A Few Things...
Mar. 28th, 2012 10:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shipperx* I read "Mark Watches..." I Will Remember You recap which brings to mind memories...
Okay, the truth is, I don't remember what I thought about the episode the first time I watched it when it aired. I was still riding the Bangel train (yes, there was a time), so I probably went with the flow. (I jumped off during the episode Sanctuary. That was where it became perfectly clear to me that Buffy and Angel not only did not know what made each other tick... they didn't actually want to understand what made each other tick).
Anyway, I don't think "I Will Remember You" is a particularly good episode. It caters to the ship and on the surface I guess it plays to the whole "angst" thing except, if you really look at it... it doesn't. Superficially, it seems like Angel is making a 'noble' choice, but in reality I think it exposes Angel's Achilles' heel.
In retrospect it highlights one of the biggest problems with Bangel -- power imbalance. Angel always liked to be the one with the upper hand. In BtVS Season 1 he was always waltzing in with a bit of information then waltzing out again. Great behavior to maintain the "tall, dark, mysterious guy" mystique but terrible in an ally. And someone pointed out recently how Angel made Buffy commit to loving him before he'd tell her about his past with Dru. Then, in Season 3 he single-handedly made the decision to end the relationship. Buffy's vote didn't count.
Then, came "I Will Remember You" and Angel once again was making unilateral decisions. He didn't treat Buffy as an equal. He treats her as someone he can make decisions for. That's not an appealing romantic dynamic for me. In fact, it kinda sucks.
And that's only half of the equation.
At the end of BtVS I remember someone asking -- I think it was TVGuide's Matt Roush -- to weigh in on the Angel/Buffy/Spike triangle. And, while I may not be able to say with any certainty that it was TVGuide's critic that said it, I can remember what was said. The conclusion he (or some critic) came to was that Buffy loved Angel more than she ever loved Spike. Spike loved Buffy more than Angel had ever loved Buffy. ...and Angel loved being a hero. Prior to "Season 8" if there was any episode that was emblematic of this mindset, it was I Will Remember You. The central conceit of the episode is that Angel is making a huge sacrifice by retaining his superpowers so that he can 'be there' for Buffy when she needs him... otherwise she might lose or die (or both).
Except of course, Buffy does die and Angel isn't there. See, that was the catch that Angel never got. You can't 'be' there for someone unless you're actually there. Angel and Buffy didn't and weren't. These two are rarely there for each other during their worst moments. They don't interact because of 'starcrossed love.' It's a lot easier to play the fantasy of starcrossed-love-and-that's-why-they-can't-love-someone-else as long as the fantasy isn't blown by their actually having to talk, argue, disagree, compromise, or juggle for who gets final say.
When push comes to shove, Angel gave up a chance to be with Buffy (in his 'most desired human way'), because he enjoys being a superhero.
The one thing about the Twilight arc in Season 8 that I did buy was that Angel could be led astray by promises that he's the most special snowflake ever. I still have great difficulty believing that Angel could be as stupid as the Twilight arc requires. He's perfectly susceptible to the 'you're the most special person who has to make the most important choices for everyone because you're just. that. darn. special' lure, but it takes greater than average stupidity to actually turn a blind eye to the fact that there are people dying around him and that he's being asked to do rather indefensible things... and it goes on for months and months and months. At some point revulsion or common sense should kick in. That's the part that I can't buy. Angel has an Achilles heel, but Twilight required him to be really, really dumb).
Back to "I Will Remember You." If I thought that the episode was intended to actually highlight this aspect of Angel, the aspect of him that despite his good intentions, craves being the one who makes the decisions and craves the validation that he's 'more special', then I would respect the episode more. As it is, I suspect that the fact that it fits his M.O. is more happenstance than intention, because I think we're actually supposed to buy the superficiality of "it's SUCH a sacrifice. He's doing it FOR Buffy." And, honestly, I think that's what he tells himself, but I don't think that's really whats going on deep down underneath (and I don't think that was necessarily the plan of the writers).
* Obvious observation is obvious...
