide in and tell about this amazing thing he was willing to do. Doyle said Angel was a hero for what he did. Why would Angel think that the gang wouldn’t understand? This wasn’t Angel’s greatest failure as a hero. It was one of his greatest triumphs. It is what makes him not a lower being.
People who are hounded for their faults in childhood become secretive and deeply ashamed of being flawed, and many will go to great lengths to preserve an illusion of perfection.
Wasn’t this dealt with in “Smile Time”? Are characters damned to have their faults forever or is redemption actually possible?
I don’t think Angel was capable of thinking anything beyond “don’t hurt my son,” when Wesley was threatening to undo things. It was a pretty intense feeling. Angel was in Dad mode and Dad mode doesn’t care about himself. He cared about his son.
Re: My turn
You are talking 1700’s and the founding of our nation. We are talking 1600s and the founding of the colonies. The period we are discussing is informed by James I, Charles I and the beginnings of Cromwell. The period you mention is heavily informed by Cromwell (especially Adams, whose grandfather was a prominent Cromwellian and lived in NEW England surrounded by expatriot Cromwellians), Charles II, James II, William & Mary, among others.
The founding fathers did not exist in a vacuum. We are talking about the very beginnings of the period known as “Enlightenment” and you are talking about its fruits.
Re: Just so we are clear for future discussions
You believe in realpolitik, yet somehow certain people are above that and act on lofty principles such as freedom for freedom’s sake?
It’s not incompatible. “Realpolitik” can be both an ideology and a governing methodology. It’s not necessairly about amassing power as an end in itself, but depending upon the practictioner a case of amassing power as a means to carry out ideals. One can be a “Bleeding Heart Liberal” and also a practicioner of “Realpolitik”.
What are you saying is that even though what Maryland did by granting freedom to Christians was in stark contrast to what was going on over in England, which is why the Puritans and Catholics left in the first place, because it didn’t include the Jews, it doesn’t count.
Massachussetts wasn’t a really a contrast to England at all. The Puritans fled England, and then set up colonies with official state religions. And in England, the Puritans overthrew the government in order to install their own state religion – not simply as an “I’ll let you do what you want, if you let me do what I want” thing. Which, BTW, is why Roger Williams broke away from Massachussetts Bay Colony to form Rhode Island. (Connecticut was also formed out of exiled Mass Bay Colonists.)
Maryland was initially formed to be a Catholic refuge. Rhode Island set the precedent for a colony of Religious Toleration. And while Rhode Island didn’t specifically write in Toleration until after Maryland – in the 1640’s non-Christians were eligible to hold public office and own land in the RI Colony whereas the Maryland charter, as amended in 1649 still included that ban. Rhode Island already had Separation of Church and State codified, which Maryland did not adopt.
You’d earlier commented that “the only way to ensure they could practice their religion was to make sure that everyone could” – does this indicate that the preference would have been to Establish Catholicism?
I’m not saying it “doesn’t count” – I’m arguing that Rhode Island is an equally, if not more important, case. I am disputing your history, and consequently your interpreation of events, as it is based upon faluty history.
Instead they passed the Toleration Act. I will not diminish this. In historical context it was a huge deal. As far as I can see 1650’s is AFTER 1649.
True. But as noted, in 1649, the only Colony with a written constitution was Connecticut. That RI hadn’t written it down does not negate that they’d already established it as a fact of life. In writing the act Maryland provided RI the political cover to codify the more liberal scheme that had already been put into practice, but not expressly written.
And it’s interesting to see the different tack Rhode Island took in comparison to that of Maryland and the English Puritans.
Re: Just so we are clear for future discussions
It’s not incompatible. “Realpolitik” can be both an ideology and a governing methodology.
You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
From Princeton and any other source I found:
realpolitik: politics based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations
Dr. Henry Kissinger’s definition from Diplomacy is: a foreign policy based on calculations of power and national interest. (p 137)
There is a difference between ideals and ideology. Bismark had ideology. I wouldn’t say he had high minded ideals. The word’s purpose is to describe policies such as Bismark and contrast it with loftier guiding principles.
Massachussetts wasn’t a really a contrast to England at all.
It is an important contrast to England in the group that was in charge. It is New England.
And in England, the Puritans overthrew the government in order to install their own state religion – not simply as an “I’ll let you do what you want, if you let me do what I want” thing.
