|
|
Post by Queen E on Sept 30, 2004 22:27:50 GMT -5
Hit me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Oct 1, 2004 10:54:50 GMT -5
Wow! How do you do that? I haven't rewatched the episode, but I wanted to tell you how much I loved your review, Erin. My favorite episodes are those that delve into nature of evil and the soul. I loved your paralleling of Spike and Ryan. That's what I always thought!  LOL!! And I really liked your closing paragraph: I can't wait to rewatch with your review in mind. And then maybe I'll have something a little more insightful to offer to the discussion.  Thank you so much! |
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Oct 1, 2004 11:38:01 GMT -5
Wow! How do you do that? I haven't rewatched the episode, but I wanted to tell you how much I loved your review, Erin. My favorite episodes are those that delve into nature of evil and the soul. Hmm, mine too, despite my long-standing exorcism fear. That was one of those lightning bolt moments, because Stephanie's intonations in that scene sounded so familiar, and then I realized: A ha! And he's blonde! And mini-marshmallows! Thank you! And I do the same with Spikecentricity; she always picks up on a million things I've missed. I like your insights! |
|
|
|
Post by Patti - S'cubie Cutie on Oct 1, 2004 16:51:11 GMT -5
Great job, Erin, you amaze me with what you see in these episodes - I expect you are correct about the Spike analogy- I often forget that the two series were paralleling each other at that time. Nice catch! Also, your analysis of why the ethros was so desparate to get out of the child was spot on I think.
Keep em coming!
|
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Oct 1, 2004 17:25:38 GMT -5
Great job, Erin, you amaze me with what you see in these episodes - I expect you are correct about the Spike analogy- I often forget that the two series were paralleling each other at that time. Nice catch! Also, your analysis of why the ethros was so desparate to get out of the child was spot on I think. Keep em coming! Thanks! I had the worst time trying to figure out what frightened the Ethros so badly; the idea of starvation, and all the focus on food in the episode, was the closest I could come to figuring it out. That's one question Joss never answered: Do demons have souls? Or not? |
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Oct 3, 2004 11:41:47 GMT -5
Almost too many things in this analysis that are interesting / intriguing, Erin! I’m having a hard time knowing where to begin to respond. Of course, this is one of my favorite eps of the first season, so that’s probably part of it , but you also have a knack for turning a phrase. Like: Nicely put. Very nicely put. Loved your section on “Fathers, Sons, and Families”. You said: We’ve been dancing around daddy issues for a while now in AtS. And how appropriate that this episode, which brings them much closer to the surface, is immediately followed by “The Prodigal”, in which they stop being subtext and step right up as the main storyline. Perhaps it was the Ethros demon’s words and the experience of the Anderson case “getting under the skin” of our characters in this episode that allows the past to come forward so strongly in the next. I’m glad though, that you titled the section “Fathers, Sons, and Families”. You begin your section about Angel with these words: You pointed out something I hadn’t really picked up on. I think I was so focused on the Andersons, and thinking about how important it was that Angel made sure Seth knew he had kept the family “safe” (minus Ryan) that I missed the obvious comparison to Angel’s little “family” framed by that shot. And this is such a basic Joss theme – how you form your own family. Your thoughts about “who is the evil one” and how we are presented with clues just blew me away. Really! Especially: Hadn't thought of that connection at all! Like other posters mentioned, I have wondered about why the Ethros demon was so upset about Ryan? As you said, this should have been a perfect match. I liked your idea that: I would add to that the issue of Power (since that is also such a basic Jossian theme). When the Ethros said “I just sat there and watched” or “I couldn’t control him. I couldn’t get out”, I can imagine the shock it must have been to the demon when he first possessed the boy. Perhaps the demon would also have, in theory, thought that possessing someone like Ryan would be the ultimate marriage of evil. But then it discovers the truth – what it’s like to step into a situation in which you expect to be the biggest bad in the house (hmmmm, more shades of Spike?), the one in