A week or two ago I was listening to The Modern Scholar series "History of Ancient Israel", a lecture series given by the same professor who did a series on "Archaeology and the Illiad". I think he did a somewhat better job with Troy and the Illiad, because he was willing to discuss it a bit more frankly. The history of Israel (even the ancient history of it) is more controversial because it's still in contention today and because while it's uncontroversial to call the Illiad "mythology," there are people that are dead serious about Old Testament being absolute, unquestionable (and it's a sin to question any bit of it) history. The professor is very, very tactful about all of it and stresses time and again that "absence of evidence doesn't mean that something didn't happen." Anyway, generally, I think it's a pretty good lecture and actually a rather good addition to his previous lecture on the Illiad (and also to the Modern Scholar Series on the Ancient History of Anatolia(Turkey) that was up for download earlier this year although it was done by a different professor).
Why do I bring all of this up? The part of the lecture discussing the Essenes (the Jewish religious sect who were the ones to hide the Dead Sea Scrolls) quoted some of their more apocalytic passages, and I swear they sound exactly like some of the incantations and prayers for the god R'hollor in G R R Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire" series. I know that to a certain extent, all apocalyptic cults have some similarities. But the whole "god of light" bit is really, really similar. Similar enough that I wonder if the Dead Sea Scrolls weren't an influence.
In some interview/quote I read of Martin's recently he said something about how his Game of Thrones series came about because the problem with historical fiction is that you go into reading it knowing how things turned out. He thought it would be interesting to have historical fiction where... you don't know what will happen. And, admittedly, that is one of the interesting thing in the series, finding historical parallels that may have influenced something.
I believe Martin when he says that there are no direct parallels. It seems to draw inspirations from events but never direct parallels. So you can point to Henry VIII and King Robert Baratheon in some aspects... but King Robert isn't Henry VIII and really... there's some Henry VIII in King Stannis Baratheon as well (just an entirely different aspect than King Roberts.) Margeary's situation also reminds me some of Queen Isabella she-wolf of France as told in Alison Weir's biography. Not a direct parallel.... but there's some inspiration. For that matter, it's possible to see some bits of Princess (later Queen) Elizabeth I in some of Sansa's story, even though she's definitely not Queen Elizabeth. And so on. There are historical bits that sort of serve and "see! Some of this sort of thing actually happened!" in ASOIAF, but none of it is exactly the same and no character/story seems to be a direct retelling of a historical story, but there are tantalizingly similar moments occasionally.
Anyway, my "obvious observation is obvious" is that Stannis is a theocrat. He's a theocrat in the way that Henry VIII (or Emperor Constantine) was a theocrat, in that I don't know how much of what he believed was being used, but he was definitely willing to use a belief system to bolster his claims for power. And, like Henry VIII he's willing to cause the downfall of a people's relgion to supplant it with one that gives him more power.
When reading the series last summer, I felt that Martin was showing us all sorts of ways to grab and hold power and what the strengths and weaknesses were of each. Ned was 'honorable' but inflexible and even naive. Ned always brings to mind Martin's quote about Jimmy Carter being a very decent man but how being a decent man didn't make him a great President. Ned was a decent, good man... but one who was out of his league when he ran afoul of political intrigue and machinations. On the other hand, Robert was someone who was a successful general who rose to power and though good at battle, wasn't great at ruling. Joffrey is a straight-up despot. A psychopathic dictator (not a lot to say there). Tyrion is much more like a bureaucrat or political operative. He does a lot of things to keep the country going...but he gets none of the credit and all of the blame. Tywin is all about dynastic power and rule. Cersei is a different form of power. Danaerys is very much a charismatic movement leader (as opposed to Renly whose power is at least partly pure popularity and likability. out of all the various ones vying for the thrones... he's probably the one that throws the best dinner party that you'd enjoy and want to attend. Needless to say... don't attend Stannis's dinner parties...especially with Mellisandre around) . Dany's power (other thanweapons of mass destruction dragons) comes from followers (who to be fair, she in turn empowers) and from the way that she's beloved by her followers (of course there's the Achilles heel, thing again in that she also falls into 'white savior' mindset that we see both in fiction and in misguided foreign policy. She can't ride into a situation with her own concepts of how people "should" live and change a culture... even if she decides to occupy it.
The different types of power and governing are explored in the series of books (and I don't know that there is a 'right' one or that Martin ever intends to have a 'right' one, just that some may be more successful than others and all have their weaknesses). But, while I knew that Stannis was a theocrat when I read the story, I don't know what about listening to current political debates alongside the history of ancient Israel made it crystallize for me, but obvious observation or not, Stannis is a theocrat. His power comes both from his (who knows how tightly held) religious beliefs but, even more than that, by using a religion to press his pursuit of the throne (not that I'm discounting the Seven who are also very much about theocracy and of the power that a religious power-structure exerts in rule. Martin isn't above using similar concepts in different ways.