The Puritans overthrew the monarchy because they were worried that the monarchy was overly influenced by Roman Catholicism and was attempting to impose that on the rest of the nation. Their intolerable act was when the monarchy imposed the English Prayer Book on everyone. The idea of changing the state religion came about for the same reason the colonies rebelled, when in the course of human events it becomes necessary. It was not their goal to make their religion the state religion. It was their goal to curb the monarchy. When they got into power, they went a little nuts.
You’d earlier commented that “the only way to ensure they could practice their religion was to make sure that everyone could” – does this indicate that the preference would have been to Establish Catholicism?
Basic human nature. The Catholics weren’t stupid and they knew that they wouldn’t be the majority for long. If they went too far, they would have nothing. They saw what happened in England when lines were crossed. The guiding principle wasn’t freedom, it was compromise and practicality.
I’m arguing that Rhode Island is an equally, if not more important, case. I am disputing your history, and consequently your interpreation of events, as it is based upon faluty history.
1. To what end
2. Your interpretation doesn’t factor in the importance of events in England. Both the Puritan and Catholic reactions to the Church of England and the events surrounding religious intolerance there are important. I will not deny that. Nor will I discount the precedence set in Maryland, a CATHOLIC colony. A CATHOLIC Colony decided to tolerate other religions as a preventative measure against what was happening in England. This is more accurate model than Rhode Island, which was founded that way. Fast forward to 1775. We have 13 colonies with various religions present. They aren’t setting up a fresh colony. Fresh colony = do with it what you want. Old colony = have to learn to get along. Maryland sets up the precedent that is used.
We aren’t a Christian nation because the Enlightenment has enlightened people and some of the founding fathers are deist. If they were Christian, this nation would have been Christian. It is our diversity which promotes tolerance in the first place. We have religious freedom because 13 colonies knew they couldn’t agree on a religion, so they made it a non-issue by codifying tolerance.
Comparing Rhode Island and Maryland is interesting, but the real story lies over in Mother England. Why things get written down is important. Why we even have a written constitution is important. Anything that writes this down sets that precedent. Maryland, not Rhode Island, sets this into law first. Ideals are nice, but the important thing is the law. Jews settled in Newport, RI in the first year of William’s governorship, which is 1653. That is AFTER Maryland. This stuff isn’t codified until Roger Williams becomes governor. Roger Williams’ ideas are wonderful, but Spain had religious tolerance at one point as well, which is why Jews lived there. It don’t mean a thing until it is in the law.
Re: I think Lindsey’s comment is a lot like “love’s bitch”
If he combines Illyria’s speech with season 7 BtVS, things aren’t so dark for our hero.
You mean using power like the Slayers do (under the best circumstances), to achieve good.
Re: My turn
Ah, I reread your post and found what confused me.
“overriding principle that guided our founding fathers wasn’t the lofty ideas of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We never would be a country if that was the case”
I thought by referring to the Declaration of Independence and using the phrase founding fathers you were referring to what we commonly call the founding fathers, esp. the ones that wrote the “life liberty etc” phrase-Jefferson, and others on the committee such as Franklin and Adams.
People who are hounded for their faults in childhood become secretive and deeply ashamed of being flawed, and many will go to great lengths to preserve an illusion of perfection.
There certainly is a good indication that Liam’s father constantly pressured him about the kind of son he wanted and disapproved mightily of the son he got (in rebellion).
Wesley’s father seems the same way. Like Wesley can’t say anything positive about himself without his father turning into a negative. Does Wesley try to hide his bad deeds? He seems more to strive to be as “ruthless” as possible so everyone knows it.
Re: Just so we are clear for future discussions
Dr. Henry Kissinger’s definition from Diplomacy is: a foreign policy based on calculations of power and national interest. (p 137)
I’m familiar with Kissenger’s definition. That is a methodology – conducting policy based upon calculation of power and national interest. “Power” and “National Interest” being terms that are very much open to debate. (Kissenger and Nye each have very different formulations…) Such interests may or may not include “loftier guiding principles” – but methodology is that such that leaders must focus on calculations of power as means to accomplish the ends – be they “lofty” or “base”.
When they got into power, they went a little nuts.
