Buffy and Angel 1: BUFFYNANGLE4EVA!!!!!1!
Is it better the second time around? Or the third? Or tenth? This is the place to come when you have a burning desire to talk about an old episode that was just re-run.
One of the great elements of A:ts (to me) is that he fought evil because the victims mattered to him.
Wow. I'm kind of startled by that. (Sorry, I don't mean "I can't believe you're crazy enough to say such a thing!" -- it's more like "Whaddya mean you see two faces? It's clearly a vase!") I think Angel got off on being a hero. Not that he didn't care about the victims at all, but... he cares about the victims in as much as it gives him a reason to beat up the villains, because that's what he's really in it for.
The difference is Modern Angel seeks to alleviate suffering instead of cause it.
I can't agree there, either. Angel tried to avenge suffering, and maybe prevent it, but I think that'd be his own justification to cover the fact that, souled or not, he's just an enormous sadist. He still likes to cause suffering; he just made the same discovery Spike did in "Doomed" -- that killing monsters is almost as much fun as torturing innocents. And for Angel, in both cases I think there's also an ego thrill that wasn't there so much for Spike.
Joining this discussion very late, I recall voting for the "Angel: Kind of His Own Bitch" thread title, because I thought it was true. Which is to say, practically anything Angel ever did (or that happened to him) occurred because it reflected on Angel, and a lot of the time the ordinary people involved got chewed up and spit out pointlessly.
(Drusilla as Angel-victim was established in canon via narrative a long time before she was fleshed out in a flashback. We saw the effect -- Angel's actions -- long before the cause -- Drusilla herself, her consciousness -- mattered to us. Drusilla literally does not matter, except in plot terms and how she reflects ideas about Angel: even in her post-rape scene, the camera leaves her face, and wanders away to focus on him.)
I don't know as how I can blame Angel for that -- he wasn't a writer -- but certainly his character and his show differed vastly from Buffy, moreso as the later seasons tended to become socially isolated. repeated use of the word "champion" was also a factor.
I'm afraid I'm completely ignorant in the definitions of things. What makes somebody a hero?
...so apparently I'm the only one who saw that and immediately thought "somebody who gets other people killed"? *runs away*
One of the great elements of A:ts (to me) is that he fought evil because the victims mattered to him.
Wow. I'm kind of startled by that. (Sorry, I don't mean "I can't believe you're crazy enough to say such a thing!" -- it's more like "Whaddya mean you see two faces? It's clearly a vase!")
a) This might be the most fun disagreement line I've ever come across online.
b) Without the prior bits for context, I am afraid my "mattered" looks like it means more than I intended, and I should have worded it better. Angel (most of the time) got into his fights because people came to him for help. The Angel Investigations agency was the means by which he found out about various and sundry evils. He was helping the helpless. That's how he's a champion. Buffy went looking for big, brewing evil, that's how she's the hero.
Inasmuch as I make a distinction between the two terms, I think "champion" fits Angel because he was specifically chosen for his little crusade against evil by TPTB and was sort of their earthly button man, acting on their frequent directives to further their goals. Buffy was likewise chosen for her destiny by... well, something... but seemed to be largely self-motivated in her fight against evil. I think she would have ended up helping any people she ran across with supernatural woes even without the influence of the Watchers, whereas without Doyle and Cordelia prodding him Angel might have just as easily wasted a few decades brooding and sulking.
Without the prior bits for context, I am afraid my "mattered" looks like it means more than I intended, and I should have worded it better.
Oh. But...but... I was all set for a fun debate! Poop. (But it's nice of you to make it sound like it's your fault and not mine for putting that sentence in isolation.)
Wait, I may be able to save myself from the horrors of concordance. Because I did (I think) get what you were saying re Doyle's wanting Angel to take a more personal interest in the, uh... customers? I just don't think that's what actually happened. Angel was humanized by getting involved in the lives of his co-workers, not the people he was ostensibly helping. I think he took on cases because helping the helpless was an efficient way of locating brewing evil. If his primary goal was helping people, they'd have all gone to work for Anne.
And rereading that, I have no idea if I'm making any sense at all, and/or continuing to misunderstand you. But that's why I like debates. Eventually I'll be forced into coherence. Probably.
Wait, I may be able to save myself from the
horrors of concordance.
The only way you could do that is by skipping season 4.
I thought she was saving herself from the horrors of being an index for the shows.
I don't know if I'd put it that way. The nature of the obsession is the power you imbue to the source of your fascination. But there is a transference so the object of attention is supercharged with your particular fucked-upedness. So I wouldn't say it's "never about the object." The object becomes it's own little power center medallion loaded magical interest.
Not really. That is how the obsessed person sees the object, but it is not the object's fault. The object hasn't (necessarily) changed. Obsession takes place within the obsessor. Of course there is a focus or object of obsession, but the object didn't cause the obsession, and in the end, obsession is completely selfish on the part of the obsessor. If it's not completely selfish, then there's at least some love in the mix.
Wait, I may be able to save myself from the horrors of concordance. Because I did (I think) get what you were saying re Doyle's wanting Angel to take a more personal interest in the, uh... customers? I just don't think that's what actually happened. Angel was humanized by getting involved in the lives of his co-workers, not the people he was ostensibly helping. I think he took on cases because helping the helpless was an efficient way of locating brewing evil. If his primary goal was helping people, they'd have all gone to work for Anne.
Heh. I won't go back and read what I wrote because why would I do that to myself, and I feel like such a disappointment, because I don't take much (if any issue) with what you've just said. All I was trying to do originally was differentiate between hero and champion.
Buffy was chosen--called and responded to the call--to fight the fight. Angel fights because something about each battle he enters engages him some how. I don't mean to portray him as having a deep and/or lasting concern or sympathy for all his clients. But for the most part, someone comes to him for help, and he helps, or he's aware of someone in need of help, and so he helps. I agree that he gets a charge out of saving the day.
And rereading that, I have no idea if I'm making any sense at all, and/or continuing to misunderstand you. But that's why I like debates. Eventually I'll be forced into coherence. Probably.
Let's talk Wesley, then.
(I'm sorry, you're probably as tired of that as Sars is of SARS jokes.)
The only way you could do that is by skipping season 4.
You know, first I wrote "concord," and saw the setup, and so then I started to change it to "harmony," but...
Cindy -- But I don't understand the distinction you're making. And I'm curious about it. So if you agree with me, I'm even more confused. Or was that your plan all along? Hmm.
Were my opinions about Wesley incoherent? I tried to be clear. I waffled too much, right? Should have just said what I really thought for once. Damn. (Hee. For the record: no, it's fine, I got very little of that. You are correct about Sars, though.)