And now I'm really tired and not sure that anything I wrote made sense (although it made sense to me when it originally struck me). Hopefully it made some sense to someone that isn't me, but who knows.
Okay, the truth is, I don't remember what I thought about the episode the first time I watched it when it aired. I was still riding the Bangel train (yes, there was a time), so I probably went with the flow. (I jumped off during the episode Sanctuary. That was where it became perfectly clear to me that Buffy and Angel not only did not know what made each other tick... they didn't actually want to understand what made each other tick).
Anyway, I don't think "I Will Remember You" is a particularly good episode. It caters to the ship and on the surface I guess it plays to the whole "angst" thing except, if you really look at it... it doesn't. Superficially, it seems like Angel is making a 'noble' choice, but in reality I think it exposes Angel's Achilles' heel.
In retrospect it highlights one of the biggest problems with Bangel -- power imbalance. Angel always liked to be the one with the upper hand. In BtVS Season 1 he was always waltzing in with a bit of information then waltzing out again. Great behavior to maintain the "tall, dark, mysterious guy" mystique but terrible in an ally. And someone pointed out recently how Angel made Buffy commit to loving him before he'd tell her about his past with Dru. Then, in Season 3 he single-handedly made the decision to end the relationship. Buffy's vote didn't count.
Then, came "I Will Remember You" and Angel once again was making unilateral decisions. He didn't treat Buffy as an equal. He treats her as someone he can make decisions for. That's not an appealing romantic dynamic for me. In fact, it kinda sucks.
And that's only half of the equation.
At the end of BtVS I remember someone asking -- I think it was TVGuide's Matt Roush -- to weigh in on the Angel/Buffy/Spike triangle. And, while I may not be able to say with any certainty that it was TVGuide's critic that said it, I can remember what was said. The conclusion he (or some critic) came to was that Buffy loved Angel more than she ever loved Spike. Spike loved Buffy more than Angel had ever loved Buffy. ...and Angel loved being a hero. Prior to "Season 8" if there was any episode that was emblematic of this mindset, it was I Will Remember You. The central conceit of the episode is that Angel is making a huge sacrifice by retaining his superpowers so that he can 'be there' for Buffy when she needs him... otherwise she might lose or die (or both).
Except of course, Buffy does die and Angel isn't there. See, that was the catch that Angel never got. You can't 'be' there for someone unless you're actually there. Angel and Buffy didn't and weren't. These two are rarely there for each other during their worst moments. They don't interact because of 'starcrossed love.' It's a lot easier to play the fantasy of starcrossed-love-and-that's-why-they-can't-love-someone-else as long as the fantasy isn't blown by their actually having to talk, argue, disagree, compromise, or juggle for who gets final say.
When push comes to shove, Angel gave up a chance to be with Buffy (in his 'most desired human way'), because he enjoys being a superhero.
The one thing about the Twilight arc in Season 8 that I did buy was that Angel could be led astray by promises that he's the most special snowflake ever. I still have great difficulty believing that Angel could be as stupid as the Twilight arc requires. He's perfectly susceptible to the 'you're the most special person who has to make the most important choices for everyone because you're just. that. darn. special' lure, but it takes greater than average stupidity to actually turn a blind eye to the fact that there are people dying around him and that he's being asked to do rather indefensible things... and it goes on for months and months and months. At some point revulsion or common sense should kick in. That's the part that I can't buy. Angel has an Achilles heel, but Twilight required him to be really, really dumb).
Back to "I Will Remember You." If I thought that the episode was intended to actually highlight this aspect of Angel, the aspect of him that despite his good intentions, craves being the one who makes the decisions and craves the validation that he's 'more special', then I would respect the episode more. As it is, I suspect that the fact that it fits his M.O. is more happenstance than intention, because I think we're actually supposed to buy the superficiality of "it's SUCH a sacrifice. He's doing it FOR Buffy." And, honestly, I think that's what he tells himself, but I don't think that's really whats going on deep down underneath (and I don't think that was necessarily the plan of the writers).
* Obvious observation is obvious...
