Sat, 8 October 2005 "Angel, Version 1.0" Storywise, L.A. Angel may be the best character in the Buffyverse. Sunnydale Angel is the anti-L.A. Angel. References Seasons 1-3 and 5-7. Comments[42] |
In your podcast, you mentioned that you felt Angel should not have to seek redemption for evil acts committed while still Angelus, being that it was the demon inside of him that caused him to act this way.
I think it would be interesting to analyze the function of the soul in the Buffyverse. Where does the soul end and the personality (spirit) of a person begin? Does the soul animate the person? When a person becomes a vampire, is it only his soul that is replaced with the demon, or does it end up that the demon is being housed in an empty husk that used to be a person? What is left of a person after he is possessed by the demon? What happened to the demon in Angel once he got his soul back?
I sort of envision the soul of a person getting replaced by the demon, leaving his personality pretty much unchanged. Thus instead of being animated by a soul, which comes from good|purity|etc., the vampire is animated by a demon, which comes from bad|impurity|etc. This could mean that his soul was the only thing that stopped Liam from committing the atrocities Angelus committed, but the capability was always there. In this case the soul would be like a conscience, keeping peoples actions within reason. This could then be what Angel is atoning for, the fact that Angelus committed the crimes because he was always capable of them. [this is dangerously close to a Fan Wank, and an fairly incoherent one at that.]
We could even sort of fit this in to the way Buffy described what was left of a person after they become a vampire. Perhaps the reason why the demon has all the memories of the person it inhabits is because that part of the person is still there (as opposed to saying that the demon assimilated all the memories of the person).
And what about Ryan, the boy from Angel S01E14, who didn't have a soul at all. What was left of him, if he didn't have a soul?
I tried for a while, but was unable to properly formulate my thoughts on the matter into anything fully coherent, but I feel that by understanding the role and function of a soul in the Buffyverse, we will be able to understand how much of the person is left when he becomes a vampire, and therefore how much Angel really had to feel remorse for. I would love to see anyone address and|or expound on these issues.
In a lighter vein, is it the demon in the vampire that causes all newly risen vampires to be proficient in martial arts?
I think it would be interesting to analyze the function of the soul in the Buffyverse. Where does the soul end and the personality (spirit) of a person begin? Does the soul animate the person? When a person becomes a vampire, is it only his soul that is replaced with the demon, or does it end up that the demon is being housed in an empty husk that used to be a person? What is left of a person after he is possessed by the demon? What happened to the demon in Angel once he got his soul back?
I sort of envision the soul of a person getting replaced by the demon, leaving his personality pretty much unchanged. Thus instead of being animated by a soul, which comes from good|purity|etc., the vampire is animated by a demon, which comes from bad|impurity|etc. This could mean that his soul was the only thing that stopped Liam from committing the atrocities Angelus committed, but the capability was always there. In this case the soul would be like a conscience, keeping peoples actions within reason. This could then be what Angel is atoning for, the fact that Angelus committed the crimes because he was always capable of them. [this is dangerously close to a Fan Wank, and an fairly incoherent one at that.]
We could even sort of fit this in to the way Buffy described what was left of a person after they become a vampire. Perhaps the reason why the demon has all the memories of the person it inhabits is because that part of the person is still there (as opposed to saying that the demon assimilated all the memories of the person).
And what about Ryan, the boy from Angel S01E14, who didn't have a soul at all. What was left of him, if he didn't have a soul?
I tried for a while, but was unable to properly formulate my thoughts on the matter into anything fully coherent, but I feel that by understanding the role and function of a soul in the Buffyverse, we will be able to understand how much of the person is left when he becomes a vampire, and therefore how much Angel really had to feel remorse for. I would love to see anyone address and|or expound on these issues.
In a lighter vein, is it the demon in the vampire that causes all newly risen vampires to be proficient in martial arts?
The idea of “redemption� is a tricky one. I tend to agree that Angel has no real need for a redemptive act. However I think there are a few points that might be useful to point out. First I think we need to really separate Liam, Angelus and Angel. Also tied into continuity errors let’s look first at “Angel� who is really something of a mental break. Why doesn’t Liam revert to his real name when he regains his soul? I would argue that the soul of Liam trapped inside a body with Angelus has a very specialized form of survivors guilt. When he returns to his body he suddenly becomes a man who has watched all of these horrors from the driver’s seat. He realizes that his body has done this, his choice to try and seduce Darla did this, in effect his minor sins created this monster and he was unable to stop the monster once it was summoned. The attachment that the soul of Liam has to these actions is clear in that he has taken a modified version of Angelus as his own name, replacing Liam the human for Angel the vampire with a soul. If you believe in this sort of composite identity you may liken it to schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder (having a demon growing inside your head). In either case while spiritually or ethically Liam is not compelled to redeem Angelus, there is obviously break in the barrier between them that compels the composite Angel to take responsibility for the actions of Angelus.
posted by: Miles on Mon, 10/10 01:27 PM EDT
Ah, the metaphysics of Buffy… What role does the soul play? First off this is all my personal conjecture that I will try to back up as best I can but it’s not easy as no one ever talks about it on the show. When you are turned your soul goes somewhere, we know this because the gypsies summoned Liam back into his body with the curse. So clearly there is some part of us that leaves with death. I would rely on Socrates to define the soul for us. He believed that how humans were able to even catch a glimpse of what he called “the undying things� was because we had some part of the undying within us. The Greeks believed that there were three undying things: Truth, Beauty and Goodness. Socrates said instead that if you can never have too much of a thing and you cannot be ambitious about a thing then it is undying. With the example of Love you cannot imagine having too much love nor can you truly love someone for gain or for pride. I think it is this capacity to understand the divine that leaves the body in the Buffyverse but the natural world remains with the body. Personality, skills, memories, all of these things that might be captured in the psyche rather than in the soul are taken by the demon. That would mean that while the Judge said “you stink of humanity� to Spike and Dru he said that they shared “affection� not Love. They have no souls and cannot gain insight into true love without them. If you move this example to Angel he is selfless and able to fully Love Buffy while he has his soul, he cannot love her too much and he is not ambitious about his love for her. However when he becomes Angelus his Love turns to obsession. Hope that helps.
posted by: Miles on Mon, 10/10 01:35 PM EDT
Miles, your thoughts regarding Liam, Angel, and Angelus bring up the following point: Liam is no more.
As was explained by Buffy, all that is left of a person after he is turned is a hollow shell inhabited by a vampire. If so, there is nothing left of Liam once Angelus takes over. And now, when Angelus gets a soul (Liam's soul) it is not "getting his soul back" as much as it is the demon in Liam's body getting a soul (for the first time). It is now the demon itself feeling remorse for the acts it committed.
This could also explain why Angelus didn't change his name back to Liam, Liam is no more. All that is left is Angelus with a soul, Angel.
This may also answer Revello's question about why Angel feels the need for redemption, if the demon inhabiting his body was the one that committed the crimes. Angel is the demon Angelus with a soul, and now that the demon has a soul, he feels remorse for his actions.
This line of thought is furthered by the fact that once Angel gets a soul, he does not revert back to human. He still has a vampire's strength (physical strength, healing ability, etc.) as well as a vampire's weaknesses (sunlight, holy water, stake, etc.) because he is still a demon, a vampire.
This is different than my previous theory, that the demon replaces the soul of the person, leaving the rest of the person intact. I like it better because:
1) It fits in with Buffy's explanation regarding what happens when a person becomes a vampire.
2) It fits better with the physical changes that occurs when the person becomes a vampire.
3) It helps explain Angel's need for Redemption a little better.
We would still need to clarify where this leaves us with regards to understanding where a person's soul ends and his personality begins, as well as how much of a person is left when he becomes a vampire. Does the demon get the person's personality, memories, etc. as it destroys them, or are the memories, personality, etc. all still there, as a part of the shell the demon inhabits?
As was explained by Buffy, all that is left of a person after he is turned is a hollow shell inhabited by a vampire. If so, there is nothing left of Liam once Angelus takes over. And now, when Angelus gets a soul (Liam's soul) it is not "getting his soul back" as much as it is the demon in Liam's body getting a soul (for the first time). It is now the demon itself feeling remorse for the acts it committed.
This could also explain why Angelus didn't change his name back to Liam, Liam is no more. All that is left is Angelus with a soul, Angel.
This may also answer Revello's question about why Angel feels the need for redemption, if the demon inhabiting his body was the one that committed the crimes. Angel is the demon Angelus with a soul, and now that the demon has a soul, he feels remorse for his actions.
This line of thought is furthered by the fact that once Angel gets a soul, he does not revert back to human. He still has a vampire's strength (physical strength, healing ability, etc.) as well as a vampire's weaknesses (sunlight, holy water, stake, etc.) because he is still a demon, a vampire.
This is different than my previous theory, that the demon replaces the soul of the person, leaving the rest of the person intact. I like it better because:
1) It fits in with Buffy's explanation regarding what happens when a person becomes a vampire.
2) It fits better with the physical changes that occurs when the person becomes a vampire.
3) It helps explain Angel's need for Redemption a little better.
We would still need to clarify where this leaves us with regards to understanding where a person's soul ends and his personality begins, as well as how much of a person is left when he becomes a vampire. Does the demon get the person's personality, memories, etc. as it destroys them, or are the memories, personality, etc. all still there, as a part of the shell the demon inhabits?
