Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Angel with his soul. Angel without. Two or one and the same?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Reddygirl View Post
    I agree with the idea of infection or parasite being the demon force that animates a turned dead human body and makes him a vampire.

    We have never on either show seen a race of invisible demons that are just hanging around waiting for a nice dead human body they can slip into. If Angelus is an enitity with a brain and a thought process and an agenda that are entirely his own, then he must have some kind of physical form, even if it's not apparent to the naked eye.

    And if Angelus and Unsouled Spike are entirely different entities than Angel and Souled Spike, if indeed Spike and Angel now each share a body with a demon that is only kept in check by their souls, then Angel and Spike are very dangerous indeed and neither should be having close, personal relationships with humans.
    They want to feel connected to the rest humanity even though that they aren't human so they have to stay close. They're aware of the monster inside them but they can't stop the way they feel.

    Comment


    • #92
      "Once someone becomes a vampire there's no going back. No matter how much you want to believe there's some part of them you can save, all that's left is an evil thing."
      Originally posted by Lostsoul666 View Post
      I found this in one of the season 3 Angel episodes. It sounds like the same thing that Giles said about when a person dies a demon takes over there body and has all the memories of the person that died.
      So, Angel thinks that he's just an evil thing, and soul didn't change that, because there was no part of him left to be saved since the moment he became a vampire?

      Some heavy irony there.

      But let's see when and in what circumstances Angel made this really weird statement. He was talking to Aubrey, one of Holtz's people, who came to them pretending to be a grieving mother who had to kill her young son after he became a vampire.

      Aubrey: "Excuse me. Is this Angel Investigations?"

      They turn to see a woman with short, dark hair standing in the lobby.

      Aubrey: "I need your help."

      Fred is putting Connor into the bassinet.

      Aubrey: "Last Monday night, my son Timothy snuck out of the house. He loved to go to the pier. He loved the lights of the Ferris wheel there. (Angel looks down at Connor) So I went after him. I searched the pier, the arcade - nothing. So - I sat up all night and waited for him to come home."

      Angel: "When did he return home? Right before dawn?"

      Aubrey: "Yeah. But his face was... There was something wrong with his face - and - he was so angry. He was calling me names, and pounding on the door, and screaming at me to let him in. - It scared me. I was afraid of my own son. - Then he just - went up in flames."

      Everyone is quiet for a moment.

      Wes: "If you'd let him in - he would have killed you."

      Aubrey: "At least he'd still be alive."

      Gunn: "No. What came to your door that wasn't your son. It looked like your son, but it wasn't him."

      Aubrey: "Maybe I could have found a way to turn him back."

      Angel: "When somebody becomes a vampire there is no turning back. (Wes looks over at Angel) No matter how much you want to believe there is some part of him you can save, all that's left is an evil thing."
      So, Angel was talking to a woman who (as far as he knew) didn't know that he was a vampire, and who (as far as he knew) had killed her own son after he was sired - and was going to torture herself forever with the thought that perhaps she could have saved him instead, even as a vampire. Hmm. Nah, there was no reason for him to lie to her, was there?

      And that's why quotes should never be taken out of context.
      Last edited by TimeTravellingBunny; 16-07-11, 04:03 AM.
      You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

      Comment


      • #93
        Then they are very selfish entities. If they have a monster that they can't control because the monster has nothing to do with their own dark sides and frailities and weaknesses, then any idea of being with Buffy or any human is wrong.

        And if that is the case, if Angelus is an entirely separate identity that has nothing to do with Angel, then one has to wonder if Angelus indeed did break free in 8 and that's why Angel agreed to do Twilight's bidding.

        And as for Angel atoning for Angelus (or Spike for unsouled Spike), that's not possible. Atonement is a personal thing, it's something you do for the wrongs you have committed (unless we want to bring the religious angle into the equation and I don't think anyone is saying Angel {or Spike} was Jesus).

        If Angel's story had been about trying to fight the good fight because he was appalled at what his body had been used for, that's one thing. But to "atone", to seek "redemption", that makes no sense.

        Angelus's victims don't need redemption, they were innocent. It would be Angelus who needed to be redeemed because he was the sinner. So do you think Angel is trying to redeem Angelus? If not, why has the word "redemption" been Angel's story for so long if Angel and Angelus are different "people"?
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Reddygirl View Post
          Then they are very selfish entities. If they have a monster that they can't control because the monster has nothing to do with their own dark sides and frailities and weaknesses, then any idea of being with Buffy or any human is wrong.

          And if that is the case, if Angelus is an entirely separate identity that has nothing to do with Angel, then one has to wonder if Angelus indeed did break free in 8 and that's why Angel agreed to do Twilight's bidding.

          And as for Angel atoning for Angelus (or Spike for unsouled Spike), that's not possible. Atonement is a personal thing, it's something you do for the wrongs you have committed (unless we want to bring the religious angle into the equation and I don't think anyone is saying Angel {or Spike} was Jesus).

          If Angel's story had been about trying to fight the good fight because he was appalled at what his body had been used for, that's one thing. But to "atone", to seek "redemption", that makes no sense.