The puritans weren’t a monolithic group by any means, but they wanted power so that they could use that power. And rather than stopping at preventing an imposition of Catholicism, they carried through an imposition of their own. And much of that agenda was driven by religious fervor – not just going nuts with power. Cromwell and his chief supporters believed in the virtues of their impositions, even as they rejected the Monarch’s impositions.
A CATHOLIC Colony decided to tolerate other religions as a preventative measure against what was happening in England. This is more accurate model than Rhode Island, which was founded that way.
A nascent colony that was roughly 18 years old at the time, with a small population and economy – still in its founding period, passing a law in reference to a question it hadn’t really considered before. (Non-Catholics want to live here?) Both cases are relevant.
Roger Williams’ ideas are wonderful, but Spain had religious tolerance at one point as well, which is why Jews lived there. It don’t mean a thing until it is in the law.
Now, perhaps, you can understand why I find something very much missing from the Scooby gang’s story in S7. And why I view the Scoobies as a legal class that needed to look at their values, develop a constitution, and institutionalize their best practices with an eye for flexibility. Buffy in particular. And why I’d say – “yes, they do need to write a handbook” – because in general terms you’ve argued that such a course is at odds with the nature of heroism.
Re: I think Lindsey’s comment is a lot like “love’s bitch”
Basically. Slayer=hero=champion=Angel. They are synonyms. Only the source of their power differs. Buffy and Angel are both heroes (declared so by higher powers) and what makes them heroes is that in the words of Joss, “The thing about a hero is even when it doesn’t look like there’s a light at the end of the tunnel, he’s going to keep digging, he’s going to keep trying to do right and make up for what’s gone before, just because that’s who he is.”
It’s like taking Realpolitik and instead of working for national interest, working for humanity’s interest. I’m not so worried about Angel. He had an opportunity to lose his soul and revert back to Angelus. He couldn’t do it. In his heart, he cares and thinks that people shouldn’t suffer as they do. His ambitions aren’t what we think about when we think ambition. He is a hero.
Wolfram and Hart knows this. The only way to push him over the edge is to use this against him. I think they are trying to light the fuse on the time bomb that is Angel by making him willing to compromise. This won’t undo him because he will learn to accept the world the way it is as Lindsey has suggested, but because he CAN’T accept the world the way it is and compromising kills him. He was ready to chuck it all in “You’re Welcome.” Every child he lets die, every evil dead that goes unpunished tears Angel up inside. How much of that before he goes nuclear?
What happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object?
We can take this back to the Punisher. He wasn’t just a vigilante. He was made into one with the death of his family. He was pushed too far, so he pushed back and back and back and became a monster himself. Every decision that Angel has to make where he can’t just go on high minded principles will tear him up inside. What comes out, we’ll have to see…wait we can’t. In the words of Joss, “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the road less traveled by and they CANCELLED MY FRIKKIN’ SHOW.”
GRRRR ARGH!!!!!!!!!
Re: I think Lindsey’s comment is a lot like “love’s bitch”
“The thing about a hero is even when it doesn’t look like there’s a light at the end of the tunnel, he’s going to keep digging, he’s going to keep trying to do right and make up for what’s gone before, just because that’s who he is.”
Do you have a source on this quote? (date, place he said it)
Re: I think Lindsey’s comment is a lot like “love’s bitch”
But the employees aren’t behaving, they are just covering up thir tracks. They are still doing drugs (the Vicodin employee in Harm’s Way) sacrificing virgins (Eli in the same episode), smuggling in god-like demons to worship (Knox), and making deals with demons to sacrifice children–and that’s just what we know about.
And it’s not money being lost-it’s lives. W&H is getting AI to make more and bigger compromises, not fewer.
Illyria’s speech:
Angel: “We attacked you.
Illyria: I didn’t give you the chance. That you learn when you become king. You learn to destrouy everything that’s not utterly yours. All that matters is victory. That’s how your reign persists. You’re a slave to an insane construct. You are moral. A true ruler is as moral as a hurricane. Empty but for the force of his gale. But you…trapped in the web of the wolf the ram the hart. So much power here. You quibble at its price. If you want to win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.”
There is no sharing of power here. She is saying that the means are irrelevent in getting one’s own way, fulfuilling one’s ambition. Morality just gets in the way. The price of winning at any cost is losing morality, humanity. Angel’s goal may be good, but his means is as important as his goal. People are dying-Fred died-because he thought he could use evil to do good. But you can’t, you can’t kill some people to save others. Angel thought about doing this for Fred, but chose not to. It would have been wrong.