So if I am hearing you correctly your theory is that the body dies. The shell is then inhabited by a demon; in our case Liam’s body was filled by Angelus. Then when the curse was bestowed on Angelus the demon inside served as a shell for a soul to enter within. That is what I think to be your assumption, if I am wrong I apologize. Let me explain a couple of flaws with that system. First, while we the audience do not get to read the text that Jenny Calendar is using to summon a soul into the Thesselan Orb we do get the impression that is a specific soul. If this is the case Liam’s soul is the one in question, thus Liam still exists. I would also point to the idea that Buffy’s soul was called back in season 6 to example that the soul of a dead person remains as a personal soul in the Buffyverse afterlife. Second, in Season 2 Episode 8 “The Dark Age� when Eyghon gets put into Angel there is a line to the effect (I don’t have the episode playing) “I’ve had a demon in me for hundreds of years he was just looking for a good fight.� That would indicate that Liam’s body has within it a soul and a demon as two entities. I think your definition would allow for Liam’s soul to be put into Angelus which deals with my first point but it doesn’t deal with the idea brought up in the second point. I suppose the point about Liam being no more would depend on where “Liam� lies, is his soul Liam, are his experiences Liam, or does Liam only exist in the synergy of all of those parts?
posted by: Miles on Tue, 10/11 10:50 PM EDT
Miles,
This brings us back to my first question, What is the function of a soul in the buffyverse? The way I see it, there are three things we are addressing here:
1) Vitality - What causes the person to be alive?
2) Personality - What makes the person what he is?
3) Soul - is it merely a moral compass? Does it supply the vitality and/or personality as well?
You (Miles) put it well: "I suppose the point about Liam being no more would depend on where "Liam" lies, is his soul Liam, are his experiences Liam, or does Liam only exist in the synergy of all of those parts?"
We know a person has a soul, and it is important, but does a soul define a person's personality? Are all souls unique? Does the soul give life to the body, or is there something else that does that. To say Liam exists because his soul exists, is to say that the personality of the person is in his soul.
Another thought: Can a body die? Is a body inherently alive or is it just animated by something? Is death merely the departing of vitality, in which case the body reverts to its natural, lifeless state, or is the body actually alive? I personally think the body is always a shell. It is normally inhabited by the person (personality, vitality, and soul), but in the case of a vampire, is inhabited by a demon. A demon does not have a soul, and therefore can at the most supply the vitality and perhaps the personality for the body. [I guess it is possible that the vampire supplies an evil equivalent of a soul]. This leaves room for Angel's soul, while not negating the existence of the demon (this also fits with Angelus' complaints in season 4 of Angel, where he complains about having to witness all of Angel's actions). While this addresses Angel's statement in Buffy Season 2 regarding the demon in him itching for a fight, it most likely negates my suggestions that the demon Angelus got a soul [although I guess you can say that even though the Angel's (Liam's) soul and the demon are two different entities, the soul has an affect on the demon].
Buffy's resurrection in Season 6 would seem to indicate that the soul provides all the life, including vitality, personality, and the soul. Although we could perhaps differentiate between a person turning into a vampire (which if I understand correctly happens as soon as the person tastes the vampire's blood) and Buffy's case, where she actually died and her soul went on to a Heaven/Hell Dimension. In Buffy's case, she actually died and her vitality, personality, and soul were all gone. Willow's spell had to bring it all back. In a vampire's case, the vampire goes from having vitality, personality, and soul to having vitality and personality.
This brings us back to my first question, What is the function of a soul in the buffyverse? The way I see it, there are three things we are addressing here:
1) Vitality - What causes the person to be alive?
2) Personality - What makes the person what he is?
3) Soul - is it merely a moral compass? Does it supply the vitality and/or personality as well?
You (Miles) put it well: "I suppose the point about Liam being no more would depend on where "Liam" lies, is his soul Liam, are his experiences Liam, or does Liam only exist in the synergy of all of those parts?"
We know a person has a soul, and it is important, but does a soul define a person's personality? Are all souls unique? Does the soul give life to the body, or is there something else that does that. To say Liam exists because his soul exists, is to say that the personality of the person is in his soul.
Another thought: Can a body die? Is a body inherently alive or is it just animated by something? Is death merely the departing of vitality, in which case the body reverts to its natural, lifeless state, or is the body actually alive? I personally think the body is always a shell. It is normally inhabited by the person (personality, vitality, and soul), but in the case of a vampire, is inhabited by a demon. A demon does not have a soul, and therefore can at the most supply the vitality and perhaps the personality for the body. [I guess it is possible that the vampire supplies an evil equivalent of a soul]. This leaves room for Angel's soul, while not negating the existence of the demon (this also fits with Angelus' complaints in season 4 of Angel, where he complains about having to witness all of Angel's actions). While this addresses Angel's statement in Buffy Season 2 regarding the demon in him itching for a fight, it most likely negates my suggestions that the demon Angelus got a soul [although I guess you can say that even though the Angel's (Liam's) soul and the demon are two different entities, the soul has an affect on the demon].
Buffy's resurrection in Season 6 would seem to indicate that the soul provides all the life, including vitality, personality, and the soul. Although we could perhaps differentiate between a person turning into a vampire (which if I understand correctly happens as soon as the person tastes the vampire's blood) and Buffy's case, where she actually died and her soul went on to a Heaven/Hell Dimension. In Buffy's case, she actually died and her vitality, personality, and soul were all gone. Willow's spell had to bring it all back. In a vampire's case, the vampire goes from having vitality, personality, and soul to having vitality and personality.
Okay before we get into anything heady, how did you get line breaks? I’ve wanted to be able to paragraph for weeks on this board!
(Let’s try two line breaks and see if it makes one. Then let’s try a
Anyway… I think you have a solid set of questions that nothing in the Buffyverse clearly answers. There is a way to have a soul-less corpse as exampled in Season 5’s “Forever where Dawn tries to raise her mother. This is conjecture but I think the shadowed images of “Joyce� lead one to think Zombie. This is also exampled in “Dead Man’s party�. So clearly there is a form of vitality that can make a body animate without soul or personality.
I think the toughie here is personality and soul. Personality can be explained by psychology and to an extent by the social sciences as a reaction to a specific set of stimuli. This might mean that the memories contained in the brain irrevocably forge a personality that is hard wired into the material of the body even without the ability to be animate. But if these are hard wired why do Zombies not remember their lives and act as they did in life?
Then what is a soul? How does the soul make a person who they are? How about an explanation like this: (it comes from a book on new age mysticism I can’t remember the title of at the moment) Take you body, your name, your memories, skills, personal habits, your car, house all those things that you owned and remove them. When all of these things that you gained in the material world are gone, what remains? That is your soul. Given that much softer definition one might think of the soul as something that both provides vitality and allows for personality to form in order to balance these three areas into a synergy that is “life�. There may be more to life than the three elements but you have to have all three to get to that larger whole.
I think that’s the best I can offer as to the metaphysics of the soul and I think that applies to Buffy pretty well though the definition fits the lack of description in the show so it might not do outside of the Buffyverse.
(Let’s try two line breaks and see if it makes one. Then let’s try a
Anyway… I think you have a solid set of questions that nothing in the Buffyverse clearly answers. There is a way to have a soul-less corpse as exampled in Season 5’s “Forever where Dawn tries to raise her mother. This is conjecture but I think the shadowed images of “Joyce� lead one to think Zombie. This is also exampled in “Dead Man’s party�. So clearly there is a form of vitality that can make a body animate without soul or personality.
I think the toughie here is personality and soul. Personality can be explained by psychology and to an extent by the social sciences as a reaction to a specific set of stimuli. This might mean that the memories contained in the brain irrevocably forge a personality that is hard wired into the material of the body even without the ability to be animate. But if these are hard wired why do Zombies not remember their lives and act as they did in life?
Then what is a soul? How does the soul make a person who they are? How about an explanation like this: (it comes from a book on new age mysticism I can’t remember the title of at the moment) Take you body, your name, your memories, skills, personal habits, your car, house all those things that you owned and remove them. When all of these things that you gained in the material world are gone, what remains? That is your soul. Given that much softer definition one might think of the soul as something that both provides vitality and allows for personality to form in order to balance these three areas into a synergy that is “life�. There may be more to life than the three elements but you have to have all three to get to that larger whole.
I think that’s the best I can offer as to the metaphysics of the soul and I think that applies to Buffy pretty well though the definition fits the lack of description in the show so it might not do outside of the Buffyverse.
posted by: Miles on Wed, 10/12 11:14 AM EDT
Hahahahahaha
It's is the linebreak tag! I got it by jove. Just need to double it to get a line between!
It's is the linebreak tag! I got it by jove. Just need to double it to get a line between!
posted by: Miles on Wed, 10/12 11:33 AM EDT
Whew! Such long posts and so thought provoking. Loved what Menachem said, btw.
I don't have the energy to get into soul talk right now, but I always wondered why Angelus was so evil without a soul, but Spike, sans soul, seemed to be able to reason and sympathize/empathize much better than Angelus.
I know they're different people, but without a soul, Angelus was all about killing, there was absoulute no reasoning with him whatsoever. I remember a line in "Dopplegangland" I believe, when he says something about a persons personality is not really that different after being turned or something, I never understood it.
Mainly because Liam was not like Angelus in any way. A slacker, yes, but not violent or anything like that. Angel is more like Liam.
Also, about Angel and Redemption and should he be responsible for Angelus. I liked what Revello said and agree that he shouldn't feel responsible, but in someway I feel that Angel feels redemption is not only his duty but his purpose. When he's not Angelus, he's Angel. What is Angel's purpose? What does he have to live for? What is his purpose? And if he remembers everything else Angelus did how can he not feel that he should do something to rectify that situation?
Could his act of "Redemption" seem selfish? Like 'if I just help people, be a martyre, be of the cause, then I can clense myself of all the horror I caused.'
