|
Post by ldelrossi on Nov 28, 2003 21:18:59 GMT -5
Wow Kerrie - interesting point about intrinsic motivation and a great following discussion. I remember Angel's face when Wesley first told him about the prophecy. To me, he looked slightly surprised and almost uncertain about it. He did say "That would be nice," but I didn't get the feeling that he thought it was that important.
But in the second season, perhaps because of that knowledge, he did change. Remember that board with all of the cases? He took it away after his horrible mistake about that demon he killed who was protecting the pregnant woman. He also admitted he saw "the light at the end of the tunnel."
All of this quoting means that your discussion made me really think about what you said. I think Sister Teresa is a good example. She may have hoped that she will go to heaven, but that is not her motivation. She did what she did because she believed it was the right thing to do; because she knew that the people needed help and she had some gifts or talents that she could use to help them. After seeing Buffy, Angel said "I want to become someone." So initially Angel wanted to help the slayer, realizing that she was so young and believing that he had the ability to help her. He later discovered that he might atone for his cruelty by helping Buffy instead of being a bum, beating his breast but not doing anything for 100 years.
Later, in LA, he continued to help the help the helpless, but got even more focus when Doyle brought him his visions.
Karen's example of her son's behavior is a perfect example of what Angel was and still is deep down. In the first episode of Season 5, he saves the girl from the vampire, tells her to go home. When she asks him who he is he tells her it doesn't matter. He is totally embarrassed when the W&H lackeys show up. In a few other scenes someone mentions about Angel going off alone at night - continuing his original solitary helping the helpless from Season 1.
Now that Spike has learned about the prophecy, it is in the forefront again. Because of what happened with Connor, Angel says he doesn't put much faith in prophecies. But Spike finds out and brings it back into focus. Spike admits he wants to take something from Angel and he admits that he really wants it - "bit of both." It makes Angel think about the possibility of this wonderful reward again and because he and Spike have this turbulent history/pissing contest type relationship, Angel wants it again too and is devastated when he thinks he may not be "the one."
All of my rambling means that I think this is a wonderful observation. It made me think a lot - consequently the rambling.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Nov 29, 2003 16:50:42 GMT -5
I didn't think it was a rambling post at all. It was a great post and made me think of something else.
In my humble opinion, JW is a moralist: he tells his story with a moral in mind. This year one of the themes is corporations and how they corrupt people (i.e. change them from their ideals). I think one of his messages is that corporations partly corrupt people with fabulous rewards so that people forget that they started working for the corporation to use their powers for good, but instead focus on the hope that they can achieve something that everyone percieves is marvelous just by using the afore-mentioned talents. Competition makes the reward even more desirable. I think it is the rewards, the competition, the power and the grey decisions which JW is saying is the slippery slope to people selling out their ideals when they join a corporation: the young idealist who joins the firm is not the same as the pragmatist who leaves and it is the firm's bottom line not the individual's soul nor society who benefits from the change.
Sorry. Now this is even more rambling and speculative.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 29, 2003 17:23:10 GMT -5
I didn't think it was a rambling post at all. It was a great post and made me think of something else. In my humble opinion, JW is a moralist: he tells his story with a moral in mind. This year one of the themes is corporations and how they corrupt people (i.e. change them from their ideals). I think one of his messages is that corporations partly corrupt people with fabulous rewards so that people forget that they started working for the corporation to use their powers for good, but instead focus on the hope that they can achieve something that everyone percieves is marvelous just by using the afore-mentioned talents. Competition makes the reward even more desirable. I think it is the rewards, the competition, the power and the grey decisions which JW is saying is the slippery slope to people selling out their ideals when they join a corporation: the young idealist who joins the firm is not the same as the pragmatist who leaves and it is the firm's bottom line not the individual's soul nor society who benefits from the change. Sorry. Now this is even more rambling and speculative. I think this is very interesting speculation, Kerrie, and I do agree that providing rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation, and allow people to lose site of the original ideals that may have led them on a particular path. I love the connection you have made to the "corporate evil" theme we definitely have hit on this year (especially in "Life of the Party"). I know with my older son, threats of reward or punishment didn't work worth a darn. I would get tons of useless advice and listen with a sigh to the clicking tongues of others about my son's behavior - they were so sure I simply wasn't doing the reward/punishment thing correctly. But here was the simple truth about him: If he wanted to do something, he would do it. And if he didn't want to, he wouldn't. He would pass up a reward, and he would accept whatever punishment, but if he didn't have the inner drive, it was NOT going to happen. A challenging child, to say the least, and life is not easy for that fellow right now, and it never will be. But good golly, I love him loads. My younger one has always been more accomodating, maybe because he thought he had to make up for his brother. I love him loads, too. I worry about each of them in different ways.