          Angelus's victims don't need redemption, they were innocent. It would be Angelus who needed to be redeemed because he was the sinner. So do you think Angel is trying to redeem Angelus? If not, why has the word "redemption" been Angel's story for so long if Angel and Angelus are different "people"?
          I never said they weren't selfish But it's the sad truth.They wouldn't be able to handle the isolation. I think Angel tried that for while but it didn't work. Whistler found him and gave him a purpose. No human would be able to handle the isolation.

          Comment


          • #95
            Here is my theory...
            Cheryl and bonnaleah. Both of you believe that the souls is the person vampires were once upon the time. Now if that is true and the soul is the person they were before, what about Darla than? Pregnant Darla acted just like human Darla. Going by your theory than pregnant Darla is only months old because she has a soul of the baby. If the soul is the person, than why is Darla acting grown up when in fact she just a baby? The soul gave here the ability to see right from wrong (moral compass), so the soul is definitely infecting her here. But if she got all those things from the soul, why didn't she get a personality of the baby?
            Last edited by Sky; 16-07-11, 06:02 AM.
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #96
              After season 2, we have another 6 seasons of Buffy plus 5 seasons of Angel plus After the Fall, and we never, NEVER, hear again of that theory.
              Sorry, but that's not true. We hear it again in the 17th episode of ATS S2. "Disharmony".

              Wesley: "That is not your friend. That thing may have your friend's memories and her appearance, but it's just a filthy demon, an unholy monster.

              The curse is on Angelus, not on the soul. The minute the abominable creature stops sufferning, it is not worthy of the human soul and it loses it. It is in the shooting script. If you want to ignore it, then you just ignore the facts and the story and you try to make it work your way. The intent of the curse is to make Angelus suffer for his crimes, the intent was never to make an innocent creature Angelus's room-mate.
              Don't you see that the soul is the curse?

              But you have never explained where do the memories of the demon who comes and occupies the body go.......
              There's nothing in the text about demons having memories of their own, and if they had memories of their own they wouldn't need to rely on the memories of their victims.

              Angel, as Liam, was a man once upon a time, like everybody on earth, but he got sired and become demonised in a way. The evil part of him, the evil part that all of us have, got magnified, and he started killing for pleasure.
              Which like it or not is completely contradicted by canon text.

              (2) Joss tells us that we can't trust the storyteller in Lie to Me. He has Giles point out to us that it'd be nice to believe that the world came in simple black and white. But he says that explicitly as a lie - a lie that is meant to be comforting to Buffy who is struggling with the complexity of growing up.
              I interpret the episode much differently. Giles lie wasn't about comforting Buffy. Buffy was struggling with who to trust. Her childhood friend who she trusted ended up being the bad guy and betraying her, and the vampire who she wasn't sure she trusted, was in fact the good guy who helped her out. Joss wasn't telling us that we can't trust the storyteller.....he was telling us that it's difficult to know who to trust. And that was the whole point of Giles lie....and of Buffy asking Giles to lie to her.

              (1) Giles isn't a vampire. He's reporting what he knows from the Watcher's Council.

              (a) We know the Watcher's Council is not infallible. They made mistakes on the history of the vampires, for example.

              (b) We know that the Watcher's Council is perfectly willing to lie to their slayers -- as Giles did in Helpless. They have their own agenda.

              (c) We can figure that if their agenda is training killing machines it might help to give them a black and white view of things -- by telling them that vampires have nothing to do with the humans they once were, for example.
              Well except there's no support for any of this in text, except the "Helpless" reference, and that doesn't have a thing to do with what a vampire is. We can figure and imagine a lot of things but those things don't mean anything if they aren't backed up by actual canon...or if they are contradicted by actual canon.

              The difference hinges on how one understands the explanation about humans and vampires offered at the beginning of the show. You can believe Giles straight-up -- as you do. The price you pay for that belief is the fact that every vampire we see talks about themselves as being in continuity with their human selves. As Vamps has pointed out repeatedly the whole Angel/Darla story (for one) makes zero sense if you take that one line early on as the Gospel Truth.
              The explanation about humans and vampires at the beginning of the series is pretty straightforward, and I don't see much wiggle room. The same information is repeated 5 different times that I can remember, and so imo there's no justifiable reason to question it. Especially when so much other text supports it. I don't have a problem with vampires talking about being in continuity with their human selves because it plays directly into the information given by Giles in the beginning.

              Angel:"Once someone becomes a vampire there's no going back. No matter how much you want to believe there's some part of them you can save, all that's left is an evil thing."

              I found this in one of the season 3 Angel episodes. It sounds like the same thing that Giles said about when a person dies a demon takes over there body and has all the memories of the person that died.
              Nice find, thank you.