I don't have the energy to get into soul talk right now, but I always wondered why Angelus was so evil without a soul, but Spike, sans soul, seemed to be able to reason and sympathize/empathize much better than Angelus.
I know they're different people, but without a soul, Angelus was all about killing, there was absoulute no reasoning with him whatsoever. I remember a line in "Dopplegangland" I believe, when he says something about a persons personality is not really that different after being turned or something, I never understood it.
Mainly because Liam was not like Angelus in any way. A slacker, yes, but not violent or anything like that. Angel is more like Liam.
Also, about Angel and Redemption and should he be responsible for Angelus. I liked what Revello said and agree that he shouldn't feel responsible, but in someway I feel that Angel feels redemption is not only his duty but his purpose. When he's not Angelus, he's Angel. What is Angel's purpose? What does he have to live for? What is his purpose? And if he remembers everything else Angelus did how can he not feel that he should do something to rectify that situation?
Could his act of "Redemption" seem selfish? Like 'if I just help people, be a martyre, be of the cause, then I can clense myself of all the horror I caused.'
Wow, Revello. I have to strenuously disagree with your explanation of the relationship between the pre-vamp human and the vamp. There are two basic views of this relationship expressed in the series. One is that the vamp is essentially the human, but transformed by the loss of the "soul". The alternative theory is that the vamp is simply a demon that has moved in to inhabit the vacant human body. You, for some reason, choose to accept this second version, even though you (quite correctly) point out that it is inconsistent with one of the show's defining story threads. More than that, we have much empirical evidence the the vamp is a continuation of the human personality. All the major vamps that we get to see pre- and post- transformation are conspicuously the same individuals. Jesse, Angel, Spike, Dru, Harmony, Holden. The only possible exception is Willow, but as Vamp Willow came from an alternative reality, we can't really know what she was like pre-turning. And in the stories of Angel and Spike, we have the role of the "soul" made absolutely explicit. And, most importantly, the first view (of a continuous personality/identity) is much more INTERESTING from a story telling aspect.
But what then to make of Buffy's description of the process? Well, the simplest explanation is that this is simply an opinion expressed by a character with a vested interest in believing that vamps retain none of their humanity, given at a time when she is trying her best to persuade a human that they should not get themselves turned. There is no particular reason to think that Buffy even believes this statement.
So my question is... why go with the theory that is contradicted by almost all the empirical evidence, that renders much of the tragedy completely impotent, and that is so much less interesting/rich anyway? It seems that you have latched on to the only explanation that is ever completely *verbalised* in the show, with no consideration of its context, and accepted it as Gospel, in the face of overwhelming odds.
Still loving these programs, Professor.
But what then to make of Buffy's description of the process? Well, the simplest explanation is that this is simply an opinion expressed by a character with a vested interest in believing that vamps retain none of their humanity, given at a time when she is trying her best to persuade a human that they should not get themselves turned. There is no particular reason to think that Buffy even believes this statement.
So my question is... why go with the theory that is contradicted by almost all the empirical evidence, that renders much of the tragedy completely impotent, and that is so much less interesting/rich anyway? It seems that you have latched on to the only explanation that is ever completely *verbalised* in the show, with no consideration of its context, and accepted it as Gospel, in the face of overwhelming odds.
Still loving these programs, Professor.
posted by: Professor on Sat, 10/15 12:42 AM EDT
As to the particular question of whether Lliam still exists... I would say yes, Angel is in fact Lliam. But a Lliam several centuries older, who has witnessed all the horrors of the universe, and participated in many of them (see "Barry Manilow"). In short, Angel is Lliam all grown up, no longer the wastrel, but an adult burdened by knowledge, by massive guilt, and by power.
And who could doubt that Spike is, in fact, William? Spike is still the love-lost fool that William was, except that Spike is now a *powerful* love-lost fool, with something of a grudge against the world.
Professor from Oz.
And who could doubt that Spike is, in fact, William? Spike is still the love-lost fool that William was, except that Spike is now a *powerful* love-lost fool, with something of a grudge against the world.
Professor from Oz.
posted by: Professor on Sat, 10/15 12:43 AM EDT
There is an old saying that says "one cannot step into the same river twice" that i think keenly applies to what the professor said about Angel. I am certianly willing to accept that Angel is a natural extension or maturation of Liam but I find the fact that the name remains so close to the demon's name unsettling.
Professor you also assert however that there is a second sort of view on a vampire. One that says that the vampire is not inhabited by a demon but simply lacking a human soul. I for the life of me cannot remember that ever coming up during the show and I was wondering if you could tell me where this comes up as I would love to compare and contrast the two versions of the vampire with what was happening in the story lines.
I agree that Harmony and Spike are generally continuations of their human personalities. However Angelus is clearly not a continuation of Liam. As for Dru... she is far too unstable to be able to pick up if she continues (aside from the thread of her madness). Holden we have no pre-vampiric image of, nor do we have a strong version of Jesse. Jesse if anything seemed more vivacious, appealing and forward as a vampire, though this is easily explained by the supernatural sex vibe that many of the vampires seem to inherit. Vampire Willow... is well... mmmmmmm vampire willow.... sorry I drifted off there.
Professor you also assert however that there is a second sort of view on a vampire. One that says that the vampire is not inhabited by a demon but simply lacking a human soul. I for the life of me cannot remember that ever coming up during the show and I was wondering if you could tell me where this comes up as I would love to compare and contrast the two versions of the vampire with what was happening in the story lines.
I agree that Harmony and Spike are generally continuations of their human personalities. However Angelus is clearly not a continuation of Liam. As for Dru... she is far too unstable to be able to pick up if she continues (aside from the thread of her madness). Holden we have no pre-vampiric image of, nor do we have a strong version of Jesse. Jesse if anything seemed more vivacious, appealing and forward as a vampire, though this is easily explained by the supernatural sex vibe that many of the vampires seem to inherit. Vampire Willow... is well... mmmmmmm vampire willow.... sorry I drifted off there.
Hi Miles, I believe that the vampire personality essentially being the human personality minus the soul is the implicit position expounded by the show in its entirety. It is most explicit, of course, in the curse placed on Angelus. Angelus has his soul restored, not someone else's soul. And Spike, as you agree, is still William, and after he gets re-souled, he is *still* William. My main reason for seeing this as the underlying assumption is simply the ongoing observation of vamps throughout the series. All the behaviour of vamps is completely consistent with the continuiung human personality, in the context of obvious physical changes, but also with an obvious transformation their good-evil dimension. It is unclear exactly what function a soul has, but we can guess that the soul provides (at least) a conscience. In short, the vamps simply appear to be sociopathic versions of their human selves. As I cannot see any other even vaguely consistent interpretation of the human-vamp relationship, I take this to be the underlying vision (always assuming that there IS a consistent underlying vision). What do you reckon?
posted by: Professor on Sat, 10/15 03:02 AM EDT
Well as there are explicit descriptions offered in the show by Giles and Buffy I have to take those at face value, I even as the viewer cannot claim epistemic privilege to disregard their explanations of the metaphysical or spiritual transformations experienced when transforming from human to vampire. Wow I am so overeducated… for everyone else who does not speak FLUENT geek let me say that again. Since Buffy and Giles say how people become vamps I don’t think I can say “nuh-uh�.
I think the explanation Buffy offers Ford has to be pretty close. The human soul exits the body, the body then dies physically. With the infusion of vampiric blood the body re-animates and some kind of supernatural “connection� allows a demonic possession. Assuming that the human personality is in large part hard wired into the brain the demonic soul has a sort of “human filter� but is in and of itself evil. I explain this by looking at mainly Holden, Angelus and Jesse. While the demon is able to “play� at being the old human they are inherently evil. This comes across in Angelus best because Liam was largely amoral and so the transition to Evil was easiest. Jesse was not exactly forceful, powerful or particularly ignoble yet once turned he is all of these. I admit that we have very little time with him and so he may be a poor example. Holden is much the same, we have no pre-vamp vision but he openly says that he mocks God, which I assume very few people would say unless they had been turned.< br>
The problem here comes with Harmony ad Spike… Dru is too insane to know what is what. I love her as a character but to analyze her is I think a practice in futility. Spike seems to arc as a character in such a way that his progression seems quite possible for William. I do however realize that his back-story was added to him after his conception making it far easier to make it “gel� with his current character. While I admit using him as our benchmark tends to lead to your conclusions professor I think using Angelus leads to my earlier assumptions.< br>
Here’s my problem and it is a pragmatic one. Did the writers write the mythos one way and forget as the show left the realm of the vampire bad guy? Clearly the original concept was the Angelus supported demon possession. This runs into about season 3-4 when we start to lose the thread of vampires as the big bad. Harmony and Spike (w/ back story) occur when we start to bring Spike back and wish to humanize him. The simplest way to do that is to have the audience attach themselves to a slow natural progression of character (Basically backdate arc his character through back story). What are we to buy into? These two versions of Vampiric possession/transformation contradict very seriously. If we use the second version to explain Angelus then Liam is unsympathetic, he is broken and we have a near impossible time being okay with him as a “good guy.� However if we apply the demonic possession to Spike then his motivations go entirely sideways.< br>
Long story short I think that the show may indeed implicitly push in the later seasons for a more personality driven vampire but I cannot reconcile that with Seasons 1-2 and I have a hard time dealing with Angel in Season 3 as well. Also the only explicit definitions defy the implicit explanation and I am not one to throw out something that is “cannon� to the show without a darn good reason.