|
|
|
Post by LadyDi on Nov 29, 2003 17:42:39 GMT -5
JW is very much a moralist. He has strong convictions, and I'm glad he's had the opportunity to share them with us. BtVS and AtS have gone far beyond the simple Good vs Evil into the Moral Ambiguity lacking in much of today's facile sound-bite, tell 'em what they want to hear mentallity. Spike has gone from braggidocio and arrogance to real self-confidence. Angel's controlling nature comes from his own lack of self-confidence. The shanshu prophecy had lost a lot of its importance to Angel, until Spike came along. Spike is real competition, and Angel could very easily lose what he's considered his. He can't take it, or anything else, for granted anymore. Angel's behavior in Chosen shows (IMO) that he still takes Buffy's love for granted. You don't really appreciate something unless you've worked for it. As far as Spike's concerned, he's earned what Angel hasn't and he's tired of being ignored. When the final apocalyptic battle comes, will Spike and Angel be fighting on the same side? The prophecy doesn't specify the vamp champ in question, or which side he'll be on. Angel and Spike could find themselves on opposite sides of the same fight.
|
|
|
Post by RAKSHA on Nov 29, 2003 19:33:06 GMT -5
I didn't think it was a rambling post at all. It was a great post and made me think of something else. In my humble opinion, JW is a moralist: he tells his story with a moral in mind. This year one of the themes is corporations and how they corrupt people (i.e. change them from their ideals). I think one of his messages is that corporations partly corrupt people with fabulous rewards so that people forget that they started working for the corporation to use their powers for good, but instead focus on the hope that they can achieve something that everyone percieves is marvelous just by using the afore-mentioned talents. Competition makes the reward even more desirable. I think it is the rewards, the competition, the power and the grey decisions which JW is saying is the slippery slope to people selling out their ideals when they join a corporation: the young idealist who joins the firm is not the same as the pragmatist who leaves and it is the firm's bottom line not the individual's soul nor society who benefits from the change. Sorry. Now this is even more rambling and speculative. Kerrie - You're back! YAY!
I hope that JW's theme for this season is a bit less facile than that of corporations being evil institutions.
I am communicating with everyone here via the fruits of a big, powerful corporation - Microsoft. Do I feel bad about it? Do I feel that all corporations are evil? Not at all. The power held by a corporation can be used for good or evil, or both; it depends on what people, i.e. executives and shareholders, decide.
I would say that this season's theme is more one of the uses of power, and the effects of that power upon the user. I maintain that Gunn will have a moral crisis someday; not because he took power when it was offered, but because he did not personally work to achieve the power given to him, he took the quick and easy way to success. Gunn is doing great good, but he is disconnected from those affected by the good he does. Ditto Angel. Power can separate the powerful from the people they want to help; be it corporate or military or political or even religious power. (who's done more good - the Pope or Mother Theresa?)
[glow=red,2,300]GAIL [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by ldelrossi on Nov 29, 2003 20:53:41 GMT -5
I also agree that JW is a moralist. For me, Spike is the character that represents an aetheistic JW's belief. Spike killed as a vampire, but he never tortured his victims; he killed them, drank from them, whatever.
Spike learned his morality first from a loving mother. He carried at least some of the morality with him even as a vampire. He took care of Dru and loved and protected her in spite of her betrayal of him. We saw his development on Buffy from a selfish, self-absorbed vampire into one that performed unselfish acts on the perimeter and then on the inside of the Scoobie gang.