charge, making this poor innocent do all these thing you know it will loathe, only to find out the position is already filled. The demon talks about the most frightening thing being “nothing” because, IMHO, he needs more than just to do evil in the world. I think the Ethros demon got its power from the changing of innocence to evil. To find it already done, no innocence to corrupt, no “soul” to steal, would mean he had no purpose, and with no power, no way to escape. Of course he wanted to die. But I think my favorite part of your analysis was this: Because it just struck me as sooooo true and so obviously what Joss was doing all along. His use of demons and vampires and hellmouths, (oh my) was always meant to comment on the “real” world. (High school is hell for so many folks – hey, let’s make high school actual hell!) Thanks so much for this review, Erin! I really appreciated reading it. Lola |
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Oct 4, 2004 22:50:10 GMT -5
Almost too many things in this analysis that are interesting / intriguing, Erin! I’m having a hard time knowing where to begin to respond. Of course, this is one of my favorite eps of the first season, so that’s probably part of it , but you also have a knack for turning a phrase. Like: Nicely put. Very nicely put. Thanks! I thought that was a nice metaphor they gave us for what families try to hide. Yes, it was really hard to tease apart the two episodes; they are so very related. Nicely put with the "subtext becoming text" in the next episode. And I think you're absolutely right; it's one of the things that makes the Whedonverse shows so special; there really is no such thing as a "one off" episode. Even "The Ring" (the next on our list after "The Prodigal") has long-range repurcussions, not the least of which is the introduction of one Lilah Morgan. I hadn't really thought of it either until this viewing. The more I'm doing these analyses, the more I realize that they never really waste a shot; when they do an aerial or an off-center shot, there is always a reason. And I'm such a slut for commentary tracks, and Joss will always talk about the camera work. Thanks! It's funny that some moments that I think are just funny bits (oh, look, Wes is scared of a doll!) take on a greater resonance as the episode continues. That was the hardest part to write, and I really am not sure I completely captured it. It's a little maddening, because we never get a clear answer on the nature of demons and souls in the Jossverse. We hear vamps have no souls, that Clem and Merl are also soulless. But then D'Hoffryn talks about taking "the life and soul of a vengence demon." I can fanwank that, but the Ethros thing was a huge stumbling block. I think you hit it when you pointed out that it's about power (hee!). There was nothing for the Ethros to do inside Ryan. And it is one of the creepiest things I've ever seen on Angel; especially since I still have lingering "Exorcist" fear. And we get that more on Angel than on Buffy, in some ways. Sunnydale, like any small town, is essentially a closed system: you know the boundaries and you know who the authority is and how to subvert it. Angel is really dealing in an open system in which he controls nothing and knows very few people. Things are never really cleanly resolved on Angel (look at what happens with Kate). Can't wait until we get to the Hyperion and all the things that happen there, too! Thanks, Lola; your comments always make me delve even deeper into the episodes! |
|
|
|
Post by Riff on Oct 5, 2004 14:25:56 GMT -5
Yes, a major theme here is the effects of the past. In fact, particularly in Wesley’s case it has (dare I say it) a psychoanalytic dimension. Obviously Wesley’s difficult relationship with his father provides some resonance with the hilarious speculations of the Oedipus complex, but more seriously there is also the return of the repressed. It is probably not an exaggeration to suggest that Wesley suffered trauma in his childhood, and he attempts various strategies to overcome this. Always, it returns to haunt him.
My mind had made the connection between Wesley and Harry Potter both being in the cupboard under the stairs, but for some reason never drew out any of the implications. I suppose I would add that, like Harry, Wesley attaches himself to a surrogate family who can provide the nurturing he hasn’t known. As you point out, Wesley expects to be rejected for his mistakes in this episode, but learns that he has found people who actually accept and support him. This probably has the double function of cementing his position as Doyle’s replacement in the cast.