I think the explanation Buffy offers Ford has to be pretty close. The human soul exits the body, the body then dies physically. With the infusion of vampiric blood the body re-animates and some kind of supernatural “connection� allows a demonic possession. Assuming that the human personality is in large part hard wired into the brain the demonic soul has a sort of “human filter� but is in and of itself evil. I explain this by looking at mainly Holden, Angelus and Jesse. While the demon is able to “play� at being the old human they are inherently evil. This comes across in Angelus best because Liam was largely amoral and so the transition to Evil was easiest. Jesse was not exactly forceful, powerful or particularly ignoble yet once turned he is all of these. I admit that we have very little time with him and so he may be a poor example. Holden is much the same, we have no pre-vamp vision but he openly says that he mocks God, which I assume very few people would say unless they had been turned.< br>
The problem here comes with Harmony ad Spike… Dru is too insane to know what is what. I love her as a character but to analyze her is I think a practice in futility. Spike seems to arc as a character in such a way that his progression seems quite possible for William. I do however realize that his back-story was added to him after his conception making it far easier to make it “gel� with his current character. While I admit using him as our benchmark tends to lead to your conclusions professor I think using Angelus leads to my earlier assumptions.< br>
Here’s my problem and it is a pragmatic one. Did the writers write the mythos one way and forget as the show left the realm of the vampire bad guy? Clearly the original concept was the Angelus supported demon possession. This runs into about season 3-4 when we start to lose the thread of vampires as the big bad. Harmony and Spike (w/ back story) occur when we start to bring Spike back and wish to humanize him. The simplest way to do that is to have the audience attach themselves to a slow natural progression of character (Basically backdate arc his character through back story). What are we to buy into? These two versions of Vampiric possession/transformation contradict very seriously. If we use the second version to explain Angelus then Liam is unsympathetic, he is broken and we have a near impossible time being okay with him as a “good guy.� However if we apply the demonic possession to Spike then his motivations go entirely sideways.< br>
Long story short I think that the show may indeed implicitly push in the later seasons for a more personality driven vampire but I cannot reconcile that with Seasons 1-2 and I have a hard time dealing with Angel in Season 3 as well. Also the only explicit definitions defy the implicit explanation and I am not one to throw out something that is “cannon� to the show without a darn good reason.
posted by: Miles on Sat, 10/15 10:55 PM EDT
Don't be so hard on yourself, Miles. Even the under-educated have the epistemic privilege (even the duty) to make up their own minds based on the evidence at hand, instead of accepting the view of Authority.
I go with that other graet WIlliam... the one from Occam. Choose the simplest explanation consistent with the facts (it's a paraphrase, I know). I am much more prepared to that Buffy and her teacher have it wrong (especially given that they have a vested interest in believing this point of view) than I am to believe that major vampire characters in this show are actually 100% non-human demons. How could we reconcile that with Spike's need for dominating women? Of course you can say "nu-uh".
Anyway, no time to respond in kind (all that dictionary work takes a lot of effort). Gotta do some REAL work.
But to reiterate my MAIN objectio to the vamp-as-demon view... WHY would Joss ever create such a pointless metaphysics, when the vamp-as-human model is so so much more fertile?
Thanks heaps, Professor.
I go with that other graet WIlliam... the one from Occam. Choose the simplest explanation consistent with the facts (it's a paraphrase, I know). I am much more prepared to that Buffy and her teacher have it wrong (especially given that they have a vested interest in believing this point of view) than I am to believe that major vampire characters in this show are actually 100% non-human demons. How could we reconcile that with Spike's need for dominating women? Of course you can say "nu-uh".
Anyway, no time to respond in kind (all that dictionary work takes a lot of effort). Gotta do some REAL work.
But to reiterate my MAIN objectio to the vamp-as-demon view... WHY would Joss ever create such a pointless metaphysics, when the vamp-as-human model is so so much more fertile?
Thanks heaps, Professor.
posted by: Professor on Sat, 10/15 11:48 PM EDT
Okay, I've had a chance to ponder your latest post, Miles. I just can't see that the human-vamp conception changed over the course of the show. we have the Angel story from the very start. Angel has had his soul restored, and what then is he? By all appearances he is absolutely human, albeit in a vamped body. What are you saying? That Angel is an evil demon with a soul (whose soul?) superimposed? Is Angel then a demon, but a guilty demon? How very strange that a EvilDemon+Soul=Hero. So I guess my question is, what evidence does the show provide, apart from Buffy and Giles' theory, that vamps are demon interlopers in once human bodies? If you had never heard Buffy and Giles express their opinion, what would you yourself theorise? (I'm also trying to recall the arc in which it is made clear that vampires are considered very low in the hierarchy of demons, because they are still fundamentally human. Can someone remind me?) I'd be interested to hear what Joss has to say on the subject, but if he really does buy into the Giles/Buffy version, then I would have to say that his intellectual position was not consistent with the actual characterisation of his vampires. I can live with that, too. Even a genius storyteller can lapse.
All this take of Liam/Angelus/Angel makes me wonder how vamps get their names. Is there any reference to this? Spike and Angel don't keep their human names, but I think that Darla and Dru do. Have I got that right? Does the sire name the vamp? By the way, I would think that Angel largely kept Angelus' name as a recognition of his responsibility for Angelus' actions, ie a recognition of the continuity between Angelus and Angel. As to the discontinuity between Liam and Angelus' names, do we have any concrete info? Any good theories?
When do I get my next 20 minutes of listening pleasure? Professor.
All this take of Liam/Angelus/Angel makes me wonder how vamps get their names. Is there any reference to this? Spike and Angel don't keep their human names, but I think that Darla and Dru do. Have I got that right? Does the sire name the vamp? By the way, I would think that Angel largely kept Angelus' name as a recognition of his responsibility for Angelus' actions, ie a recognition of the continuity between Angelus and Angel. As to the discontinuity between Liam and Angelus' names, do we have any concrete info? Any good theories?
When do I get my next 20 minutes of listening pleasure? Professor.
posted by: Professor on Sun, 10/16 01:57 AM EDT
I'd like to address a later point Ravello makes - his initial disappointment with the "deus ex machina" reappearance of Angel in Season 3, and whether this cheapens the end of Season 2. I want to argue that it does not, and that furthermore within the context of the Buffyverse Angel's return is not unreasonable because in fact Buffy never killed him. Angel was simply sent to a hell dimension, which in the Buffyverse is clearly not the same thing as dying. In the "Angel" series characters go to and return from hell dimensions on numerous occasions (Connor in Season 3; Spike,Angel, and Gunn in Season 5; the whole gang in season 2 if you include Pylea). There is simply no evidence that Angel actually gets killed - he is run through with a metal sword, which as we all know is not fatal to vampires, and then sucked through a portal. Buffy thinks she has killed him, but she is incorrect.
Angel's "resurrection" is thus in no way comparable to Buffy's (or even Darla's).
It should also be noted that the Darla storyline really throws a wrench into the notion that a vampire is a demon possessing a human body. The Darla that is resurrected by Wolfram & Hart is physically human with a soul - in all physical respects including her illness she is the human woman who died in the 17th century. Yet somehow she retains all the memories of vampire Darla. I think the evidence of the show is that there is far more continuity between the original human and the vampire than Angel wants to admit.
Angel's "resurrection" is thus in no way comparable to Buffy's (or even Darla's).
It should also be noted that the Darla storyline really throws a wrench into the notion that a vampire is a demon possessing a human body. The Darla that is resurrected by Wolfram & Hart is physically human with a soul - in all physical respects including her illness she is the human woman who died in the 17th century. Yet somehow she retains all the memories of vampire Darla. I think the evidence of the show is that there is far more continuity between the original human and the vampire than Angel wants to admit.
Professor -
I will say that I tend to judge rhetorical situations based on their own rules since I was trained in Fisher’s narrative paradigm. However if there had been no explanation of metaphysics I suppose I would imagine that a person does not even lose their soul when they are turned, they are killed but they are brought back to life by their soul being trapped in their body and corrupted by the evil of their sire.
Unless they explain something else I assume that vampires are raised bodies that bear touch of corruption. The energy to sustain a vampire is a soul, while the blood may restore some kind of vitality to the body it does so at the cost of the soul. In this way the Buffyverse vampires are still the people they killed but instead of a good soul their soul is tainted. This may result in someone selfish like Angelus, it may result in someone violent and predatory like Spike, it may end up as a hedonist like Darla depends on their situation. However this theory is broken when they start summoning souls back to Vampires.
So then what we are shown is that the soul leave the body and a zombie is shambling the earth, except they are portrayed as vampires. I suppose I believe that the soul HAS to be replaced by some sort of placeholder otherwise the undead thing is a zombie. I come from a D&D background and those things that are undead and without a soul are those things whose bodies decay and only the magic of their being brought back keeps them as moving. For examples skeletons, zombies and liches all have no soul but continue to shamble the earth. Liches have their souls stored away as a power source, which allows them to be intelligent and act in a more advanced way. In that way Vampires I figure have a soul or something there to power their existence.
I think of it like a car, the body is the engine and such and while running it powers itself by consuming fuel (Blood) but it needs a battery to turn over the first time which is the soul or it’s evil equivalent. That is also backed up by something Spike says while tied up with Giles in “Pangs� (I think) he mentions that starved vampires don’t die they become living skeletons like the pictures in those “dusty� countries. So while blood may maintain the body it is the spark of a soul or something that keeps them alive.
I suppose I can’t get away from the idea that something that acts in many ways human needs to have a soul otherwise it has to be a demon or a real monster. Anything I have a hope of empathizing with I have the need to have it have a soul, however damaged or tainted. But all of that is a personal viewpoint and has very little to do with the cannon of the show which is why I try to avoid using that when making critical comments.
I will say that I tend to judge rhetorical situations based on their own rules since I was trained in Fisher’s narrative paradigm. However if there had been no explanation of metaphysics I suppose I would imagine that a person does not even lose their soul when they are turned, they are killed but they are brought back to life by their soul being trapped in their body and corrupted by the evil of their sire.