              Cheryl and bonnaleah. Both of you believe that the souls is the person vampires were once upon the time. Now if that is true and the soul is the person they were before, what about Darla than? Pregnant Darla acted just like human Darla. Going by your theory than pregnant Darla is only months old because she has a soul of the baby. If the soul is the person, than why is Darla action grown up when in fact she just a baby? The soul gave here the ability to see right from wrong (moral compass), so the soul is definitely infecting here. But if she got all those things from the soul, why didn't she get a personality of the baby?
              It's been a while since I watched that arc but I'm pretty sure the baby's soul was mentioned in text as influencing Darla....the baby's soul was never Darla's soul, so Darla wasn't a baby or only a few months old. Anyone who has ever been pregnant knows that the fetus is connected to the mother by an umbilical cord, (until birth the mother and baby are as one) so the idea of the baby's soul having influence over Darla is not a far fetched one imo. Darla knew the effects of the baby's soul on her was temporary and would end at birth...and that's why she staked herself.

              As for getting a personality from the soul....I don't think personality comes from the soul. Personality is just the way we express ourselves.
              Avatar by Destructo Girl

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Lostsoul666 View Post
                I found this in one of the season 3 Angel episodes. It sounds like the same thing that Giles said about when a person dies a demon takes over there body and has all the memories of the person that died.
                Where does it say that the person it taken over by something else?

                "Once someone becomes a vampire..."
                So the 'someone' is becoming. It's not saying "once someone is displaced..." It's "once someone becomes"

                But, you know what. We don't even need to argue the semantics of 'becomes'. Go ahead and say "becomes" means "possessed by an entirely different entity" It's irrelevant to the issue of accuracy. Let's look at the whole sentence:
                "Once someone becomes a vampire there's no going back. No matter how much you want to believe there's some part of them you can save, all that's left is an evil thing."
                It doesn't matter what theory of vampirism you choose -- the two person or the linked one. Doesn't matter. It's irrelevant to the veracity of the statement, because, either way, if you think that Angel is redeemable in any manner whatsoever, you're saying the quoted statement is wrong.

                There apparently is 'going back.' (It just takes Willow or a Gypsy to do it.) So if anyone by any theory argues that Angel is good or redeemable or special or whatever, you've started by saying that statement is not accurate. We have Angel, Spike and Human!Darla to illustrate that the soul once lost can be called back. By a variety of methods.

                Heck, Human!Darla and "I Will Remember You" show that the whole human can be called back.

                In fact, the entire shanshu prophecy flies in the face of this statement.

                Shanshu and Mohra demons.

                Sure it may be rare. It may be an extremely rare and anomalous event and a grieving mother would be ill-advised to grieve and hope for it. So it makes sense that he's not advising someone to hold out for a 1 in a billion possibility. But rare and anomalous isn't 'never'. The statement is very simply (and with the above examples, demonstrably) inaccurate and doesn't give the complete picture. Even one -- just one ... just Angel - example proves that.
                Last edited by shipperx; 16-07-11, 04:15 PM.
                Learning Experience: "...one of those things that says, "You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.”
                ~Douglas Adams

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by bonnaleah View Post
                  the baby's soul was never Darla's soul, so Darla wasn't a baby or only a few months old.
                  But it doesn't matter whose soul she got. You implied that the soul is the person. So it doesn't matter she didn't get her own soul, the new person(soul) should be inside of her. And because the soul is the person, shouldn't this new person be in charge of her body?

                  The soul was affecting her, it made her sacrifice her own life for her baby. But if the soul is the person, that means it was not Darla who gave her life so the baby can live. The baby killed Darla so it could be born.

                  Originally posted by bonnaleah View Post
                  Anyone who has ever been pregnant knows that the fetus is connected to the mother by an umbilical cord, (until birth the mother and baby are as one) so the idea of the baby's soul having influence over Darla is not a far fetched one imo.
                  You say they are as one. But because Darla was soulless it also means that the baby soul was in her. But if the soul is the person, and Darla is infected by the soul. Shouldn't the soul person than be in charge.

                  Originally posted by bonnaleah View Post
                  Darla knew the effects of the baby's soul on her was temporary and would end at birth...and that's why she staked herself
                  But if the soul is person and the soul is affecting her, that means it's not Darla who staked herself, but the baby.

                  Originally posted by bonnaleah View Post
                  As for getting a personality from the soul....I don't think personality comes from the soul. Personality is just the way we express ourselves.
                  But in your theory the soul is person, and this person must have some personality. And since Darla was soulless the new soul inside of her should be in charge of her body.
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by bonnaleah View Post
                    Sorry, but that's not true. We hear it again in the 17th episode of ATS S2. "Disharmony".

                    Wesley: "That is not your friend. That thing may have your friend's memories and her appearance, but it's just a filthy demon, an unholy monster.
                    So, once again, the only person who keeps repeating the Council of Watchers party line on AtS is Wesley. How surprising.

                    And does Cordelia ever seem to believe him and treat Harmony in the episode as some girl she's never met before?

                    Originally posted by bonnaleah View Post
                    The explanation about humans and vampires at the beginning of the series is pretty straightforward, and I don't see much wiggle room. The same information is repeated 5 different times that I can remember, and so imo there's no justifiable reason to question it. Especially when so much other text supports it. I don't have a problem with vampires talking about being in continuity with their human selves because it plays directly into the information given by Giles in the beginning.
                    The explanation comes from an Unreliable narrator. And no other text ever supports it, except for other similar statements by similarly Unreliable narrators.