It has been a little while since I saw the episode, but I don’t think I picked up on the thematic link between the Anderson’s group hug and Angel’s return to Wes and Cordy. Very perceptive. This is absolutely a very neat piece of subtext, indicating familial ties.
I’m sure I’ve never thought of Spike when watching this ep, but I can see now that Spike, grandsired by Angel and therefore an evil Angel brought into the world, can be another example of the past returning, symbolised by Seth’s guilt over bringing Ryan into the world. Very interesting, Erin!
The issue of evil, especially in terms of demons and humans, is something that fascinates me about the Buffyverse. I have never heard a single convincing explanation for much of Spike’s behaviour in Seasons 5 and 6. It doesn’t matter that he wanted to do good only for a woman he loved, or that he was operating without the moral compass of a soul (if anything, this latter point makes his behaviour all the more remarkable). He still wanted to do good, something he continued after Buffy’s death simply because she would have wanted him too. Therefore this isn’t simple self interest.
Then there are good demons such as Lorne. The point has been made that humans must not die, because they can always be redeemed, but would anyone seriously believe that if Lorne turned to darkness it would be impossible for him to come back? The idea that humans are somehow different just doesn’t work for me now.
In the episode the most significant aspect of this theme, as you suggest, is the new and alarming news that a human can really be evil. What does this mean for morality in the Buffyverse? Faith killing a human has always been regarded as a terrible act, but the issue has become more blurred. By the time Wes kills Knox, we have Spike saying that he “had it coming” and the act is scarcely thought of as important enough to mention afterward. Perhaps sometimes a human is no longer human but merely a shell.
The episode That Old Gang of Mine told us that if demons behave with human morality, they should be treated as having the same right to life as humans. Does that not mean that the opposite is therefore the case? If Seidel had turned out to be a demon, he would have been killed without a single regret; I really don’t see why being human should make things different, from a moral perspective. (BTW, I’m not advocating the death penalty here! I’m specifically referring to the internal morality of the Buffyverse, and also talking about fiction, where we can be as childishly vengeful as we want. ;D)
And, I’m sorry to be predictable, but I have Fresley on my mind again. Did you know that St Winifred is a patron of abused children? This probably is a coincidence, but I think it neatly illustrates that Fred is Wesley’s redemption from the repressed traumas of his childhood. As far as I can remember, the next time we hear of Wes’s infant past directly is during Fredless. Wesley contrasts his own parents with Fred’s. I believe it is heavily implied that the thing which so locks Fred and Wes together is primal and goes (at least) as far back as their childhoods. Their fathers are both called Roger. I don’t think that is a coincidence.
Anyway, sorry to go off on my own tangent there. An excellent review, Erin – keep them coming!
|
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Oct 11, 2004 15:37:24 GMT -5
Yes, a major theme here is the effects of the past. In fact, particularly in Wesley’s case it has (dare I say it) a psychoanalytic dimension. Obviously Wesley’s difficult relationship with his father provides some resonance with the hilarious speculations of the Oedipus complex, but more seriously there is also the return of the repressed. It is probably not an exaggeration to suggest that Wesley suffered trauma in his childhood, and he attempts various strategies to overcome this. Always, it returns to haunt him. My mind had made the connection between Wesley and Harry Potter both being in the cupboard under the stairs, but for some reason never drew out any of the implications. I suppose I would add that, like Harry, Wesley attaches himself to a surrogate family who can provide the nurturing he hasn’t known. As you point out, Wesley expects to be rejected for his mistakes in this episode, but learns that he has found people who actually accept and support him. This probably has the double function of cementing his position as Doyle’s replacement in the cast. And in "The Ring" we'll begin to see some of the lengths he'll go to be there for him as well. Thanks; I love those little moments; subtly underscoring connection (or lack thereof). I'm not sure I would have noticed it either, except after writing the review for Somnambulist, and all this focus on (no, I'm not kidding) blondes (Penn, Kate, Ryan) didn't seem entirely accidental (not to mention tiny marshmallows). And if you notice, the alley chase between Spike and Angel from "In the Dark" is in the credits for all five of the current seasons. I think the ambiguity is part of the story, actually. The later seasons of both Buffy and Angel are soaking in the grey area; whether or not they are ready or willing to deal with what that means to their often rigid worldviews is part of what drives the stories. You are absolutely correct, and quite on topic as we draw closer to Faith's arc on Angel. Already at this point we are seeing a different morality on Angel than we do on Buffy. Buffy, in many ways, has been more focused on the individual soul or individual journey of a particular character: saving Willow vs destroying the Box of Gavrok; saving Dawn vs ending the world, saving Willow from herself and her own vengence. Had Dawn's fate, for instance, been in Angel's hands, he might have been more likely to sacrifice her to save the world, much as he was prepared to do with Cordelia in "Inside Out." Very little coincidence in the Jossverse, methinks. I did not know that about St. Winifred; I may have to steal that and credit you when I get to Fred's episodes! Thank you. And it makes sense; her home life is one of the most normal of all of the Jossverse characters... |
|
|
|
Post by Nickim on Oct 18, 2004 11:21:51 GMT -5
Loved this review, Erin. Especially where you said 'the human shell seems to make the evil within even more scary.'
I read Ann Rule's books about true crime. She worked with Ted Bundy and was in restaurants at the same time as Gary Ridgeway--the Green River killer. Julia has mentioned that she was in college close to where Bundy was killing young women. He was handsome and seemed harmless, but that "shell" was empty of human feeling.
It's true, the real evil is the one we can't see.We could all sit next to a serial killer in a bar or work with one and never know it. **shivers--seriously**
Edit--And ditto what others have said about the marshmallows and the blonde thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Oct 18, 2004 16:16:31 GMT -5
Loved this review, Erin. Especially where you said 'the human shell seems to make the evil within even more scary.' I read Ann Rule's books about true crime. She worked with Ted Bundy and was in restaurants at the same time as Gary Ridgeway--the Green River killer. Julia has mentioned that she was in college close to where Bundy was killing young women. He was handsome and seemed harmless, but that "shell" was empty of human feeling. It's true, the real evil is the one we can't see.We could all sit next to a serial killer in a bar or work with one and never know it. **shivers--seriously** Edit--And ditto what others have said about the marshmallows and the blonde thing. Tres creepy, I agree. And fits in so well with Season 5 and the idea of a shell. In many ways, the shell wasn't just Illyria; it was Knox. He had hollowed himself out and put Illyria-worship in its place; as represented by the objects he carried inside. |
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Nov 28, 2006 9:34:33 GMT -5
Wow. Excellent review! I just watched the episode this morning and what struck me most was the comment the Ethros demon made about Ryan being empty. The demon outright says the boy had no soul and that as a result he committed evil acts for which the Ethros was not responsible. The demon could only sit by and watch "helplessly" while Ryan did whatever he wanted and thought he could do, including committing murder. As you say, one would think that the Ethros would find that a relationship "made in hell", but it doesn't. It's the soul issue that plagues me. Is it a matter of having no soul that makes one do evil or be evil? Or is it that there are evil souls and good souls? Humans supposedly have souls-and I've said this before-yet they can commit the most horrifying atrocities. And, they can do so in the name of "saving souls". As you said, the evil lying within the human shell is the most frightening. What does this mean? I think it means that each "soul" has aspects of good and evil and it depends on which aspect is heavier within the soul. So, I'm postulating that all creatures have souls and all sentient creatures have the capacity for evil or good. Is it a matter of making a choice between doing good and doing evil? Or, is it a matter of how strong the good in one's soul is? Part of me is a believer in the concept of the "bad seed"; how else to explain Jeffrey Dahmer? Bundy is somewhat easier for me because