For some reason, TNT is having an overnight Angel marathon tonight -- it starts at Midnight. (In five minutes!)

---

He took a soul-sucking job because it was the only way to provide for his kid.

And that's a noble thing to do, right? Right?

Mmm. I don't know. It was all he could do, because of who he is. If Angel had done otherwise, I would have felt like I was watching a different show.

This is where the dread C word comes in handy. Angel isn't a hero--never was. He got involved in fighting demons, because he was in love with Buffy, and Buffy (a hero, not generally a champion) fought demons. He stayed involved (see I Will Remember You) not to save the world, but because if he stayed human, Buffy would have died.

In Home, he had to be him, or something. He had to save the person he loved. The other people he saved, he saved because they needed him to save him. His is less of a crusade than the slayer's life.

---

He took a soul-sucking job because it was the only way to provide for his kid.

Oh, I guess I wasn't clear. That's exactly how I see it, too.

I just thought, like Anne pointed out, that from a different way of looking at things, it's not surprising that the show, based on a vampire using his vampire's strengths to fight evil, has taken that step, as well.

Which decision do you mean?

To even try to fight the cirlce, which, just like you pointed out, had worked.

They succeeded in destroying the Circle, and that seemed like more than a symbolic victory. What happened in the alley was a consequence of winning.

Yup. And charging that is also a desicion, in and of itself.

Angel isn't a hero--never was.

I'm afraid I'm completely ignorant in the definitions of things. What makes somebody a hero?

---

I'm not sure my differentiating between the terms is that useful for anyone who isn't me. But I see a champion as someone who is fighting for a particular cause (be that another person, or some other reason dear to him). To me, a hero is fighting because of the rightness of it.

Buffy has this whole mystical-bloodline thing going. She was endowed with her powers, in order to fight evil. She was chosen, and when called, she answered the call, even though she didn't want to, because it was the right thing to do.

Angel got his powers because he gave into evil. When he was transformed by the Gypsy Curse, he was no longer happy doing evil. That's why he stopped. He didn't start fighting evil because evil is evil. He started fighting evil because he fell in love with Buffy.

---

That's why he started, but don't you think he got over that?

---

That's why he started, but don't you think he got over that?

I do. Once he realized he had to let Buffy go, that definitely redefined his purpose and his reasons for fighting evil became a lot more flexible.

---

I thought the structure of A:ts kept it going.

When City Of... begins, we see Angel killing vamps, etc., as he comes across them, but eschewing all involvement with people. In fact Doyle's little sales-pitch to him was that he couldn't keep playing the lone-avenger and remain all detached from the people he helps. His cravings for human blood will grow and without making that connection and seeing the helpees as real people, he's going to have less ability to resist cheating on his diet. As the series continues, Angel takes on cases. Buffy never took on cases in that way.

Buffy encountered evil, sometimes because she made a connection with evil's victims, but as often as not, because the evil-doers actions made the news, or a corpse was found, or evil was bent on destroying the slayer and/or the world.

Angel encountered evil by seeing how people had been victimized. The helpless came to him, and so he helped. One of the great elements of A:ts (to me) is that he fought evil because the victims mattered to him. It was a great pennance for someone who'd killed in cold blood, for over a century.

---

Well, the victims always mattered to Angelus. He didn't kill in cold blood so much as deliberately and with a flourish. Angelus sought to inflict maximum suffering. Barring the part in the middle where he's either withdrawn from people or crazy eating rats in alleys, Angel(us) has always been about the victim. The difference is Modern Angel seeks to alleviate suffering instead of cause it.

---

I don't think the victims mattered to Angelus as much as Angelus mattered to Angelus. I agree with everything else you said. But obsession isn't about the object of obsession, it's about the obsessor.

---

Right. Angelus viewed himself as an artist of pain and cruelty, but I gather that each victim was merely a blank canvas for him, rather than something to be valued in their own right.

---