The chip took away his ability to fight humans and thus he was less consumed by that activity, which opened the door for his "kindness" to develop even further. His concern and love for Dawn was "pure" and beautiful. Spike was so horrified by his AR of Buffy and also hurt by Buffy's behavior, he travelled to Africa to endure trials to get a soul - a soul he believed would make him worthy of the slayer, because he knew a soul was vital to all of the humans as a moral compass. He didn't realize that he already had some inner morality.
All of Spike's "good" actions had nothing to do with religion or a god, they all had to do with his own inner morality and love - first for his mother, then Dru, Dawn, Buffy and even the others.
Through Spike, JW puts forth one of his most powerful messages - there is natural, inner good in many beings, demons and humans, without benefit of imposed tenets of religions. Whether you agree with JW's position or not, I think in Spike, he has created a character who puts forth his belief with humor, strength, realistic behavior and flaws and sweetness. (Spike would hate that last one I know! ;D)
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 29, 2003 23:19:46 GMT -5
Through Spike, JW puts forth one of his most powerful messages - there is natural, inner good in many beings, demons and humans, without benefit of imposed tenets of religions. Whether you agree with JW's position or not, I think in Spike, he has created a character who puts forth his belief with humor, strength, realistic behavior and flaws and sweetness. (Spike would hate that last one I know! ;D) I can agree with this, Lori. But then it makes me wonder what JW is trying to tell us through Angel. That the tenets of religion imposed on a person can riddle them with guilt to the point of despair?
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 30, 2003 10:55:50 GMT -5
I can agree with this, Lori. But then it makes me wonder what JW is trying to tell us through Angel. That the tenets of religion imposed on a person can riddle them with guilt to the point of despair? I keep hoping that the lesson is going to be that guilt over things past is no substitute for present action; Angel SAYS, over and over again, that that's the point (most explicitly in "Epiphany" and "Orpheus" and in his speech at the wrestling arena, when Numero 5 walks out). He just keeps acting as if guilt is a worthy end in itself. Julia
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Nov 30, 2003 11:07:41 GMT -5
I can agree with this, Lori. But then it makes me wonder what JW is trying to tell us through Angel. That the tenets of religion imposed on a person can riddle them with guilt to the point of despair? Maybe not religion as such - maybe that it's possible to become so wrapped up in your guilt that it becomes the whole point of your existence - you stop trying to do anything else, even make amends. I'm also thinking of Buffy, for example when Faith killed the Mayor's assistant, or when she thought she'd murdered Warren's victim. Buffy, like Angel, takes her guilt very seriously.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 30, 2003 15:11:47 GMT -5
Maybe not religion as such - maybe that it's possible to become so wrapped up in your guilt that it becomes the whole point of your existence - you stop trying to do anything else, even make amends. I'm also thinking of Buffy, for example when Faith killed the Mayor's assistant, or when she thought she'd murdered Warren's victim. Buffy, like Angel, takes her guilt very seriously. Here is the thing: Buffy & Angel "take their guilt very seriously" precisely because they will not accept their darksides as part of themselves (well, I think Buffy does do that by the end of the series, but not during the examples you very astutely mention, Anne). I read a lot of speculation about how Spike isn't as remorseful as Angel, etc. But in fact, we see that Spike was crippled by guilt at the beginning of Season 7. The difference is that he goes on to accept responsiblity and therefore deal with the guilt. It is NOT Spike who hasn't accepted responsibility for his crimes. It is Angel. It is Angel who - because of the curse and the very different circumstances of his soul-getting - insists on the separation that makes him unable to deal with the guilt. LISTEN: SPIKE: Do you have any idea what I'm capable of? BUFFY: I was in the cellar with you. I saw what you did. SPIKE: I'm not talking about the cellar. The people in the cellar got off easy. I'm talking about me. Buffy, you have never met the real me. Later, same conversation: BUFFY: It's not your fault. You're not the one doing this. SPIKE: I already did it. It's already done. (challenging) You wanna know what I've done to girls Dawn's age? This is me Buffy. You've got to kill me before I get out. Later, same conversation: BUFFY: . . . Was that you who killed those people in the cellar? Was that you who waited for those girls? SPIKE: There's no one else. Notice how reminscent this is of his recent conversation with Angel, when