                    You may prefer to think that Giles was right (even though he himself doesn't seem to quite believe the CoW party line later on - as in Amends, when he blames Angel for killing Jenny, torturing him etc.), and that the vampires are all wrong and delusional (including Angel). But two things spoil your theory: first, that CoW isn't a reliable source of information in this case, because of the 'how did they get by that information' issue, not to mention their bias and agenda; and second, which story do you think is better, the one about vampires with a dark past looking for redemption, or the one about delusional lunatics/idiots who believe that they lived a life they didn't and that they committed a lot of crimes that someone else committed?

                    And whether we were supposed to take Giles' words in The Harvest at face value? You choose to think that we were. I think that the episode subverts his words and offers another possible explanation - and that Jesse scenes strongly suggest that he's still Jesse, only connected to evil and stripped of human morality. There's nothing in it contradictory to the later episodes where it's shown that the vampires have the mind and personality traits they had as humans (like Doppelgangland, where Buffy gives the party line to Willow to make her feel better, but Angel starts to say that it's not true... until realizing he better shut up.)

                    And here's what Joss says about Jesse in his DVD commentary on The Harvest:

                    "And this is where we play with the somewhat, perhaps, obvious but, for us, potent idea, which is basically that, after Jesse has become a vampire, he suddenly has some kind of charisma (no pun intended), some kind of sexual magnetism and experience that makes him different from the dork he was five minutes ago. Of course, Eric Balfour - very good at playing both sides of that. Again, that's something that just feels extremely real from high school experience, because that confidence, that knowing that you have something, is really a lot of what it took to sort of become more than the dork than we were... It's just that gaining that confidence was nearly impossible - Jesse had to die to get it."

                    That's pretty clear as far as authorial intent goes.

                    Don't you see that the soul is the curse?


                    There's nothing in the text about demons having memories of their own, and if they had memories of their own they wouldn't need to rely on the memories of their victims.
                    You're right, the 'demons' that infect the dead humans don't have memories. And from what we see in Pylea, they also don't have a mind of their own or a personality. All those things come from the human... which leads me to the "it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck... It is a duck" conclusion. What else is a person, but the mind, personality and memories (and in this case, even the same body)?

                    You keep interpreting "demon" to mean "Angelus", but there is nothing in the text to support that. IMO, "Angelus" and "Angel" are both the same vampire with Liam's mind, personality traits and memories - in other words, the continuation of Liam - with a "demon" inside them, but as "Angelus" he has no soul and it all manifests as evil, hatred and cruelty, while as "Angel" he has a soul - has a conscience, feels empathy and guilt. As Angelus, his goal is to make people suffer, and he uses his understanding of people to make them suffer the most. As Angel, his goal is to save people, and he uses his understanding of others to help them. As Angelus in S2, he is as obsessed with Buffy as he was when he had a soul (Willow: "You're still the only thing he thinks about"), but what was love now manifests itself as hate.

                    Originally posted by shipperx View Post
                    Sure it may be rare. It may be an extremely rare and anomalous event and a grieving mother would be ill-advised to grieve and hope for it. But rare and anomalous isn't 'never'. The statement is very simply (and with the above examples, demonstrably) inaccurate and doesn't give the complete picture. Even one -- just one ... just Angel - example proves that.
                    For all we know, Angel might have told her something different if the boy hadn't been already dusted, and if she had been wondering what to do about him. But since she had already let him burn, the best thing Angel could have done was to convince her that it was the only thing she could have done and that there was no saving him.

                    Ironically, if that statement is taken as a true reflection of Angel's feelings on the matter, then Angel was damning himself. Which is exactly why we have Wesley (who was at the time concerned that Angel would go evil and kill his son) looking at him as he says those words.
                    Last edited by TimeTravellingBunny; 16-07-11, 12:33 PM.
                    You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

                    Comment


                    • And here's what Joss says about Jesse in his DVD commentary on The Harvest:

                      "And this is where we play with the somewhat, perhaps, obvious but, for us, potent idea, which is basically that, after Jesse has become a vampire, he suddenly has some kind of charisma (no pun intended), some kind of sexual magnetism and experience that makes him different from the dork he was five minutes ago. Of course, Eric Balfour - very good at playing both sides of that. Again, that's something that just feels extremely real from high school experience, because that confidence, that knowing that you have something, is really a lot of what it took to sort of become more than the dork than we were... It's just that gaining that confidence was nearly impossible - Jesse had to die to get it."