Unless they explain something else I assume that vampires are raised bodies that bear touch of corruption. The energy to sustain a vampire is a soul, while the blood may restore some kind of vitality to the body it does so at the cost of the soul. In this way the Buffyverse vampires are still the people they killed but instead of a good soul their soul is tainted. This may result in someone selfish like Angelus, it may result in someone violent and predatory like Spike, it may end up as a hedonist like Darla depends on their situation. However this theory is broken when they start summoning souls back to Vampires.
So then what we are shown is that the soul leave the body and a zombie is shambling the earth, except they are portrayed as vampires. I suppose I believe that the soul HAS to be replaced by some sort of placeholder otherwise the undead thing is a zombie. I come from a D&D background and those things that are undead and without a soul are those things whose bodies decay and only the magic of their being brought back keeps them as moving. For examples skeletons, zombies and liches all have no soul but continue to shamble the earth. Liches have their souls stored away as a power source, which allows them to be intelligent and act in a more advanced way. In that way Vampires I figure have a soul or something there to power their existence.
I think of it like a car, the body is the engine and such and while running it powers itself by consuming fuel (Blood) but it needs a battery to turn over the first time which is the soul or it’s evil equivalent. That is also backed up by something Spike says while tied up with Giles in “Pangs� (I think) he mentions that starved vampires don’t die they become living skeletons like the pictures in those “dusty� countries. So while blood may maintain the body it is the spark of a soul or something that keeps them alive.
I suppose I can’t get away from the idea that something that acts in many ways human needs to have a soul otherwise it has to be a demon or a real monster. Anything I have a hope of empathizing with I have the need to have it have a soul, however damaged or tainted. But all of that is a personal viewpoint and has very little to do with the cannon of the show which is why I try to avoid using that when making critical comments.
posted by: Miles on Mon, 10/17 12:56 PM EDT
Vanya –
I agree Angel never “died� the sword was nothing that would kill him. But somehow the universe did belch him up in a smoking heap on the floor and they never really deal with who brought him out of a hell dimension or why? We come to believe that the First Evil did this so it could use him in destroying Buffy.
If we assume that Angel arrived in Hell Dimension X intact… how did he get out? He has vampire powers it’s not like he’s Anya with extra planar travel access. In Buffy, and I entirely discount Angel as I didn’t watch it after they killed Doyle, they don’t have extra planar travel without a portal being opened. I think Buffy travels to one as “Anne� but there is a very specific gateway setup. Otherwise the getting back to our dimension has to be explained.
I also can’t speak to Darla in her appearance on Angel as it happens long after I stopped watching the show. But we have no context of her in Buffy before she was a vampire that I can recall.
I agree Angel never “died� the sword was nothing that would kill him. But somehow the universe did belch him up in a smoking heap on the floor and they never really deal with who brought him out of a hell dimension or why? We come to believe that the First Evil did this so it could use him in destroying Buffy.
If we assume that Angel arrived in Hell Dimension X intact… how did he get out? He has vampire powers it’s not like he’s Anya with extra planar travel access. In Buffy, and I entirely discount Angel as I didn’t watch it after they killed Doyle, they don’t have extra planar travel without a portal being opened. I think Buffy travels to one as “Anne� but there is a very specific gateway setup. Otherwise the getting back to our dimension has to be explained.
I also can’t speak to Darla in her appearance on Angel as it happens long after I stopped watching the show. But we have no context of her in Buffy before she was a vampire that I can recall.
posted by: Miles on Mon, 10/17 01:09 PM EDT
something i find inconsistent in buffyverse:
how is a vampire made?
vamp-victim-near death to victim-vamp-victim dies, rises as vamp
buffy is constaltly hanging out in the graveyard, "waiting" for foes to rise. in most popular vamp text, the victim has to suck blood from the sire vamp to become a vamp. and, not too many vamps are out to make all thier victims into children of darkness. SO. is all the waiting in the garveyard just for filler in the plot of each episode? more tinkering with the "dusting" fx?
another thing that bothers me....when spike appears for the first time in "school hard" he yells at angel for being a wimp because he was so evil before, and he says "you were my sire, man! i worshipped you!"
as far as my history remembers- darla-angel-drusilla-spike. so if spike were counting the top of the food chain being his sire, it would be darla, not angel. and when dru was so sick, they had to have her sire present to heal her- and they got angel. which is correct...blah.
how is a vampire made?
vamp-victim-near death to victim-vamp-victim dies, rises as vamp
buffy is constaltly hanging out in the graveyard, "waiting" for foes to rise. in most popular vamp text, the victim has to suck blood from the sire vamp to become a vamp. and, not too many vamps are out to make all thier victims into children of darkness. SO. is all the waiting in the garveyard just for filler in the plot of each episode? more tinkering with the "dusting" fx?
another thing that bothers me....when spike appears for the first time in "school hard" he yells at angel for being a wimp because he was so evil before, and he says "you were my sire, man! i worshipped you!"
as far as my history remembers- darla-angel-drusilla-spike. so if spike were counting the top of the food chain being his sire, it would be darla, not angel. and when dru was so sick, they had to have her sire present to heal her- and they got angel. which is correct...blah.
OK, I have to come in on this one discussion between Professor and Miles, if only because it argues something I've been struggling with in my own understanding of morality in the Buffyverse.
Although Miles makes a great case, I tend to agree with the Professor, especially with his "reading" of Buffy's explanation to Ford re: the demonic possession. I watched this episode the other day, and I remember thinking at the time it sounded like something she was saying just to talk Ford out of his plans. As Revello pointed out in the podcast, if the Angelus persona is separate from Angel, what's the point of his angst? Moreover, by viewing Angelus as the darkness within all of us, sans soul, the moral and psychological cause/ effect deepen tremendously.
It may be a bit trite, if anyone can call Jung trite, but I've seen vampires as the shadow self released from all ego constrictions. This works for me, although it has its problems, because it also explains the dilemma brought up here that Spike, at least, is capable of real love, which should not be possible if he is 100% pure evil. Certainly Angelus, Dru and Darla seem incapable of it. I don't mean his affection for Dru, but his willingness to undergo the trials to regain his soul and be worthy of Buffy. This always seemed very inconsistent to me, because part of what makes vampires "dust-worthy" on sight is that they are incapable of love or compassion. A moment of pure love (i.e. happiness) releases Angelus, who's very definition is his lack of the more tender emotions. Thus, if vampires ARE capable of these human feelings, should Buffy be quite so cavalier in the graveyard?
What sort of justifies this for me is Jung's description of the shadow: If it has been believed hitherto that the human shadow was the source of evil, it can now be ascertained on closer investigation that the unconscious man, that is, his shadow, does not consist only of morally reprehensible tendencies, but also displays a number of good qualities, such as normal instincts, appropriate reactions, realistic insights, creative impulses, etc. On this level of understanding, evil appears more as a distortion, a deformation, a misinterpretation and misapplication of facts that in themselves are natural.
I don'tknow. I think I've argued myself into a corner here, because if this explains WHY vampires can be so emotionally and psychologically textured, it still doesn't justify their slaying if they are truly capable of "stinking of humanity," as the Judge says. They aren't killable just because they're evil, or Buffy would have killed the Mayor early on; yet she doesn't kill him until he becomes a demon. (OK, OK, I know he was invincible there for awhile, but surely she knew he was evil BEFORE that, yet didn't kill him. I need to go back and rewatch those episodes to test this.)
lol--anyway, I'm totally losing track of my own argument--I'm in the early stages of processing this theory!--but I do find the morality of vampire slaying problematic at best.
On a completely different note--Miles,what did you do to get paragraphs?! This monoparagraphic style is incredibly annoying to us English teacher types!
Although Miles makes a great case, I tend to agree with the Professor, especially with his "reading" of Buffy's explanation to Ford re: the demonic possession. I watched this episode the other day, and I remember thinking at the time it sounded like something she was saying just to talk Ford out of his plans. As Revello pointed out in the podcast, if the Angelus persona is separate from Angel, what's the point of his angst? Moreover, by viewing Angelus as the darkness within all of us, sans soul, the moral and psychological cause/ effect deepen tremendously.
It may be a bit trite, if anyone can call Jung trite, but I've seen vampires as the shadow self released from all ego constrictions. This works for me, although it has its problems, because it also explains the dilemma brought up here that Spike, at least, is capable of real love, which should not be possible if he is 100% pure evil. Certainly Angelus, Dru and Darla seem incapable of it. I don't mean his affection for Dru, but his willingness to undergo the trials to regain his soul and be worthy of Buffy. This always seemed very inconsistent to me, because part of what makes vampires "dust-worthy" on sight is that they are incapable of love or compassion. A moment of pure love (i.e. happiness) releases Angelus, who's very definition is his lack of the more tender emotions. Thus, if vampires ARE capable of these human feelings, should Buffy be quite so cavalier in the graveyard?
What sort of justifies this for me is Jung's description of the shadow: If it has been believed hitherto that the human shadow was the source of evil, it can now be ascertained on closer investigation that the unconscious man, that is, his shadow, does not consist only of morally reprehensible tendencies, but also displays a number of good qualities, such as normal instincts, appropriate reactions, realistic insights, creative impulses, etc. On this level of understanding, evil appears more as a distortion, a deformation, a misinterpretation and misapplication of facts that in themselves are natural.