he tells Angel that Angel doesn't know "the real me." In that case, Spike is talking about his good side. Spike claims both sides as the real him. It's all him. And that's why he's been able to deal with the guilt. If you don't claim the acts, if you don't accept responsibility for them, you can never deal with guilt. It is there, oppressing you, forever. LISTEN TO ANGEL HERE: FRED: Angel, you can’t feel guilty for anything Angelus did. ANGEL: I don’t. I knew the risks. We all did… and some of us paid a higher price than others . . . there’s no excuse for… what Angelus did to her but I’m sorry for your loss. Notice the difference in the way Spike talks about what soulless Spike did, and the way Angel talks about what soulless Angel did. Angel talks very much as if someone else did the deeds. Angel says that he doesn't feel guilty, but we know that he does, we've seen that he feels enormously guilty over what he does as Angelus. But as long as he doesn't realize that HE did these things, that "there's no one else" he won't be able to process that guilt. That's where I think this whole arc is going - that's what the "Spike is more evolved" is all about from Joss - I just can't figure out for the life of me HOW he's going to pull off any type of Angel/Angelus integration for Angel.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 30, 2003 15:35:03 GMT -5
Here is the thing: Buffy & Angel "take their guilt very seriously" precisely because they will not accept their darksides as part of themselves (well, I think Buffy does do that by the end of the series, but not during the examples you very astutely mention, Anne). I read a lot of speculation about how Spike isn't as remorseful as Angel, etc. But in fact, we see that Spike was crippled by guilt at the beginning of Season 7. The difference is that he goes on to accept responsiblity and therefore deal with the guilt. It is NOT Spike who hasn't accepted responsibility for his crimes. It is Angel. It is Angel who - because of the curse and the very different circumstances of his soul-getting - insists on the separation that makes him unable to deal with the guilt. LISTEN: SPIKE: Do you have any idea what I'm capable of? BUFFY: I was in the cellar with you. I saw what you did. SPIKE: I'm not talking about the cellar. The people in the cellar got off easy. I'm talking about me. Buffy, you have never met the real me. Later, same conversation: BUFFY: It's not your fault. You're not the one doing this. SPIKE: I already did it. It's already done. (challenging) You wanna know what I've done to girls Dawn's age? This is me Buffy. You've got to kill me before I get out. Later, same conversation: BUFFY: . . . Was that you who killed those people in the cellar? Was that you who waited for those girls? SPIKE: There's no one else. Notice how reminscent this is of his recent conversation with Angel, when he tells Angel that Angel doesn't know "the real me." In that case, Spike is talking about his good side. Spike claims both sides as the real him. It's all him. And that's why he's been able to deal with the guilt. If you don't claim the acts, if you don't accept responsibility for them, you can never deal with guilt. It is there, oppressing you, forever. LISTEN TO ANGEL HERE: FRED: Angel, you can’t feel guilty for anything Angelus did. ANGEL: I don’t. I knew the risks. We all did… and some of us paid a higher price than others . . . there’s no excuse for… what Angelus did to her but I’m sorry for your loss. Notice the difference in the way Spike talks about what soulless Spike did, and the way Angel talks about what soulless Angel did. Angel talks very much as if someone else did the deeds. Angel says that he doesn't feel guilty, but we know that he does, we've seen that he feels enormously guilty over what he does as Angelus. But as long as he doesn't realize that HE did these things, that "there's no one else" he won't be able to process that guilt. That's where I think this whole arc is going - that's what the "Spike is more evolved" is all about from Joss - I just can't figure out for the life of me HOW he's going to pull off any type of Angel/Angelus integration for Angel. Great points, Spring. In reinforcement of the differences: after "Epiphany", Angel returns to AI because he can help, but immediatly begins to take over again. In "Beneath You" Spike says he wants to help, and throughout Season 7, that's what he does, or at least intends to do- for instance, as soon as he thinks he's "Done some very bad things" he goes to Buffy and exposes his own crimes to her (compare with Angel's reaction when Cordy says "You could have gone crazy and slept with Darla..."). In all of Season 7, he's the only one who's really "all about the mission". Julia, for instance, Giles is at least partly about maintaining control over Buffy
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on Nov 30, 2003 17:23:12 GMT -5
I'm again following a really fascinating and cogent discussion with great enjoyment. What a splendid way to while away the time until the next Angel ep!