Lindsey know that some people die to save others at W&H. He saw where his hand came from. He knows that letting others suffer-making compromises-for the greater good lets a lot of little bads happen. And what is the big picture but a bunch of little pictures? It’s like the mosiac pictures made up of many many tiny pictures. It looks like a big picture but the big picture is merely what you get when the little things are added up.
Re: Just so we are clear for future discussions
Such interests may or may not include “loftier guiding principles”
The definition ” politics based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations” says rather as such, it may NOT include loftier guiding principles. For example, say someone who believes in Realpolitik believes we should help a developing nation democratize. This is not for any deep belief in democracy as a principle. It is because a democratic nation is less likely attack another democratic nation or that a democratic nation has open markets or any other thing which constitutes national interests. That is not saying that someone who supports democratizing other nations does not believe in realpolitik. It just means that they don’t do so for the principle of freedom and democracy. They do so for other reasons.
they wanted power so that they could use that power.
They wanted power for the same reason everyone does, for a certain end. When they got that power, as tends to happen with power, they were corrupted. They could get more and more of what they wanted, so they did.
much of that agenda was driven by religious fervor – not just going nuts with power.
Religious fervor is a type of power. You have the big guy in the sky backing you and if you please him, good things happen.
I still don’t see your point in any of this.
Both cases are relevant.
Depends on what you want to look at. Warm fuzzies like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be Roger Williams and Rhode Island. Enforceable Treaties like the Geneva Conventions would be Maryland. The warm fuzzies are great, but the codification is what is important. We could ask why does the US have a written Constitution? Warm fuzzies won’t keep less than angelic men in check.
Now, perhaps, you can understand why I find something very much missing from the Scooby gang’s story in S7.
No, because they aren’t a government and this is just a story. If I had to sit through the Scoobies version of the Continental Congress or Constitutional Convention, I’d hang myself. I’m sure the vast majority of the audience feels the same way. Television isn’t the Bill of Rights and majority tends to rule here.
Closest thing we got was the beginning of Season 6 where everyone says Willow is the boss of me. We don’t see that actual meeting, just a discussion that references it. The show is much more interested in showing the dynamics between the Scoobies and setting up exposition with their meetings than how they relate to the rest of the world.
The Scoobies aren’t a legal class. They are a bunch of friends that work together and are cemented by how they feel about each other. The check on their abuse of power isn’t some document that no one could enforce. It is their love for each other. How do you codify that?
But of course
I’ve used it before and I have it bookmarked.
TNT’s Drama Lounge, November 4, 2003 (around the time TNT started to air AtS) which can be found here
So don’t worry about Angel so much. He’ll be fine. He’s a hero. As the interviewer said, “Yet at its core, Angel remains a meditation on redemption and the qualities that make a hero.”
I think he tries to out-do everyone (meaning his father), to win at any cost, because he wants to show his father he is capable and successful.
WESLEY
I’ve done everything you ever asked, and I’ve done it well.
ROGER WYNDAM-PRICE
I asked for this, hmm? I wanted to be humiliated?
WESLEY
No, I suppose I don’t know what you really wanted.
(walks toward his father, still pointing a gun at him)
You never had any use for me as a child, and you can’t bear the thought of me as an adult. Tell me, father, what is it that galls you so, that I was never as good at the job as you… or that I just might be better?
A child tries to bring back the dead, and might just be able to-that takes a tremendous amount of ability and knowledge. Maybe Roger was worried that his son would out-shine him, and therefore spent Wes’s life telling him he was incompetant. So Wes tries to out-Watcher the Watchers, be more ruthless, use more extreme tactics, to prove his worth. I think what he is trying to cover up is his fear that his father’s right, and that makes him a lot like Angel. But at the same time he knows he ammassed a tremendous amount of knowledge and skills, which makes him a little arrogant. So he is also balancing arrogance and feelings of inferiority, like Buffy perhaps.
Thanks!
Hmmm… I was hoping for something a little more recent. Angel may well still be a hero, and the entire show might be a meditation on what it means to be a hero, but, as the quote by at the top stresses, it’s very important to know how Joss is fleshing out the notion of “hero” in these last few eps.