A week or two ago I was listening to The Modern Scholar series "History of Ancient Israel", a lecture series given by the same professor who did a series on "Archaeology and the Illiad". I think he did a somewhat better job with Troy and the Illiad, because he was willing to discuss it a bit more frankly. The history of Israel (even the ancient history of it) is more controversial because it's still in contention today and because while it's uncontroversial to call the Illiad "mythology," there are people that are dead serious about Old Testament being absolute, unquestionable (and it's a sin to question any bit of it) history. The professor is very, very tactful about all of it and stresses time and again that "absence of evidence doesn't mean that something didn't happen." Anyway, generally, I think it's a pretty good lecture and actually a rather good addition to his previous lecture on the Illiad (and also to the Modern Scholar Series on the Ancient History of Anatolia(Turkey) that was up for download earlier this year although it was done by a different professor).
Why do I bring all of this up? The part of the lecture discussing the Essenes (the Jewish religious sect who were the ones to hide the Dead Sea Scrolls) quoted some of their more apocalytic passages, and I swear they sound exactly like some of the incantations and prayers for the god R'hollor in G R R Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire" series. I know that to a certain extent, all apocalyptic cults have some similarities. But the whole "god of light" bit is really, really similar. Similar enough that I wonder if the Dead Sea Scrolls weren't an influence.
In some interview/quote I read of Martin's recently he said something about how his Game of Thrones series came about because the problem with historical fiction is that you go into reading it knowing how things turned out. He thought it would be interesting to have historical fiction where... you don't know what will happen. And, admittedly, that is one of the interesting thing in the series, finding historical parallels that may have influenced something.
I believe Martin when he says that there are no direct parallels. It seems to draw inspirations from events but never direct parallels. So you can point to Henry VIII and King Robert Baratheon in some aspects... but King Robert isn't Henry VIII and really... there's some Henry VIII in King Stannis Baratheon as well (just an entirely different aspect than King Roberts.) Margeary's situation also reminds me some of Queen Isabella she-wolf of France as told in Alison Weir's biography. Not a direct parallel.... but there's some inspiration. For that matter, it's possible to see some bits of Princess (later Queen) Elizabeth I in some of Sansa's story, even though she's definitely not Queen Elizabeth. And so on. There are historical bits that sort of serve and "see! Some of this sort of thing actually happened!" in ASOIAF, but none of it is exactly the same and no character/story seems to be a direct retelling of a historical story, but there are tantalizingly similar moments occasionally.
Anyway, my "obvious observation is obvious" is that Stannis is a theocrat. He's a theocrat in the way that Henry VIII (or Emperor Constantine) was a theocrat, in that I don't know how much of what he believed was being used, but he was definitely willing to use a belief system to bolster his claims for power. And, like Henry VIII he's willing to cause the downfall of a people's relgion to supplant it with one that gives him more power.
When reading the series last summer, I felt that Martin was showing us all sorts of ways to grab and hold power and what the strengths and weaknesses were of each. Ned was 'honorable' but inflexible and even naive. Ned always brings to mind Martin's quote about Jimmy Carter being a very decent man but how being a decent man didn't make him a great President. Ned was a decent, good man... but one who was out of his league when he ran afoul of political intrigue and machinations. On the other hand, Robert was someone who was a successful general who rose to power and though good at battle, wasn't great at ruling. Joffrey is a straight-up despot. A psychopathic dictator (not a lot to say there). Tyrion is much more like a bureaucrat or political operative. He does a lot of things to keep the country going...but he gets none of the credit and all of the blame. Tywin is all about dynastic power and rule. Cersei is a different form of power. Danaerys is very much a charismatic movement leader (as opposed to Renly whose power is at least partly pure popularity and likability. out of all the various ones vying for the thrones... he's probably the one that throws the best dinner party that you'd enjoy and want to attend. Needless to say... don't attend Stannis's dinner parties...especially with Mellisandre around) . Dany's power (other than
The different types of power and governing are explored in the series of books (and I don't know that there is a 'right' one or that Martin ever intends to have a 'right' one, just that some may be more successful than others and all have their weaknesses). But, while I knew that Stannis was a theocrat when I read the story, I don't know what about listening to current political debates alongside the history of ancient Israel made it crystallize for me, but obvious observation or not, Stannis is a theocrat. His power comes both from his (who knows how tightly held) religious beliefs but, even more than that, by using a religion to press his pursuit of the throne (not that I'm discounting the Seven who are also very much about theocracy and of the power that a religious power-structure exerts in rule. Martin isn't above using similar concepts in different ways.
And now I'm really tired and not sure that anything I wrote made sense (although it made sense to me when it originally struck me). Hopefully it made some sense to someone that isn't me, but who knows.