                      That's pretty clear as far as authorial intent goes.
                      I think it's pretty clear authorial intent too. Jesse had to die to get it

                      You're right, the 'demons' that infect the dead humans don't have memories. And from what we see in Pylea, they also don't have a mind of their own or a personality. All those things come from the human... which leads me to the "it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck... It is a duck" conclusion. What else is a person, but the mind, personality and memories (and in this case, even the same body)?
                      But in coming to your conclusion you need to make a liar out of Giles, Wesley, and Angel. I simply do not believe that's a message Joss Whedon was giving us when he wrote "Welcome to the Hellmouth", "The Harvest" and "Lie to me". Episodes all telling us the exact same thing about vampires. All of the text you want to disregard as unreliable was written by Joss himself, and the warning Giles gave Xander about Jesse was for the benefit of the audience too...Joss wanted everyone to not be fooled by the "it's a duck" conclusion. So he specifically used the words "walk like" and "talk like" when giving his warning.

                      Giles: You listen to me! Jesse is dead! You have to remember that when you see him, you're not looking at your friend. You're looking at the thing that killed him.

                      Totally consistent with Joss' DVD commentary from the episode this text came from...

                      Jesse had to die to get it

                      "Dead Jesse" to me means just what it says...the human being named Jesse has ceased to exist and is dead. A demon entering Jesse' dead body didn't bring Jesse back to life...it just animated Jesse' dead body.

                      The mythology laid out by Joss is re-enforced in the episode "Angel"...basically repeating the same thing we've heard before...

                      Giles: A vampire isn't a person at all. It may have the movements, the memories, even the personality of the person that it took over, but i-it's still a demon at the core, there is no halfway.

                      And David Fury when he explains vampires in an interview doesn't deviate from what was laid out in previous episodes. It's also clear from his interview that he isn't just expressing his own personal opinion, because he says "we feel".....

                      We feel like there's a ghost of the person you once were inside them -- a philosophical ghost, not an actual spirit. It is, in fact, a demon, but the demon is infused with some of the characteristics of the people that they possess (David Fury, Zap2it.com, Feb 9, 2001).

                      The explanation comes from an Unreliable narrator. And no other text ever supports it, except for other similar statements by similarly Unreliable narrators.
                      Since Joss wrote these explanations himself, under your theory Joss is the unreliable narrator. He's the one telling the story after all. Negating text from Joss is just wrong imo.

                      But it doesn't matter whose soul she got. You implied that the soul is the person. So it doesn't matter she didn't get her own soul, the new person(soul) should be inside of her. And because the soul is the person, shouldn't this new person be in charge of her body?
                      The soul, as we all know, belonged to baby Connor...a person in his own right. Connor's soul didn't belong to Darla anymore than Liam's soul belonged to the demon inhabiting his dead body....and since Connor hadn't even been born yet, he could hardly be controlling anything.

                      But if the soul is person and the soul is affecting her, that means it's not Darla who staked herself, but the baby.
                      We know Connor's soul was affecting her because it's part of the text....but Connor's soul was never controlling her. It allowed her the ability to love.

                      But in your theory the soul is person, and this person must have some personality. And since Darla was soulless the new soul inside of her should be in charge of her body.
                      An unborn person doesn't have a personality. Personality and essence are two completely different things. For instance we know that everything that made Fred-Fred, is gone forever because her soul was destroyed....but because of the memories lingering in Fred's body, Illyria is able to mimic Fred's personality at will.
                      Avatar by Destructo Girl

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by bonnaleah View Post
                        I think it's pretty clear authorial intent too. Jesse had to die to get it


                        Totally consistent with Joss' DVD commentary from the episode this text came from...

                        Jesse had to die to get it

                        "Dead Jesse" to me means just what it says...the human being named Jesse has ceased to exist and is dead. A demon entering Jesse' dead body didn't bring Jesse back to life...it just animated Jesse' dead body.
                        So how did Jesse got confidence, charisma and sexual magnetism then? Don't you realize that your explanation doesn't make sense? In your theory, Jesse didn't get anything, Jesse is absent from the body, it was someone else in his body. Why is Whedon talking about Jesse rather than some other guy in his body, then?

                        What Whedon is saying is that Jesse died, then became a vampire and now had the charisma and sexual magnetism. It's crystal clear.

                        A human has to die before they rise as a vampire, that's what we've seen happen with everyone that gets sired. I really don't understand why you make such a big deal of the word "dying" as if a person dying in Buffyverse means that that's the end of them. We know it's not. It's not just that vampires all died as humans, some of them were dusted or burned and then came back from the dead (Darla, Spike), and Buffy is a human, but she died twice and came back from the dead.

                        If someone said "Buffy had to die to get the confidence to kill the Master", would you say that this means that she wasn't Buffy anymore after she was brought back to life? Or that she wasn't Buffy anymore since Willow brought her back in Bargaining?

                        But in coming to your conclusion you need to make a liar out of Giles, Wesley, and Angel. I simply do not believe that's a message Joss Whedon was giving us when he wrote "Welcome to the Hellmouth", "The Harvest" and "Lie to me". Episodes all telling us the exact same thing about vampires.
                        Angel? Do I have to post Angel's quotes from "Angel", "Lie to Me" and other episodes again? Angel said that he killed his family, Angel said that he tortured Drusilla in all sort of ways, killed her family, drove her insane and then turned her into a vampire. Not that some other guy killed his family or that he killed a dead human's family, or that some other guy did all those things to human Drusilla, and then a demon took over her body. Your theory is making Angel a liar or insane, in every episode he appears in, since we first learned he's a vampire.