It seems to me we’ve had a five-year long meditation (eight years, if you count BtVS) on different definitions of “hero”, and the idea is an evolving one. So how is Joss going to define hero at the end of season 5? That’s what I’m trying to get a handle on.
So he is also balancing arrogance and feelings of inferiority, like Buffy perhaps.
This is a wonderful paradox, and it describes a good many people (on the show and in real life). “Damn I’m good! Except I suck, I’m scum, I’m not worthy. Daddy, tell me I’m good!”
Re: I think Lindsey’s comment is a lot like “love’s bitch”
But the employees aren’t behaving
They were doing worse before. They are behaving a lot more than they did before Angel showed up. Harmony at the very least would be feeding. If all these vampires are passing their tests, who are they eating and how are they covering it up? Angel isn’t interested in drugs like Vicodin. They test for human blood. They pick their battles in order to win the war.
that’s just what we know about.
Same can be said of the good they have done and what employees are no longer doing. I would be surprised if random blood tests haven’t had an effect. Human blood effects vampires, as we see when Angel is being doped with Connor’s. It leaves them with a craving. How many vampires have been on the wagon so far and how has this changed them?
Angel’s goal may be good, but his means is as important as his goal.
Conversely his goal is as important as his means. Should Buffy have spared Angel and sent the world to hell season 2?
he thougt he could use evil to do good.
Humans are both evil and good. He uses them to help him.
But you can’t, you can’t kill some people to save others.
Why not? If someone is threatening my family, you are saying I can’t defend them. If someone is threatening me, you as saying I can’t defend myself. Buffy kills sentient beings, vampires, to save others.
I am against Capital punishment because I believe that life shouldn’t be taken unless necessary. Incarceration serves the purpose of neutralizing the threat. In the Buffyverse, this isn’t an option. Sometimes in RL it isn’t an option. In war, lives are taken. People threaten each other and lives are lost. This shouldn’t be entered into lightly, but neither should it be dismissed as a course of action.
Angel is fighting THE apocalypse, the final battle of the war between good and evil. Things happen and if they don’t, worse things happen.
Angel thought about doing this for Fred, but chose not to. It would have been wrong.
Because of the balance sheet. He would be taking thousands of lives for one. He wasn’t objective about the decision either. He loved Fred, which meant he wanted to save her. To compensate for this, he discounted her. I’m not so sure I agree with his decision, not because it would have saved Fred, but because it would have contained Illyria. By not doing it, he unleashed a threat that they might not have been able to contain. What if her army was still alive?
Lindsey know that some people die to save others at W&H. He saw where his hand came from. He knows that letting others suffer-making compromises-for the greater good lets a lot of little bads happen
It wasn’t dying that got to him. First it was three small children being in danger. Then it was seeing not just death, but torture. Kill me. Wolfram and Hart isn’t about letting other suffer for the greater good. They let many suffer for the individual good. All those lots of little bads are going to happen. Angel can’t stop them. If he tries to, he’ll lose the war and then lots of big bads will happen.
It is easy to take a high stand on principle, but Angel’s epiphany had an if. What if that if isn’t met. What if there is a grand plan or glorious end to everything? Then what. Concentrating on all these smaller pictures will result in won battles and a lost war.
It looks like a big picture but the big picture is merely what you get when the little things are added up.
Without a frame, those little pictures have no where to go. Those little pictures needs something to be glued onto, otherwise there is NO picture. They can’t float in space.
I haven’t read any interviews since this one
I barely read anything before this. I am completely spoiler free. It’s been hard, but I did it. this summer, I’m going to go back and read everything I missed.
I wrote what I think he has been saying. It is an evolution, but I don’t think anything has really changed. Maybe some differences between Greenwalt and Joss, but that is about it. He said somewhere that he wasn’t going to end the season any differently than he planned to earlier. I think more cynicism has crept into the story, but the ending can be seen in “Conviction.” I love Joss’ premiers.
Instead of looking at it as a definition of “hero” try looking at it is a definition of “self” or “human.” That is what Angel represents. What does Joss believe makes us human.