I don'tknow. I think I've argued myself into a corner here, because if this explains WHY vampires can be so emotionally and psychologically textured, it still doesn't justify their slaying if they are truly capable of "stinking of humanity," as the Judge says. They aren't killable just because they're evil, or Buffy would have killed the Mayor early on; yet she doesn't kill him until he becomes a demon. (OK, OK, I know he was invincible there for awhile, but surely she knew he was evil BEFORE that, yet didn't kill him. I need to go back and rewatch those episodes to test this.)
lol--anyway, I'm totally losing track of my own argument--I'm in the early stages of processing this theory!--but I do find the morality of vampire slaying problematic at best.
On a completely different note--Miles,what did you do to get paragraphs?! This monoparagraphic style is incredibly annoying to us English teacher types!
Traveler –
First off, paragraphs are gained by using the line break tag from HTML, which is with a “br� inside. You need one of them to end your sentence and then a second one for a blank line.
Something that deeply troubles me about what we are saying is that the soul is nothing more than a conscience. That without a soul human beings become monsters, think about the ramifications of that for a minute. Our natural state is less than animal it is not just a feeding machine it is a monster. I for one am unwilling to say that a human being can be a monster without an external force acting upon them. I realize serial killers, rapists and sociopaths exist but for me to sleep at night I have to believe that they were “good� people before something acted upon them.
As to the Jungian “shadow man� argument. Funny you should mention that as there are characters that are called the “Shadow Men� they are the Season 7 characters that created the first slayer. They are men who stood around, chained a girl to the floor and forced her to accept a demon’s soul into her all quite explicitly shown. The result is the primal, and in time Buffy herself. I think that the base impulse of humanity is better exampled in them than any vampire.
The problem you raise about dusting vampires as they “rise again� is very on point. If it is a moral imperative to kill vampires because of what they are then the idea of Spike being a “noble� vampire brings a great deal of cognitive dissonance to this. If Angel can be redeemed why are we killing Bob as he claws his way out of a coffin? Why not rehabilitate Bob?
Perhaps the mythos shifts from one version to the other as the writers fall in love with using the character of Spike? That is a real possibility, by the time Spike becomes a primary character we are not really dealing with Vamps, we have demon science projects, Gods, the Prime Evil and Nerds to fight, who cares how vampires rise from the grave? I think that this may be where we all end up; I think we all have viable ideas and I think the show might support all three readings depending on where you put your focus.
First off, paragraphs are gained by using the line break tag from HTML, which is with a “br� inside. You need one of them to end your sentence and then a second one for a blank line.
Something that deeply troubles me about what we are saying is that the soul is nothing more than a conscience. That without a soul human beings become monsters, think about the ramifications of that for a minute. Our natural state is less than animal it is not just a feeding machine it is a monster. I for one am unwilling to say that a human being can be a monster without an external force acting upon them. I realize serial killers, rapists and sociopaths exist but for me to sleep at night I have to believe that they were “good� people before something acted upon them.
As to the Jungian “shadow man� argument. Funny you should mention that as there are characters that are called the “Shadow Men� they are the Season 7 characters that created the first slayer. They are men who stood around, chained a girl to the floor and forced her to accept a demon’s soul into her all quite explicitly shown. The result is the primal, and in time Buffy herself. I think that the base impulse of humanity is better exampled in them than any vampire.
The problem you raise about dusting vampires as they “rise again� is very on point. If it is a moral imperative to kill vampires because of what they are then the idea of Spike being a “noble� vampire brings a great deal of cognitive dissonance to this. If Angel can be redeemed why are we killing Bob as he claws his way out of a coffin? Why not rehabilitate Bob?
Perhaps the mythos shifts from one version to the other as the writers fall in love with using the character of Spike? That is a real possibility, by the time Spike becomes a primary character we are not really dealing with Vamps, we have demon science projects, Gods, the Prime Evil and Nerds to fight, who cares how vampires rise from the grave? I think that this may be where we all end up; I think we all have viable ideas and I think the show might support all three readings depending on where you put your focus.
posted by: Miles on Tue, 10/18 01:26 PM EDT
Hi all, clearly, unless Spike is a bizarre aberration, vamps are not 100% evil, with or without soul. How can we characterise Spike? He is not noble either, although he certainsly is capable of noble feelings and behaviour (see his reaction to Joyce's death and his actions at the end of Season 5). I mentioned to a much more experienced Buffyphile friend that it seemed clear to me that Spike was the most soulful character in the show, and his reply was that Spike had no soul, which did not make him inherently evil, but deprived him of a social conscience, and made him inherently *selfish*, so that even his most apparently selfless behaviour is completely dictated by his own desires. This was demonstrated most clearly in Season 6, where Spike is in love with Buffy, but is still cruel to her, culminating in the attempted rape, but is still in conflict with him anonymously bringing Joyce flowers. But this is still the richest and most consistent explanation that I have heard. Spike is not eveil, but he is certainly capable of evil. He is warped, tainted by the lack of a soul. I see him as a pure *sociopath*, very dangerous, but not truly demonic/evil. Other vamp characters are obviously less fully drawn than Spike, but can we accept that all the *others* are Evil, but not Spike?
See ya, Professor.
See ya, Professor.
posted by: Professor on Tue, 10/18 03:54 PM EDT
I Agree with you Miles, about what u say about spike however i think that it is his relationship with buffy that makes him think of others at least a little. he is doing it to get a reaction out of buffy *somethng that he wonts* but it seems to be going agenst his inherent natuer as u decribe and that would make his a different sort of vampire than the others. it is his wonts that make him not wont to kill people, becaus he wonts to apeal to buffy. I'm shour it is in culmination with his chip of course, however it shows that buffy has chainged him. in the begining he is desperet to get rid of the chip in order to kill again, but after a while his motives chaing in wonting to help people for buffys sake, eventualy getting a soul for her. so I think Spikes jerny is one of regaining ones soul from being dead. a man who strid off the natural path of a life, ie:living respectfully and happyly. into a period of dainger and dethe then back into a normal life onec more... whatever that is in the Buffy verce.
I dont know if any of what i just wrot makes sence, it's just some gobaldy gook that came out of my head. ignor it if it don't make sence lol.
Kira
I dont know if any of what i just wrot makes sence, it's just some gobaldy gook that came out of my head. ignor it if it don't make sence lol.
Kira
There's plenty of evidence one way or the other, in terms of what makes vampires tick, what makes one ensouled vampire seek redemption, while another seems to seek merely respect or recognition. There's contradictions and inconsistencies everywhere you look.
There seems to be the idea the vampire's behavior is the sum of its physical and metaphysical parts--soul, physiological needs, instincts.Yet, on the other hand, we see plenty of evidence in the show, outside of vampires, that tends to suggest that the soul is something more like a "ghost" or "spirit" that contains the whole package.
If not, then I'm not sure what happens when Faith switches bodies with Buffy, or when Giles switches with a demon. Or when Willow is tranformed into a ghost. If the individual persona is just a purely chemical pattern-- the brain's mix of memories, opinions, environmental conditiong, etc., then Willow should have been the last one who would have had her wits about her. There's also various hauntings, demonic possessions, and even a witch trapped in a cheeerleading trophy.
I think Whedon uses the horror/fantasy genre as a setup for for very focused character development, in which everything in the environment is a potential metaphor. It requires a shortcut every once in a while, which you really can't get around forever in the paranormal, unless you want to produce something like Blade, an attempt at a purely mechanical vampire premise. But then you lose all those powerful metaphors, which is really what it's all about.
Personally, I think the "champion" concept was a better fit for Angel than the redemption angle, and it seems to have been around just as long, if Angel's "Powers that Be" are behind Whistler and Angel's return from hell. Angel seems to ditch redemption in his own show, though not Buffy's, though as of BtVS season three ("Amends"), the First actually attacks Angel's perceived need for redmption, as if it needed to get Angel out of the picture. Interestingly, the First leaves him alone for the next five years, then sure enough Angel hands over the key to the First's own defeat in the farewell cameo.
There seems to be the idea the vampire's behavior is the sum of its physical and metaphysical parts--soul, physiological needs, instincts.Yet, on the other hand, we see plenty of evidence in the show, outside of vampires, that tends to suggest that the soul is something more like a "ghost" or "spirit" that contains the whole package.
If not, then I'm not sure what happens when Faith switches bodies with Buffy, or when Giles switches with a demon. Or when Willow is tranformed into a ghost. If the individual persona is just a purely chemical pattern-- the brain's mix of memories, opinions, environmental conditiong, etc., then Willow should have been the last one who would have had her wits about her. There's also various hauntings, demonic possessions, and even a witch trapped in a cheeerleading trophy.
I think Whedon uses the horror/fantasy genre as a setup for for very focused character development, in which everything in the environment is a potential metaphor. It requires a shortcut every once in a while, which you really can't get around forever in the paranormal, unless you want to produce something like Blade, an attempt at a purely mechanical vampire premise. But then you lose all those powerful metaphors, which is really what it's all about.
Personally, I think the "champion" concept was a better fit for Angel than the redemption angle, and it seems to have been around just as long, if Angel's "Powers that Be" are behind Whistler and Angel's return from hell. Angel seems to ditch redemption in his own show, though not Buffy's, though as of BtVS season three ("Amends"), the First actually attacks Angel's perceived need for redmption, as if it needed to get Angel out of the picture. Interestingly, the First leaves him alone for the next five years, then sure enough Angel hands over the key to the First's own defeat in the farewell cameo.