I believe that many serial killers of women were violently rejected by their mothers. But, there are some who say they had good homes and families. How does one explain their actions? Ryan is a great example of that. Was Ryan a bad seed, with more evil in his "soul" than good? Clearly he was evil. Is it possible to make the choice between doing good or doing evil if one side is stronger than the other in one's soul? I think it is, though it may be a struggle. Anyone with compulsions or addictions of the mind can tell you what a struggle it is to choose not to indulge in addictive or self-destructive behaviors. I think the same goes for doing good or doing evil. Doing nothing is a whole other topic of discussion. ;D I'm rambling now, because I didn't take the time to compose this but this episode was great at bringing the big questions to my mind and your review crystallized my thoughts even more. For the moment, at any rate. Thanks, Erin. Great review!  |
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Nov 29, 2006 15:01:44 GMT -5
Wow. Excellent review! I just watched the episode this morning and what struck me most was the comment the Ethros demon made about Ryan being empty. The demon outright says the boy had no soul and that as a result he committed evil acts for which the Ethros was not responsible. The demon could only sit by and watch "helplessly" while Ryan did whatever he wanted and thought he could do, including committing murder. As you say, one would think that the Ethros would find that a relationship "made in hell", but it doesn't. It's the soul issue that plagues me. Is it a matter of having no soul that makes one do evil or be evil? Or is it that there are evil souls and good souls? Humans supposedly have souls-and I've said this before-yet they can commit the most horrifying atrocities. And, they can do so in the name of "saving souls". As you said, the evil lying within the human shell is the most frightening. What does this mean? I think it means that each "soul" has aspects of good and evil and it depends on which aspect is heavier within the soul. So, I'm postulating that all creatures have souls and all sentient creatures have the capacity for evil or good. Is it a matter of making a choice between doing good and doing evil? Or, is it a matter of how strong the good in one's soul is? Part of me is a believer in the concept of the "bad seed"; how else to explain Jeffrey Dahmer? Bundy is somewhat easier for me because I believe that many serial killers of women were violently rejected by their mothers. But, there are some who say they had good homes and families. How does one explain their actions? Ryan is a great example of that. Was Ryan a bad seed, with more evil in his "soul" than good? Clearly he was evil. Is it possible to make the choice between doing good or doing evil if one side is stronger than the other in one's soul? I think it is, though it may be a struggle. Anyone with compulsions or addictions of the mind can tell you what a struggle it is to choose not to indulge in addictive or self-destructive behaviors. I think the same goes for doing good or doing evil. Doing nothing is a whole other topic of discussion. ;D I'm rambling now, because I didn't take the time to compose this but this episode was great at bringing the big questions to my mind and your review crystallized my thoughts even more. For the moment, at any rate. Thanks, Erin. Great review! Thanks, Onjybaby! It was an intriguing episode to write about. As for the cosmology of the Angel-/Buffyverse, it's tricky; perhaps they did not think out all the implications of "soul/not soul." Or perhaps the word "soul" is merely the shorthand for conscience. If one views Ryan as a sociopath, he knows right and wrong but he lack empathy and things he's above it. Often times "soulless" is used as a shorthand for "sociopath," which is what I felt they were pushing for. And I think it's useful to view the Ethros as a vampire of a sort; he starves without being "fed" the corruption of innocence. The "nothing" he gets from Ryan is starving him, and he is seeing his own death inside this boy and no way to escape... Onto the good v. evil, and the notion of choice, I think the scariest part is that neither Ryan nor Angelus nor Spike really do have the choice whether or not to commit evil. Ryan, according to the ideas presented in this episode, was born that way. And until Angelus and Spike have their demons forcibly leashed, they either (and this is where it gets murky) lack the equipment or the motivation to deny the impulses of the demon inside. I'm not sure I'm making any sense anymore, but those are my initial thoughts... |
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Dec 1, 2006 10:06:29 GMT -5
Wow. Excellent review! I just watched the episode this morning and what struck me most was the comment the Ethros demon made about Ryan being empty. The demon outright says the boy had no soul and that as a result he committed evil acts for which the Ethros was not responsible. The demon could only sit by and watch "helplessly" while Ryan did whatever he wanted and thought he could do, including committing murder. As you say, one would think that the Ethros would find that a relationship "made in hell", but it doesn't. It's the soul issue that plagues me. Is it a matter of having no soul that makes one do evil or be evil? Or is it that there are evil souls and good souls? Humans supposedly have souls-and I've said this before-yet they can commit the most horrifying atrocities. And, they can do so in the name of "saving souls". As you said, the evil lying within the human shell is the most frightening. What does this mean? I think it means that each "soul" has aspects of good and evil and it depends on which aspect is heavier within the soul. So, I'm postulating that all creatures have souls and all sentient creatures have the capacity for evil or good. Is it a matter of making a choice between doing good and doing evil? Or, is it a matter of how strong the good in one's soul is? Part of me is a believer in the concept of the "bad seed"; how else to explain Jeffrey Dahmer? Bundy is somewhat easier for me because I believe that many serial killers of women were violently rejected by their mothers. But, there are some who say they had good homes and families. How does one explain their actions? Ryan is a great example of that. Was Ryan a bad seed, with more evil in his "soul" than good? Clearly he was evil. Is it possible to make the choice between doing good or doing evil if one side is stronger than the other in one's soul? I think it is, though it may be a struggle. Anyone with compulsions or addictions of the mind can tell you what a struggle it is to choose not to indulge in addictive or self-destructive behaviors. I think the same goes for doing good or doing evil. Doing nothing is a whole other topic of discussion. ;D I'm rambling now, because I didn't take the time to compose this but this episode was great at bringing the big questions to my mind and your review crystallized my thoughts even more. For the moment, at any rate. Thanks, Erin. Great review! Thanks, Onjybaby! It was an intriguing episode to write about. As for the cosmology of the Angel-/Buffyverse, it's tricky; perhaps they did not think out all the implications of "soul/not soul." Or perhaps the word "soul" is merely the shorthand for conscience. If one views Ryan as a sociopath, he knows right and wrong but he lack empathy and things he's above it. Often times "soulless" is used as a shorthand for "sociopath," which is what I felt they were pushing for.
And I think it's useful to view the Ethros as a vampire of a sort; he starves without being "fed" the corruption of innocence. The "nothing" he gets from Ryan is starving him, and he is seeing his own death inside this boy and no way to escape... Onto the good v. evil, and the notion of choice, I think the scariest part is that neither Ryan nor Angelus nor Spike really do have the choice whether or not to commit evil. Ryan, according to the ideas presented in this episode, was born that way. And until Angelus and Spike have their demons forcibly leashed, they either (and this is where it gets murky) lack the equipment or the motivation to deny the impulses of the demon inside. I'm not sure I'm making any sense anymore, but those are my initial thoughts... That makese sense to me. It goes with what I was trying to say vis a vis the "bad seed", a term I really don't like, btw, but am too caught up in legalese to change for the time being. I like the notion that Spike and Angelus lack the equipment or motivation to deny the demonic impulses of their inner monster. That works completely with the notion of the sociopath. They, too, lack the equipment and/or motivation to curb or deny their demonic impulses. They just don't care. This whole soul/no-soul issue could be discussed inside and out for the next several thousand years and never be solved. Of course, it's been discussed for the last several thousand years and never been solved, so nothing is changed.  |
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Dec 1, 2006 11:07:30 GMT -5
Wow. Excellent review! I just watched the episode this morning and what struck me most was the comment the Ethros demon made about Ryan being empty. The demon outright says the boy had no soul and that as a result he committed evil acts for which the Ethros was not responsible. The demon could only sit by and watch "helplessly" while Ryan did whatever he wanted and thought he could do, including committing murder. As you say, one would think that the Ethros would find that a relationship "made in hell", but it doesn't. It's the soul issue that plagues me. Is it a matter of having no soul that makes one do evil or be evil? Or is it that there are evil souls and good souls? Humans supposedly have souls-and I've said this before-yet they can commit the most horrifying atrocities. And, they can do so in the name of "saving souls". As you said, the evil lying within the human shell is the most frightening. What does this mean? I think it means that each "soul" has aspects of good and evil and it depends on which aspect is heavier within the soul. So, I'm postulating that all creatures have souls and all sentient creatures have the capacity for evil or good. Is it a matter of making a choice between doing good and doing evil? Or, is it a matter of how strong the good in one's soul is? Part of me is a believer in the concept of the "bad seed"; how else to explain Jeffrey Dahmer? Bundy is somewhat easier for me because I believe that many serial killers of women were violently rejected by their mothers. But, there are some who say they had good homes and families. How does one explain their actions? Ryan is a great example of that. Was Ryan a bad seed, with more evil in his "soul" than good? Clearly he was evil. Is it possible to make the choice between doing good or doing evil if one side is stronger than the other in one's soul? I think it is, though it may be a struggle. Anyone with compulsions or addictions of the mind can tell you what a struggle it is to choose not to indulge in addictive or self-destructive behaviors. I think the same goes for doing good or doing evil. Doing nothing is a whole other topic of discussion. ;D I'm rambling now, because I didn't take the time to compose this but this episode was great at bringing the big questions to my mind and your review crystallized my thoughts even more. For the moment, at any rate. Thanks, Erin. Great review! Thanks, Onjybaby! It was an intriguing episode to write about. As for the cosmology of the Angel-/Buffyverse, it's tricky; perhaps they did not think out all the implications of "soul/not soul." Or perhaps the word "soul" is merely the shorthand for conscience. If one views Ryan as a sociopath, he knows right and wrong but he lack empathy and things he's above it. Often times "soulless" is used as a shorthand for "sociopath," which is what I felt they were pushing for. And I think it's useful to view the Ethros as a vampire of a sort; he starves without being "fed" the corruption of innocence. The "nothing" he gets from Ryan is starving him, and he is seeing his own death inside this boy and no way to escape... Onto the good v. evil, and the notion of choice, I think the scariest part is that neither Ryan nor Angelus nor Spike really do have the choice whether or not to commit evil. Ryan, according to the ideas presented in this episode, was born that way. And until Angelus and Spike have their demons forcibly leashed, they either (and this is where it gets murky) lack the equipment or the motivation to deny the impulses of the demon inside.
I'm not sure I'm making any sense anymore, but those are my initial thoughts... I really enjoyed re-reading this thread. You all are so insightful! Re: in red - In Sanctuary, when Faith turned herself, she basically forcibly leashed herself to get the help she needed to help her deny her evil impulses. But you got to want it change, and you have to have someone who believes in you - like Angel does.
WESLEY: I don't know how much my opinion counts for, but I think you did the right thing.
ANGEL: Yelling at Buffy?
WESLEY: No. The other thing.
ANGEL: I didn't do it. Faith did.
WELSEY: I hope she's strong enough to make it. Peace is not an easy thing to find.
ANGEL: She has a chance.One thing that struck me while reading your comments was how Ethros parallels Angelus's feelings that he talks about in Orpheus. ANGELUS: Worst were the concerts. (Angel watches hungrily as a couple walks by) You know what that's like? Every time he gets close, I feel it. Wanting to tear their flesh apart. The hunger. It's like a blade in my gut. You could say that Angelus was slowly starving inside Angel, as Ethros was starving inside Ryan. Angel was on his way to find some peace - most probably why he got the offer from W&H to take over the law firm. //tangent// I love how all the Jossverse eps tie together in one way or another!! |
|
LOL!!