I look forward to his message this season, even if it will be incomplete. Things are just getting started. Bad WB
Re: I haven’t read any interviews since this one
I look forward to his message this season, even if it will be incomplete. Things are just getting started. Bad WB
Well, Joss did some co-writing on the last script, which he hadn’t planned to do before the cancellation, but from what little I’ve heard, it is still pretty much the ending he had planned all season. To which I say, “More power to you, Joss”, because although the WB made its announcement in Feb to give Joss a chance to “wrap things up neatly”, Joss has a story he wants to tell, and giving his story a tacked-on ending he hadn’t planned on would mess up his story-telling.
I just hope we get more story later in some form. Because the story isn’t over!
As for his message, guess I’ll have to wait patiently for the next three eps and all our subsequent discussion as we try to work out Joss’ subtle ways.
Re: totally off topic
Oooh! Can I steal that icon?
It would be nonproductive for you and me to discuss Angel’s motivation because you see him as a hero without flaws who is a victim of circumstances and I see him as a tragic hero with a tragic flaw whose circumstances have causal relationship with his flaws.
I also think ME means us to see Angel as a tragic hero because of at least two coded words they used in Timebomb-king and ambition.
The tragic hero makes an error in judgement because of a flaw (TRAGIC FLAW) in his character. (In Macbeth’s case, it was his vaulting ambition)
And being ME, they have Angel tell Illyria the words he needs to hear:
Illyria: I am my power.
Angel: Illyria. The future could change here. You could chose a different path
Illyria: And be nothing
Angel: And be what you are. Fighting to hold on to what you were is destroying you.
Illyria is refusing to give up power and control because she thinks it will leave her with nothing, and it burns her up with its intensity. Angel could choose to be who he is but he’s too ambitious for that-he wants to save the world in one big showy gesture to prove his own worth, instead of save the world one person at a time, and let those people save others.
Angel: I need you to get through this. To get through all of it so we can figure out the big picture and plot our next move.
Gunn: Angel, she is our next move.
The big picture is made up of the little pictures. “Each act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.” That is something that Angel constantly must be reminded of, not something that he solves in one episode. There is no big “redemption,” just many many little acts of redemption. The way one shows redemption, that is, that one has changed, is by living a changed life, which Angel has always tried to do, failed, and tried again. It is an everyday thing, not a one-time thing. Is redeeming “to free from the consequences of sin” or is it “to change for the better”? Angel wants to be free of the consequences of his actions, but that doesn’t exist in the Buffyverse.
It is not others’ responsibility to deal with his issues, it is his own.
So maybe a hero is someone who always tries to make the right decision for the right reason, remembering each and every act has consequences and therefore an act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.
Quotes from buffyworld.com, mirriam-webster, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/2814/tragedy.htm
LOL!
Heaven help us all!
Re: Just so we are clear for future discussions
The definition ” politics based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations” says rather as such, it may NOT include loftier guiding principles.
Yes it can. First of all, Kissenger and Waltz aren’t the only Realists. Secondly, in some cases, circumstances yield a set of options which are apparently equivalent in outcome according to calculations of “Realipolitik”, and in such cases moral and ideological preferences become the tie breaker. Even among the most dispassionate practictioner, such considerations are never absent.
When they got that power, as tends to happen with power, they were corrupted. They could get more and more of what they wanted, so they did.
Those policy considerations were in play before the civil war erupted. It was part of the program before they got “corrupted”.
Warm fuzzies like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be Roger Williams and Rhode Island. Enforceable Treaties like the Geneva Conventions would be Maryland. The warm fuzzies are great, but the codification is what is important. We could ask why does the US have a written Constitution? Warm fuzzies won’t keep less than angelic men in check.
They are a bunch of friends that work together and are cemented by how they feel about each other. The check on their abuse of power isn’t some document that no one could enforce. It is their love for each other. How do you codify that?
You don’t see how these two ideas aren’t in conflict at a most basic level?
The Scoobies are a legal class. They’re an extrajudicial, non-state, law-enforcement organization. With no codified law.
As you noted, warm fuzzies don’t keep lesser men in check. And as we’ve already seen on the show, the slayers’ behavior may well sometimes qualify as that of lesser men. And Buffy just created a large number of superpowered individuals to carry out further enforcement.
Am I just not supposed to think about that issue because the story didn’t? So, you don’t see how this is relevant to Buffy in S7?
Re: totally off topic
You’re welcome to. It’s not mine. It was made by .
But in return, I want to steal all your schmoozing with the babes of BtVS/AtS! Iyari, Stephanie and soon Julie? *green*