Miles, we might be arguing semantics here. I don't think the soul is something external forced upon a physical being to induce him/her towards goodness, and if you take it away we're evil. It's not something separate, it IS the good within us, so when we talk about losing a soul, that's a metaphor, if you will, for losing what makes us human. Just as a ghost is a soul without a body (I think! I may be wrong on that!), a body can lose its soul, its ability to CARE about the difference between right and wrong. Obviously, within the show's universe, vamps and demons recognize that something is "evil" within human morality, but but they've lost the compassion for others that drives us to do what is right, regardless of cost to self; they've lost altruism. Thus, although Spike is capable of love, as the Professor points out, it is predominantly selfish. Though I'd argue that his actions finally shock Spike into a realization of his own selfishness and his attempts to regain his own soul in order to "give Buffy what she deserves," finally become about as selfless as most of us are capable of. Which is why I find him a problematic character. Technically, he shouldn't be capable of that. And if HE is, aren't other vampires, so should they be dusted so peremptorily on arising? As Revello put it so aptly, is Buffy really Buffy the Serial Killer?
Or, alternatively, are we just taking this far too seriously, because it's really just fun to watch Buffy at work and maybe we shouldn't look too closely?.....Nah. The analysis is almost as fun as watching the show.
So now I have to put 'Hush" in to watch it again for comments on the new board!
Or, alternatively, are we just taking this far too seriously, because it's really just fun to watch Buffy at work and maybe we shouldn't look too closely?.....Nah. The analysis is almost as fun as watching the show.
So now I have to put 'Hush" in to watch it again for comments on the new board!
I agreed with Menachem's first post 100%, until he reverted in his later posts to "Angel" simply being a demon with a soul, a different entity than “Liam� entirely. The first time we see Liam he’s being kicked out of a tavern (BtVS, S2) and in later flashbacks in Angel S2, we see that Liam himself was really a loud, obnoxious, drunken fool, probably the type of guy most Buffy fans dreaded dealing with in high school. Liam was a man who obviously loved causing trouble, and so once his darkest feelings are unleashed, he basically becomes a more sociopath version of what Liam already was.
This is why Angel struggles for redemption. He sees that if he had never become a vampire, he would have probably continued a shallow existence being a inebriated lout, starting bar fights and sleeping around. Ironically becoming a vampire was the best thing that could have happened for Liam, in terms of his own personal development. Once his soul is returned, Liam has learned the ultimate lesson in “be careful what you wish for.� By witnessing Angelus’ crimes against humanity, Liam sees where his dark cravings lead, and veers toward the morality his father lectured about.
His quest for redemption isn’t just about the baby killing and mass-murders Angelus did, but about whom he was before becoming a vampire and who he desperately wishes to be now.
One final point: Concerning the idea of continuity, do they ever explain how in the 1940’s and 50’s, Angel seems to be pretty clean-cut and hygienic (Angel, S2-episode 2; S5-episode 13) and yet by the 1990’s he’s apparently homeless and filthy?
This is why Angel struggles for redemption. He sees that if he had never become a vampire, he would have probably continued a shallow existence being a inebriated lout, starting bar fights and sleeping around. Ironically becoming a vampire was the best thing that could have happened for Liam, in terms of his own personal development. Once his soul is returned, Liam has learned the ultimate lesson in “be careful what you wish for.� By witnessing Angelus’ crimes against humanity, Liam sees where his dark cravings lead, and veers toward the morality his father lectured about.
His quest for redemption isn’t just about the baby killing and mass-murders Angelus did, but about whom he was before becoming a vampire and who he desperately wishes to be now.
One final point: Concerning the idea of continuity, do they ever explain how in the 1940’s and 50’s, Angel seems to be pretty clean-cut and hygienic (Angel, S2-episode 2; S5-episode 13) and yet by the 1990’s he’s apparently homeless and filthy?
Concerning the problems brought up, I disagree with Revello's criticism of the path of redemption. I don't believe that the re-souled vampire was Liam feeling guilt. If this was true, than Revello wouldn't certainly be correct and the theme of redemption would be more than a little ridiculous.
However, the re-souled Angelus doesn't refer to himself as Liam, he refers to himself as Angel. I don't think the re-souled vampire cancels out the vampiric part and makes a human vampire. It makes a "soul-ed" vampire. Angel is the vampire Angelus with a soul who finally feels guilt for his action.
Revello debated with that saying that Angelus is so, so wicked, is there any sign of conscious that could ever be? But I would argue that most vampires, without the deep kind of self-examination we see in Spike, without that soul don't even comprehend their actions are bad. Like a very young child, or psycopath, one may say. When the gypsys force that soul-as-conscience on a vampire, he has a moment of self-realization and understands what he did was wrong. It was murder rather than eating and surviving. Which of course, causes guilt.
So Angel's quest for redemption is a Angelus's quest, a vampire's quest. Not a human with unreasonable guilt. I don't think much of Liam even exists anymore. (Whereas, in Spike all of William still exists. Spike is William's Shadow, and vice versa. But that's a completely different podcast topic.)
However, the re-souled Angelus doesn't refer to himself as Liam, he refers to himself as Angel. I don't think the re-souled vampire cancels out the vampiric part and makes a human vampire. It makes a "soul-ed" vampire. Angel is the vampire Angelus with a soul who finally feels guilt for his action.
Revello debated with that saying that Angelus is so, so wicked, is there any sign of conscious that could ever be? But I would argue that most vampires, without the deep kind of self-examination we see in Spike, without that soul don't even comprehend their actions are bad. Like a very young child, or psycopath, one may say. When the gypsys force that soul-as-conscience on a vampire, he has a moment of self-realization and understands what he did was wrong. It was murder rather than eating and surviving. Which of course, causes guilt.
So Angel's quest for redemption is a Angelus's quest, a vampire's quest. Not a human with unreasonable guilt. I don't think much of Liam even exists anymore. (Whereas, in Spike all of William still exists. Spike is William's Shadow, and vice versa. But that's a completely different podcast topic.)
posted by: Anna on Mon, 12/5 06:29 PM EST
I would have to agree with Anna on this one. I don't think there is much of Liam left in Angel, and that it is Angelus' redemption Angel is after, not Liam's.
To tackle the issue of Spike, he appears to have become a wiser version of William. He still has many of the characteristics and mannerisms of William, but has only adapted to his situation, which prior to meeting Buffy was a kill-or-be-killed world. When he meets Buffy, he only adapts to a situation where he sees that he can make room for himself, kind of taking over Angel's place as the "cool" vampire... for lack of a better way to put it... He fills a void that Angel leaves. He is seen first as being an antagonist, and then slowly becomes a more whole character as he becomes more involved with Buffy and the Scoobies. Angel is forced into his adaptation by gaining his soul, which forces him to change...which could also be seen in Spikes acquisition of the chip... hmmm still thinking these things out...haha
To tackle the issue of Spike, he appears to have become a wiser version of William. He still has many of the characteristics and mannerisms of William, but has only adapted to his situation, which prior to meeting Buffy was a kill-or-be-killed world. When he meets Buffy, he only adapts to a situation where he sees that he can make room for himself, kind of taking over Angel's place as the "cool" vampire... for lack of a better way to put it... He fills a void that Angel leaves. He is seen first as being an antagonist, and then slowly becomes a more whole character as he becomes more involved with Buffy and the Scoobies. Angel is forced into his adaptation by gaining his soul, which forces him to change...which could also be seen in Spikes acquisition of the chip... hmmm still thinking these things out...haha
Anna and Menachem already stated what I was going to, that Angel is the demon with a soul, it's the demon that is feeling the need for redemption, that is why whenever the soul is removed, the demon is back in charge as Angelus.
GREAT Podcast. Hurry back with more soon!
GREAT Podcast. Hurry back with more soon!
I want to challenge Revello's position that SouledAngel did not have to feel guilty for Angeluses actions. He said that if someone took over his body and did attrocious acts then he believe he would not feel guilty for those things that happened outside of his control. Perhaps. Especially if he had no memories of those acts.
However, Angel *does* have those memories. He can recall the faces of everyone he tortured, killed, drove insane. I would think those memoried alone might be enough to make someone want to atone, to take on the guilt, whether they believed they were in control at the time or not.
Also, earlier posters have made much of the fact that SouledAngel and Angelus are so different when it appears that UnsouledSpike and SouledSpike are not. One could argue that there are many differences. Clearly the differences are not quite so extreme. I'm going to guess that while Spike is unusual perhaps he is not unique. Perhaps in Angel's long life he came to recognize other vampires that had been able to hold on to more of their humanity (for whatever unexplained reason). I would think this would also lead to more guilt and reason for attoning. So rather than argue that Spike blows the verse I'd say it helps to support Angel's need for redemption storyline.
However, Angel *does* have those memories. He can recall the faces of everyone he tortured, killed, drove insane. I would think those memoried alone might be enough to make someone want to atone, to take on the guilt, whether they believed they were in control at the time or not.
Also, earlier posters have made much of the fact that SouledAngel and Angelus are so different when it appears that UnsouledSpike and SouledSpike are not. One could argue that there are many differences. Clearly the differences are not quite so extreme. I'm going to guess that while Spike is unusual perhaps he is not unique. Perhaps in Angel's long life he came to recognize other vampires that had been able to hold on to more of their humanity (for whatever unexplained reason). I would think this would also lead to more guilt and reason for attoning. So rather than argue that Spike blows the verse I'd say it helps to support Angel's need for redemption storyline.
I'm in the camp of "the vampire demon is different from the human." Therefore, when a human soul is placed back into a body in which a vampire demon also resides, you have two entities at "war" with each other. The result, is a hybrid personality - beither vampire demon, nor human. That's why Angel doesn't call himself "Liam." He's NOT Liam - he's an entity that is influenced by both the human Liam, and the vampire demon Angelus. HOWEVER, Liam clearly has the upper hand, and that's why he does mostly good - Liam is the "drvier" of the body. Why does he have upper hand? Perhaps because Liam was a dominant personaility in his prior life? Or perhaps, more likely, because of the gypsy curse.