Following the new Sc'ubie custom of signing posts,
Nan, whose first and only time in life it is to have the chance and the willingness to be a cheerleader!
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 30, 2003 20:54:43 GMT -5
<snip> That's where I think this whole arc is going - that's what the "Spike is more evolved" is all about from Joss - I just can't figure out for the life of me HOW he's going to pull off any type of Angel/Angelus integration for Angel. Good stuff, Spring. And I also can't figure out how JW is going to pull off the Angel/Angelus integration. The only way I see that it might happen is if Angel finally accepts Angelus, and that acceptance is what finally makes him Shanshu. Other than that, I'm stumped. I hope we have a few more years of Angel/Angelus conflict, tho. And a few more years of Spike and his newly ensouled status. I think we have just seen the tip of the iceburg with his new-found corporealization.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Dec 2, 2003 16:43:22 GMT -5
Good stuff, Spring. And I also can't figure out how JW is going to pull off the Angel/Angelus integration. The only way I see that it might happen is if Angel finally accepts Angelus, and that acceptance is what finally makes him Shanshu. Other than that, I'm stumped. I hope we have a few more years of Angel/Angelus conflict, tho. And a few more years of Spike and his newly ensouled status. I think we have just seen the tip of the iceburg with his new-found corporealization. Your comment made me think, Karen, about how JW will pull off the integration of Angel/Angelus. I do not know much about any type of counselling psychology, but I remember a little bit of it and re-read some relevant bits from my old psych text books. Granted they are probably all out of date now, but it was still interesting to me and maybe others. Hypothesis 1: Multiple Personality Disorder. If Angel had a multiple personality disorder, like Sybil, then Angelus has existed within him fo years and was only triggered to apear once he became a vampire. Angelus would have been created to cope with extreme stress - possibly involving extreme physical, sexual and/or emotional abuse probably by his family. Thus, in this situation we would guess that Angel's father created the initial stress. Interestingly, the psychology text says that the first persona (Angel) is usually restrained and dull, whilst the second (Angelus) is more impulsive and unihibited. This is a contentious hypothesis and my old text book strongly implies there is no such thing (i.e. that it is created by hypnotic suggestion or stress and pretense). Thus no cure is suggested. However, in the book Sybil the Doctor used psychoanalysis and hypnosis. However, the key thing to integration was getting Sybil to accept the other parts and recognise the traumas that created them. Hypothesis 2: Anger Management. The second hypothesis is similar to the first and probably could be called the Incredible Hulk hypothesis. Someone who suppresses their anger finds release through another personality. Angelus is very aggressive whilst Angel displays more passive aggressive ways of dealing with anger. Thus the anger builds within Angel and Angelus absorbs it all. The cure would be for Angel to learn some more appropriate ways for handling his anger/aggression than simply bottling it up. Hypothesis 3: Irrational Thinking. The third hypothesis is that the split between Angel and Angelus is based on Angel's irrational self-beliefs about emotional vulnerability and perfection. Angel strives for control over himself and his environment. Emotional vulnerability is created by him loving someone like his family or friends. All of whom have hurt him and made him realise that he is less than in control. Instead os accepting the rational idea that people we love can hurt us and that we cannot have control over our world, Angel still struggles to achieve both of these impossible dreams. Angelus is a manifestation of his irrational beliefs: powerful, controlling and emotional invulnerable. The integration of Angel/Angelus would lie in Angel recognising and removing his irrational thoughts and then dealing with his anger issues. Hypothesis 4: The drunk analogy. I think JW said he created Angel/Angelus with the drunk in mind. In this case, the cure, according to some, would be for Angel to avoid lettng Angelus out. Other cures for mean drunks is for them to deal with their issues when they are sober so that they don't act out when there conscience is suppressed (i.e. when they are drunk). Hypothesis 5: The soul. The last hypothesis is getting back to the Jane Austen (Fanny Price in Mansfield Park) notion that good manners are not simply social obligations but a way of thinking. Angel suppresses his more aggressive tendencies and thoughts instead of dealing with the fact that he feels so aggressivel towards people. In the final ananlysis, the soul simply controls the expression of inapproriate behaviour, if Angel did not have the thoughts/feelings there would be nothing to control. I hope this makes sense. I have got a bad feeling that eanyone reading this will think that I have just said the same thing five times. There are minor differences between the hypotheses about the cause and treatment of the split between Angel/Angelus and maybe all hypotheses need to be used because Angel is multi-layered with more than one trigger and more than issue to be resolved.
|
|
|
Post by Nickim on Dec 2, 2003 17:03:50 GMT -5
Your comment made me think, Karen, about how JW will pull off the integration of Angel/Angelus. I do not know much about any type of counselling psychology, but I remember a little bit of it and re-read some relevant bits from my old psych text books. Granted they are probably all out of date now, but it was still interesting to me and maybe others. Hypothesis 1: Multiple Personality Disorder. If Angel had a multiple personality disorder, like Sybil, then Angelus has existed within him fo years and was only triggered to apear once he became a vampire. Angelus would have been created to cope with extreme stress - possibly involving extreme physical, sexual and/or emotional abuse probably by his family. Thus, in this situation we would guess that Angel's father created the initial stress. Interestingly, the psychology text says that the first persona (Angel) is usually restrained and dull, whilst the second (Angelus) is more impulsive and unihibited. This is a contentious hypothesis and my old text book strongly implies there is no such thing (i.e. that it is created by hypnotic suggestion or stress and pretense). Thus no cure is suggested. However, in the book Sybil the Doctor used psychoanalysis and hypnosis. However, the key thing to integration was getting Sybil to accept the other parts and recognise the traumas that created them. Hypothesis 2: Anger Management. The second hypothesis is similar to the first and probably could be called the Incredible Hulk hypothesis. Someone who suppresses their anger finds release through another personality. Angelus is very aggressive whilst Angel displays more passive aggressive ways of dealing with anger. Thus the anger builds within Angel and Angelus absorbs it all. The cure would be for Angel to learn some more appropriate ways for handling his anger/aggression than simply bottling it up. Hypothesis 3: Irrational Thinking. The third hypothesis is that the split between Angel and Angelus is based on Angel's irrational self-beliefs about emotional vulnerability and perfection. Angel strives for control over himself and his environment. Emotional vulnerability is created by him loving someone like his family or friends. All of whom have hurt him and made him realise that he is less than in control. Instead os accepting the rational idea that people we love can hurt us and that we cannot have control over our world, Angel still struggles to achieve both of these impossible dreams. Angelus is a manifestation of his irrational beliefs: powerful, controlling and emotional invulnerable. The integration of Angel/Angelus would lie in Angel recognising and removing his irrational thoughts and then dealing with his anger issues. Hypothesis 4: The drunk analogy. I think JW said he created Angel/Angelus with the drunk in mind. In this case, the cure, according to some, would be for Angel to avoid lettng Angelus out. Other cures for mean drunks is for them to deal with their issues when they are sober so that they don't act out when there conscience is suppressed (i.e. when they are drunk). Hypothesis 5: The soul. The last hypothesis is getting back to the Jane Austen (Fanny Price in Mansfield Park) notion that good manners are not simply social obligations but a way of thinking. Angel suppresses his more aggressive tendencies and thoughts instead of dealing with the fact that he feels so aggressivel towards people. In the final ananlysis, the soul simply controls the expression of inapproriate behaviour, if Angel did not have the thoughts/feelings there would be nothing to control. I hope this makes sense. I have got a bad feeling that eanyone reading this will think that I have just said the same thing five times. There are minor differences between the hypotheses about the cause and treatment of the split between Angel/Angelus and maybe all hypotheses need to be used because Angel is multi-layered with more than one trigger and more than issue to be resolved. This is fascinating.
|
|