                        Giles and Wesley weren't liars. Why would that make them liars? They were just repeating what they learned from other Watchers and what was written in their books, which certainly weren't the most accurate source even on things they could have known about (such as Drusilla's alleged death in Prague). But Giles and Wesley could have just had an opinion that's wrong. How would they really know? It's not like they've ever been killed and sired.

                        All of the text you want to disregard as unreliable was written by Joss himself
                        There is no "Joss character" or "text character" in the show. What comes out from the mouths of the characters are their opinions, which may be right or wrong.

                        Joss also wrote a lot of dialogue in many, many episodes where vampires identify themselves as the same people they were as humans, and where others identify them as the same. So why do you ignore all that text?
                        The mythology laid out by Joss is re-enforced in the episode "Angel"...basically repeating the same thing we've heard before...

                        Giles: A vampire isn't a person at all. It may have the movements, the memories, even the personality of the person that it took over, but i-it's still a demon at the core, there is no halfway.
                        Yeah, Giles repeated the same Watcher ideology stance. How surprising.

                        And if you believe that he was right, then you must think that Angel is not a person. That's what Giles was saying. And that's what the episode was subverting.

                        Willow: Angel's a vampire?

                        Buffy: I can't believe this is happening. One minute we were kissing,
                        and the next minute... (to Giles) Can a vampire ever be a good person?
                        Couldn't it happen?

                        Giles: A vampire isn't a person at all. (clears his throat) It may have
                        the movements, the, the memories, even the personality of the person
                        that it took over, but i-it's still a demon at the core, there is no
                        halfway.

                        Willow: So that'd be a no, huh?

                        Buffy: Well, then what was he doing? Why was he good to me? Was it all
                        some part of the Master's plan? It doesn't make sense!

                        And David Fury when he explains vampires in an interview doesn't deviate from what was laid out in previous episodes. It's also clear from his interview that he isn't just expressing his own personal opinion, because he says "we feel".....

                        We feel like there's a ghost of the person you once were inside them -- a philosophical ghost, not an actual spirit. It is, in fact, a demon, but the demon is infused with some of the characteristics of the people that they possess (David Fury, Zap2it.com, Feb 9, 2001).
                        How did I miss the moment when Fury was made spokesperson for all the writers?

                        Originally posted by bonnaleah View Post
                        Since Joss wrote these explanations himself, under your theory Joss is the unreliable narrator. He's the one telling the story after all. Negating text from Joss is just wrong imo.
                        No, he's not the one telling the story. He's the one writing it. He's not the narrator. He's the author. That's a completely different thing.

                        Some novels have an omniscient, 3rd person narrator, the voice of the author - for instance, War and Peace. But others are narrated by a character in the story, and characters in the story are by definition not 100% reliable narrators. For instance, Robinson Crusoe is the narrator in the novel Robinson Crusoe, while Daniel Defoe is a narrator.

                        Lockwood, Nelly Dean and other character (at times Cathy I, Isabella, Heathcliff and Cathy II) are narrators in "Wuthering Heights", while the author, Emily Bronte, is never talking to the readers directly.

                        Humbert Humbert is the narrator of Lolita, and it would be wrong to assume that Vladimir Nabokov agreed with Humbert's views when he Humbert is justifying his obsession with pre-pubescent girls.

                        In films and on TV, there is usually no narrator, we just watch the events on screen; the exception is if a part of or an entire story happens in a flashback, which may be accurate or not. Some of the most obvious examples of unreliable narrators are the films Rashomon (with multiple narrators giving different accounts of the same event) and Usual Suspects.

                        Although I have to say that Wesley's and Giles' statements aren't even real examples of Unreliable Narrators since they're not giving narration - they're simply statements by characters in the show giving their opinion. There's no reason to think that every opinion that comes out of characters' mouths is the gospel truth and take it as what the author is saying. Especially since the characters have all sorts of different and conflicting opinions.
                        Last edited by TimeTravellingBunny; 17-07-11, 12:52 PM.
                        You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

                        Comment


                        • I actually remember discussing this on the idw forums about 4 years ago. I'd always admitted both theories with a preference for single entity theory.

                          The two theories as it states are:

                          Theory 1: SouledSpike and Angel are seperate from Angelus and SoullessSpike. That is to say there are two spirits inside each of them: the demon who killed without remorse and the human soul which left the body upon vamping and is now in control while the demon is unable to act. For whatever reason the human soul remembers the actions of the demon as if they did them.

                          Theory 2: The soul is little more than a conscience so Angelus and Spike are just William and Liam with demon physiology killing, lacking the ability to feel guilty for their actions. Angelus was cursed with his conscience and Spike asked for his back and now they look upon their past actions with a different emotional perspective.

                          Now I was under the impression that theory 1 was out of fashion and on my other thread, I more or less took it as a given that theory 2 was more or less accepted by the fandom.

                          However for fun lets see the implications both theories have on the Verse.

                          Theory 1

                          Why would we think that?

                          a) This is the first explantion we are given about vampirism and no other theory has been explicitly shown.

                          "A vampire ...may have the movements, the memories, even the personality of the person that it took over, but it's still a demon at the core"

                          b) Wesley echoes this in Disharmony.

                          "That's not your friend. That thing may have your friend's memories, her appearance... But it's just a filthy demon, an unholy monster"

                          c) Theory 1 rests on the concept of what the soul is. We have references in canon that state the soul is the spirit.

                          "But her soul ... her essence ... I mean, that could be somewhere else."

                          In this context the soul has to mean the spirit. I wouldn't make sense to talk about Buffy's conscience being in a hell dimension.

                          Angel: "He dies, the very instant his soul leaves his body, I'm through this door and I'll kill you both!"

                          Again, in this context if you replace the word 'soul' with conscience is doesn't make sense.

                          Now all of these are all well and good but this is the one that really takes the biscuit.

                          WESLEY
                          I watched it gut her from the inside out. Everything she was is gone. There is nothing left but a shell.

                          ANGEL
                          Then we'll figure out a way to fill it back up.

                          SPIKE
                          The thing only took over her body. Just a tip of the theological.

                          ANGEL
                          It's the soul that matters.

                          SPIKE
                          Trust us. We're kind of experts.
                          In context of the episode, they are clearly talking about Fred the person, not just her conscience. And Spike, Spike of all people seems to be supporting this. We can't argue that's it's a figure of speech or not coming from the vampire with souls in question nor can we say it's a rationalization. The soul can only mean one thing right? So seen as it’s more explicitly used as the spirit, that must be what it is.

                          Problems, inconsistencies and how to deal with them

                          a) Ryan Anderson, the boy without a soul: Under this theory it's problematic because he'd be dead or a zombie with soul, unless he has a vampiric demon animating his body. However it's likely the demon wasn't being literal. He meant that it in the way that someone might call another 'soulless' without believing in the soul. He basically meant the kid was a class A jerk, but he did have a metaphysical soul.

                          b) Carpe Noctem: For some reason Liam remembers Angelus’ acts even though he didn’t do them, but when Marcus’ soul possesses his body, he doesn’t. Although this is never totally explained, it’s likely it’s to do with the right soul and the right body. Think this is speculation? See Buffy and Faith’s body switch. Tara states that if the wrong soul is in the wrong body, it fragments. Liam and William’s souls have a natural synergy with their original bodies despite the fact that they are vamped.

                          What Does It Mean for Angel and Spike’s Redemption

                          It simply means they are deluded in thinking they did all the horrible things their evil counterpart did. The feel as though they did them, but they didn’t. Angel isn’t responsible for turning Drusilla into a vampire, nor is Spike responsible for the AR or getting a soul, that was the demon.

                          In other words, as far as the deeds of Angelus and soullessSpike are concerned, Angel and SoulledSpike have nothing to make up for.

                          Theory 2

                          Why Would We Think That?

                          a) Spike and Angel’s apparent continued consciousness. They more consistently say “I did this” or “I did that”.

                          b) The curse would make no sense. Who are they trying to make suffer? Who are they talking about when they say “He must suffer as all his victims have suffered”. Under theory 1 it simply doesn’t make sense.

                          b) In Living Conditions, it wouldn’t make sense either. It makes more sense that she’d be stealing her conscience, rather than well, Buffy’s entire immaterial being.

                          c) In Carpe Noctem, under theory 1 why doesn’t Marcus have Angel’s memories. If they are a physical part of his brain then surely he’d be able to remember, like Liam somehow remembers. It seems more likely that the spirit and the soul are two different things

                          d) If the Ethros demon is being literal, this is the only theory that make sense.


                          Problems, inconsistencies and how to deal with them

                          a) As it’s been said, it’s likely the WC said that vampires are not the same quantitative
                          people as their human counterparts because it would b counterproductive for their slayer to think they are dealing with say family members who kind of are the same but different…That or they are simply wrong.

                          b) Why do people say “soul” when they are clearly referring to the spirit?: The reason being is that they are either mistaken or like in the real world, there same words that refer to two different things. In this case the soul can refer to both the spirit and the conscience.

                          c) What about Spike and Angel’s comments in Shells?: We’ll admit that it makes more sense that Angel and Spike were referring the soul as spirits but I will say one thing, Angel and Spike may be a lot of things, brave champions, skilled warriors but renowned metaphysicians they ain’t.

                          d) The existence of the spirit doesn’t deny the existence of a mystical ball of conscience.


                          What Does It Mean for Angel and Spike’s Redemption

                          This most closely fit’s the idea of Angel and Spike’s redemption. It makes very little sense to make up for something you didn’t do.

                          Well Theory 1 or Theory 2

                          Well I’d choose theory 2 with option theory 1 as a possibility. Why? Because it’s mildly more satisfying than theory 1. I’d still state that under either theory there are no apparent metaphysical differences between Angel and Spike aside from Angel’s happiness clause. The differences appear to be psychological in their nature.

                          Problems, inconsistencies and how to deal with them

                          From an outside the show perspective simple inconsistency, which Joss more or less admitted. From the inside the show perspective, it’s simply that some people are wrong and some are right. Under either teory we have explain the certain inconsistencies, so it really depends on which one you like the best and how you can justify it.

                          What Does It Mean for Angel and Spike’s Redemption

                          I’m one of the few people who aren’t bothered by Spike and Angel’s redemption because under either theory it’s at least a little problematic. Under Theory 1 it’s virtually totally brainless. If Angel knows the truth, (that the soul and the demon are separate) then he’s an idiotic masochist, either that or he’s simply mistaken and from his perspective he can’t tell the difference.

                          Even under theory 2, it’s still a little odd to make up for your misdeeds from when you didn’t have a conscience. It implies you should be blamed for not listening to a conscience you don’t have???????? What the soul gives you, keeping in mind Spike’s apparent guilt without a soul, seems so mysterious that it hardly seems right to judge them morally, or at least not in the same way as one would if they had a soul and if it doesn’t make a difference? Why all the fuss about having one or going out to get one? To me, the concept of redemption under theory 2 doesn’t make much more sense, it’s merely little less senseless.

                          Comment


                          • @kana, I believe that the person/vampire who should be examined the most is not Spike or Angel, but it is Darla.
                            She is the only one who was a human, turned into a vampire, got dusted, and returned again as a human. And while she was dying her second time as a human, she wanted to prevent her death and live by getting sired again.

                            How does her story make any sense if they are 2 entities? So Darla wanted to commit suicide and die once and for all in order to prevent her death from syphillis? Her story only makes sense if it is only one entity and a continuity. And she knows better than anyone, better than the Watchers, better than the humans, better than the vampires, better than Angel and Spike, better than demons or W&H. And she wanted to live by becoming a vampire again.
                            And while she was pregnant, like another poster wrote, she was influenced by the soul of her baby, but NOT possessed by it, she was still Darla, but not the 100% evil Darla, but a vampire Darla with a consciousness who could love and feel and understand what was right and what was wrong.

                            Banner by Moscow Watcher

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by kana View Post
                              Even under theory 2, it’s still a little odd to make up for your misdeeds from when you didn’t have a conscience. It implies you should be blamed for not listening to a conscience you don’t have???????? What the soul gives you, keeping in mind Spike’s apparent guilt without a soul, seems so mysterious that it hardly seems right to judge them morally, or at least not in the same way as one would if they had a soul and if it doesn’t make a difference? Why all the fuss about having one or going out to get one? To me, the concept of redemption under theory 2 doesn’t make much more sense, it’s merely little less senseless.
                              I don't think it's odd at all. Soulless vampires know on the rational level that what they do is wrong by human standards. It's not that they don't understand human morality at all - they just either don't care, or don't try to stop themselves from doing evil, or enjoy committing evil. Unlike, say, an Old One like Illyria, who initially comes from a completely non-human mindset, and human morality is alien to her, vampires all remember human morality from their human lives, since they call themselves "evil". We've seen at least some of them constantly and consciously trying to act in opposition to human morality - that's certainly the case with Angelus and Darla (she even retained that mindset after being brought back as a human), as well as Spike when on many occasions when he was soulless (e.g. in Smashed he wants to bite the woman to prove to himself that he's still an evil badass vampire, even though he doesn't have the physical compulsion to do it due to his chip) [which is the opposite of the occasions, such as Seeing Red, the problem is more with his low impulse control and inability to fully acquire human morality, even though he understands it on the rational level).

                              It's not simple, but it's really not accurate to consider soulless vampires as people who just don't know what they're doing is wrong (like, say, small children or mentally handicapped people), and are therefore not responsible.

                              I think the closest human comparison to soullessness would be psychopathy. (Which fits perfectly with Ethros' description of Ryan; he seemed to be a psychopath.) Psychopaths understand what they are doing, and they're considered fully responsible for their acts. They have an abnormal lack of empathy and remorse, antisocial tendencies, poor behavioral control etc.. According to newer theories (I don't know if it's commonly accepted or not), there is a biological basis for psychopathy, related to the brain structure (amygdala and pre-frontal cortex). If that's the case, we could consider that a handicap similar to that of a lack of 'soul' in Buffyverse.

                              Now, if it was possible to 'cure' psychopathy - which, AFAIK, is commonly believed not to be the case - then how would we judge the person (say, a serial killer) after they are cured? They wouldn't be the same person (metaphorically speaking) though obviously they would be the same person (literally). They would feel a lot of guilt for their previous crimes - and it's exactly that guilt and remorse (genuine, not feigned) that would mark the difference between what they used to be and what they are. If there is no genuine guilt and remorse, then they're just the same as they always were and don't deserve to be considered rehabilitated.
                              Last edited by TimeTravellingBunny; 17-07-11, 03:45 PM.
                              You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

                              Comment


                              • Kana, nice post.

                                It was interesting your bringing up Buffy and Faith, who did not have access to each other's memories. Faith had no idea who Spike was when she met him while she was in Buffy's body.
                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X