Now with Spike, it's the same story, but with a different result. Spike with William's soul (let's call him "Spilliam"), is ALSO a hybrid personality. William influences the actions of Spilliam. But in this case, the vampire demon Spike is the "driver" - he has the upper hand. Why? Perhaps because William was a submissive personality pre-vamping. Or perhaps it has to with the method in which Willaim was put back into the body. In any event, with Spike in control, the difference between "Spike" and "Spilliam" is not so noticible. But it IS there. Hence at last in Spilliam (who calls himself "Spike"), we have an entity who can love Buffy - be the "man" she deserves.
As to the issue of Angel's guilt, I agree with harleyquinn, above, thay Angel has all of the memories of Angelus. He recalls every terrible thing Angelus did, and to him it feels like HE did it. That would cause tremendous guilt - so even though intellectually he might know he's not responsible, emotionally he feels resonsible. But beyond that, to the extent that "Angel" is that hybrid personality I mentioned, he actully IS partly culpable - the part that is Angelus. And therefore he feels the need to atone for that part of himself.
I THINK this interpretation works with all of the episodes and harmonizes what appeared to be contradictions in the mythos. Comments?
Now with Spike, it's the same story, but with a different result. Spike with William's soul (let's call him "Spilliam"), is ALSO a hybrid personality. William influences the actions of Spilliam. But in this case, the vampire demon Spike is the "driver" - he has the upper hand. Why? Perhaps because William was a submissive personality pre-vamping. Or perhaps it has to with the method in which Willaim was put back into the body. In any event, with Spike in control, the difference between "Spike" and "Spilliam" is not so noticible. But it IS there. Hence at last in Spilliam (who calls himself "Spike"), we have an entity who can love Buffy - be the "man" she deserves.
As to the issue of Angel's guilt, I agree with harleyquinn, above, thay Angel has all of the memories of Angelus. He recalls every terrible thing Angelus did, and to him it feels like HE did it. That would cause tremendous guilt - so even though intellectually he might know he's not responsible, emotionally he feels resonsible. But beyond that, to the extent that "Angel" is that hybrid personality I mentioned, he actully IS partly culpable - the part that is Angelus. And therefore he feels the need to atone for that part of himself.
I THINK this interpretation works with all of the episodes and harmonizes what appeared to be contradictions in the mythos. Comments?
its late and my head hurts from thinking too hard but i want to say you are right Pumpakhet i cant read all this right now ill try another time but yes i think his need for redemption stems from the fact that he remembers EVERYTHING Angelus did and damn i dont think we were shown even little fraction of what Angelus did he probably raped little girls while there parents where tied up and forced to watch whil Darla stood and raped her brother something like that ugh i would do everything i could to not only get that entity out of my head but destroy it. Im not saying getting it out of my body but destroying it kinda like what happened with fred when Illyria took over Angelus is not going back to hell he'll like it to much he must stop existing and i think thats what Angel wants more than anything, being human and being with buffy a very very very close second.
Hi! Love your podcast--I've been catching up, listening to all the episodes so far. I love the way you tackle specific issues, and address them so fairly and so intelligently.
I also agree with what Buffy tells Ford in "Lie to Me" that you die, and the demon takes over. I think Buffy would almost have to know what she was talking about in order to do her job--if it was something different, the Watchers would know, and if it's Buffy we're talking about, she'd find a way to find out eventually.
We still have the fact to deal with that vampires retain human personalities, and that they are capable of growth. I think the first can be explained by "Buffy's" X-Men connection, specifically with Dark Phoenix. Phoenix had all of Jean's memories, and it also emulated her so perfectly that it took on her personality, eventually enough to also take on her morality, but it wasn't Jean. Of course, this brings up another fascinating question--how much of our memories and personality patterns (types of speaking, thinking, ways of making moral choices) make us who we are--does it ever get to the point where a difference that makes no difference is no difference? But when demons animate bodies that have very strong personalities to begin with (or alternately, demons who have weak personalities animate bodies with average personalities), they'll act like the original humans. I think this is what happened to Spike and Harmony.
Angel's question is not whether Liam is responsible for Angelus (Liam's dead), but whether it's possible for a demon to become a moral creature. Giles initially thought no, never. But then Angel was given a conscience, a soul. I think it's interesting that in the season 5 Angel episode, "Harm's Way," Harmony says "It's easier for you; the rest of us don't have souls." I think that demons just aren't capable of choosing good for good's sake, unless something external happens to give them that capacity. (The soulless boy in "Angel" wasn't capable of choosing good for good's sake either.) At the same time, some demons are different than others. Angel tells Spike that as Angelus, he killed people with a song in his heart--he liked being cruel--where for Spike it was all about the challenge and the kill, not about inflicting pain for its own sake. I think that's part of where Angel's guilt comes from, and it's the part that Spike can't understand. Spike's a different case. I think with him, we actually saw a demon transform into a creature on the side of good. At the same time, Spike couldn't identify with Angel's guilt--he'd chosen the side he thought was right, but he didn't quite understand right and wrong before he got a soul.
Regarding Angel's feeling guilty for Angelus, I think part of it has to do with the way he was partially responsible. It's another whole question: how much responsibility does a person have when he or she doesn't have the capacity to do differently. Abstract responsibility aside, Angel remembers every life he destroyed, and he remembers doing it, and I think he'd have to be less than human not to agonize over it--in much the same way as we agonize over unintentionally hurting the people we care about.
I also agree with what Buffy tells Ford in "Lie to Me" that you die, and the demon takes over. I think Buffy would almost have to know what she was talking about in order to do her job--if it was something different, the Watchers would know, and if it's Buffy we're talking about, she'd find a way to find out eventually.
We still have the fact to deal with that vampires retain human personalities, and that they are capable of growth. I think the first can be explained by "Buffy's" X-Men connection, specifically with Dark Phoenix. Phoenix had all of Jean's memories, and it also emulated her so perfectly that it took on her personality, eventually enough to also take on her morality, but it wasn't Jean. Of course, this brings up another fascinating question--how much of our memories and personality patterns (types of speaking, thinking, ways of making moral choices) make us who we are--does it ever get to the point where a difference that makes no difference is no difference? But when demons animate bodies that have very strong personalities to begin with (or alternately, demons who have weak personalities animate bodies with average personalities), they'll act like the original humans. I think this is what happened to Spike and Harmony.
Angel's question is not whether Liam is responsible for Angelus (Liam's dead), but whether it's possible for a demon to become a moral creature. Giles initially thought no, never. But then Angel was given a conscience, a soul. I think it's interesting that in the season 5 Angel episode, "Harm's Way," Harmony says "It's easier for you; the rest of us don't have souls." I think that demons just aren't capable of choosing good for good's sake, unless something external happens to give them that capacity. (The soulless boy in "Angel" wasn't capable of choosing good for good's sake either.) At the same time, some demons are different than others. Angel tells Spike that as Angelus, he killed people with a song in his heart--he liked being cruel--where for Spike it was all about the challenge and the kill, not about inflicting pain for its own sake. I think that's part of where Angel's guilt comes from, and it's the part that Spike can't understand. Spike's a different case. I think with him, we actually saw a demon transform into a creature on the side of good. At the same time, Spike couldn't identify with Angel's guilt--he'd chosen the side he thought was right, but he didn't quite understand right and wrong before he got a soul.
Regarding Angel's feeling guilty for Angelus, I think part of it has to do with the way he was partially responsible. It's another whole question: how much responsibility does a person have when he or she doesn't have the capacity to do differently. Abstract responsibility aside, Angel remembers every life he destroyed, and he remembers doing it, and I think he'd have to be less than human not to agonize over it--in much the same way as we agonize over unintentionally hurting the people we care about.
Regarding Angel's return from the hell dimension. Couldn't it be Jasmine's doing (Rain of Fire story arc Angel S4). I think Skip makes allusion to it during his monologue about all the little cogs that had to be put in place for Jasmine to be begotten in human form.
Re: Angel returning from Hell. On pure memory, I always thought he was brought back by "The First" because the First wanted him to kill Buffy, he was brought back as a weapon. He was tortured by past wrong-doings, even forced to re-live them (with Buffy experiencing them also). This was supposed to drive him mad enough to want release, which would come in the form of him 'forcing' buffy and then killing her. Thus removing her as a threat and also bring Angelus back. If it had worked the First would've been golden!
This whole ep is what really sparked Angel into his "redemption-mode". Part of the reason he left Sunnydale was to remove distractions (i.e. buffy) from his purpose. Once he gets to LA he soon learns (in Season 1 I believe) that if he redeems himself he can become human - so that is another motivator to atone. I really don't see all of the contradictions people are listing here....
Re: Demons/Vamps/Souls/Humans - I agree with a lot of people here. I always envisioned the buffyverse vampire transition being that when you are vamped your soul is blocked/trapped/inhibited - it's like it's not there. The demon does take over but! In the b-verse vampires are human/demon hybrids, they are not pure demon - so any humanity that was seen on the show I always just took as humanity coming through.
This whole ep is what really sparked Angel into his "redemption-mode". Part of the reason he left Sunnydale was to remove distractions (i.e. buffy) from his purpose. Once he gets to LA he soon learns (in Season 1 I believe) that if he redeems himself he can become human - so that is another motivator to atone. I really don't see all of the contradictions people are listing here....
Re: Demons/Vamps/Souls/Humans - I agree with a lot of people here. I always envisioned the buffyverse vampire transition being that when you are vamped your soul is blocked/trapped/inhibited - it's like it's not there. The demon does take over but! In the b-verse vampires are human/demon hybrids, they are not pure demon - so any humanity that was seen on the show I always just took as humanity coming through.
Post your comment:
