A Few Things...

[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 than weapons 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.

Comments

[ms-scarletibis.livejournal.com]

The conclusion he (or some critic) came too 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.

I actually wrote that very thing in my LJ some time ago...except for that last bit. I don't think it's that Angel loved being a hero; I think it's that he didn't love Buffy enough. If that had been oh say Cordy, would he have done it? You betcha. Or hey, Darla as a human, and the change was necessary to save her life? Yep indeed again. For Angel...it's dependent upon who the other side of the equation is. Sure, he loved Buffy...just not nearly that much.

<--ignored all the Twilight talk, cause that isn't her Angel.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Interesting observation. I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but I do think you're onto something (although I will note that Buffy has a functional relationship with Joyce. She actually doesn't with Hank. But that's a slightly different topic).

But, yes, as far back as Liam, Angel has had authority issues. He's always tried to be the leader or the lone wolf. And that does play havoc in his relationships.

[eilowyn.livejournal.com]

This is the point where we're supposed to quote "It's not about right. It's not about wrong. It's about power," right? This is actually true for ASOIAF, because everyone walks in shades of grey. Anyway, good analysis. And the Israel/Illiad lectures sound interesting. But that's because I'm a History Channel dork.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it actually is true about ASOIAF. It's most interesting in its machinations.

And I actually do rec the Illiad lecture (Audible, Modern Scholar, Eric C. Cline). It's a really interesting lecture.

[lk737.livejournal.com]

I agree that Martin explores different types of power and governing. And there are beliefs interwoven in all the individuals with power in this series. Not necessarily religions, but beliefs. And I do think there is a better way of governing, not right per se. But I don't think Martin would have any clue, as I tend to think he is a more immature writer, emotionally, from his many interviews.

And I tend to agree with ms_scarletibis that Angel just didn't love Buffy enough. I tend to think that is because Buffy knows her own power apart from men, having learned that from her mother. Angel is very old school male, needs to be needed by his women. Darla was used to using men and letting them use her. Darla for all her cock of the walk swagger, actually needed men more to know her own power. The same with Cordelia, whose power for her learning years originated with her father. Both Darla and Cordelia understand the dynamic of power in a romantic relationship. Cordelia worked better as a partner for Angel, because she also understood the dynamic of friendship in a relationship. She learned that from Xander, and ironically Buffy.

Buffy, not the same. She needs her friends, the social circle is source of her power. Angel doesn't know, instinctively, how to be a friend. He was never friends with his parents, there were too many power issues. Buffy is friends with her mom. She and Angel would have never worked. Buffy's parental relationship is too functional. Angel's was very dysfunctional. Angel's longest relationship is with - power. That is why he couldn't give it up. He finally had acquired some, and I still don't think he would ever give it up without a fight (even if it is a fight to get it back). The young drunkard who fought power games with his conservative father is, and will always be, inside him. I think, for Angel, power will always win out.

Sorry for the rant! My goodness you got me thinking. Deep thoughts aren't good at the end of the day. Too much rambling, I'm sorry! You introduced so many great thoughts and deductions. This was a pleasure to read ♥

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Angel's longest relationship is with - power. That is why he couldn't give it up.

Seriously, there is something not right in his finally getting what he wants (to be human) and the first thing he does is go out to try to take on a demon single-handedly. And when that doesn't work immediately (who would'da thunk it?) he throws up his hands and says "Can't do THIS, better get the superpowers back. Y'know... for the greater good."

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

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.

Yup. Also, one thing that struck me when I watched this again the other week... I'm sure some people will disagree, but Angel isn't just making decisions about them for her. In s3, he wanted Buffy to have a "normal" relationship; now, suddenly, he decides for her that having any relationship - not just with him - is irresponsible.

If anything I'm a liability to you. You take chances to protect me, and that's not just bad for you, it's bad for the people we were meant to help.

Angel, if you want to skulk in the shadows in eternal celibacy, fine. Asking Buffy to do the same is... well, a moot point since she won't remember it, I guess, but still.

The SOIAF stuff looks interesting, but I don't dare look at it since I've only seen the TV series...

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

In s3, he wanted Buffy to have a "normal" relationship; now, suddenly, he decides for her that having any relationship - not just with him - is irresponsible.


Well, that's Angel for you. He's the "decider".

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<pretend [...] there's>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<i>In s3, he wanted Buffy to have a "normal" relationship; now, suddenly, he decides for her that having any relationship - not just with him - is irresponsible.
</i>

Well, that's Angel for you. He's the "decider". <pretend there's an eyerolling icon here>

[moscow-watcher.livejournal.com]

In hindsight, Twilight arc is IWRY on steroids - a story where Joss was absolutely free to express his attitude to Buffy and Angel's relationship.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

On steriods with a lobotomy. While I can see where some of Angel's character traits play into it, it does still require him to be excessively dense. Angel is capable of dense but continuing for months despite all the ludicrous and bloody things in Twikitty-dog's plans takes black hole levels density.

Show Angel wasn't that dumb. Flawed, yes, but not a total idiot.

[shapinglight]

Good points about IWRY. I gave up on Mark Watches ages ago. Did he like the episode?

Also, had to not read the GoT stuff, as don't want to be spoilered, but I will come back to it after season 2.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I actually read it after I read a Bangel flipping out angry over it because... honestly, I don't know why. He was largely positive about the episode and any criticism of Angel in it was very mild as Mark read the episode basically as Angel making a 'noble sacrifice.'

I actually just had a far more negative take on Angel and Bangel in the episode than Mark did. By and large, Mark was positive.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Oh and my GOT comments aren't particularly spoilery other than perhaps tipping just a bit about Stannis's personality (but mostly abstractly) and perhaps hinting the trajectory of Tyrion's season. But generally the discussion is vague and mostly meta.

Don't take "King Stannis Baratheon" to mean anything beyond the fact that a lot of people start Season 2 claiming to be a/the rightful king.

[timeofchange.livejournal.com]

Excellent commentary on IWRY and on ASOIAF.

I started reading the Martin books several years ago, but haven't had a chance to watch the series. I find the books fascinating for their exploration of politics, power and the human cost of each.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

The series has some advantages over the books in that unlike Martin's book, they cannot be of expotential length so it doesn't go on quite so many lengthy tangents.


And, yes, his books are interesting in their political machinations.

[londonkds.livejournal.com]

What destroyed the Twilight arc for me was Angel declaring that he didn't care if everyone in the world died if he and Buffy could have a paradise universe to themselves. That's pretty much saying that the whole of Angel the TV series never happened, and it isn't even plausible for me as an expression of Angel's dark side, which is more about convincing himself that anything is justified for abstract ideals. It's more something you'd expect from Spike before he finally grew up in "Shells".

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I agree that moment in 8 was very much, Angel, who the hell are you. It's rather difficult to buy that he'd grab for the 'you can be happy, no strings attached." Angel is all about the strings, believes he deserves the strings, and convinced that no one could have stringier strings than him. Plus, Connor. Do much of his plot in 8 screams plot device rather than character. The only part that did ring true was the appeal that special snowflake has for him, but that alone cannot go far enough to explain the so called reasoning of Twilight. I still see it as character assassination.

[paratti.livejournal.com]

Robert is much more Edward IV - the yorkist claimant who won the crown as a young warrior and went to seed, whored about massively, married a grasping wife with a greedy family, died in middle age, leaving a young king, spare and daughters whose legitimacy became seriously questionable.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I have heard that as well, but my knowledge of that time period is limited. I've read more about the Tudors. :)

Reposting cause I posted in the wrong place before :P

[frelling-tralk.livejournal.com]

It really frustrated me in IWRY when Angel leaves Buffy sleeping and goes to fight a demon, even when he was still adjusting to being a human without powers and KNEW that he had little chance against a super-strong demon. The fact that he was so helpless in that fight seemed to what what helped him to decide that he couldn't remain human because he couldn't protect Buffy like that, but since when does Buffy need his protection? It was played as being a great sacrifice for love, but to me it came across as Angel wanting to remain that champion (to use a word that he loves so much), and it didn't have all that much to do with Buffy at all

Plus Angel deciding that Buffy being in a relationship and putting one another first was a selfish thing came at around the time that Buffy was experimenting with a relationship with Riley, who was of course a human without superpowers! Ats was was so into Angel's male fantasy that it totally ignored what Buffy as a person wanted and just made Angel look ridiculous to argue that a slayer and human male could never work without putting someone in danger. Maybe if he had put his male ego aside and hadn't slipped off to a battle without even waking Buffy up! (And granted we're meant to be moved by Angel not wanting to wake her, but it was clearly just as much about Angel wanting to make sure that he wouldn't be completely useless in a fight)

Re: Reposting cause I posted in the wrong place before :P

[lk737.livejournal.com]

I know you didn't mean to reply to me earlier, but I just wanted to say that I agree completely with everything you say here. I was never moved by Angel's supposed sacrifice too, because it wasn't a sacrifice. What a noob. Putting his own need for superhero power first. It just showed, I think, how the lifestyle he grew up with is ingrained into him. How the male needs to protect the female and needs to have power.

[teragramm.livejournal.com]

Very well said!!! You have explained (a lot more eloquently than I could) why I prefer Spuffy.

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

In light of Joss's opinion that Riley was well-adjusted and love-pure, I'd say you're right. Any subtext read beyond "Angel makes a big sacrifice 4 Buffy to show his wuv!" is brought on by the reader.

Angel was Twilight because Joss and DH figured it would spur sales. Hell, Allie more or less said as much back in 2010 when he tried to calm retailers by telling them to wait for it, no? It, like Batsu and Abortion, were publicity stunts, little more.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

In light of Joss's opinion that Riley was well-adjusted and love-pure

Don't get me started on that one. I think the fact that he, and Marti (who wrote ITW and apparently (from her interviews) AGREED with Xander), and Stephen DeKnight (who went so far as to have Buffy apologize to Riley over how things ended) seem to believe that relationship was actually healthy is more disturbing than anything else. At least they see the problems in Bangel and Spuffy. They seem utterly blind to the levels of 'this is really screwed up' in Biley. That actually creeps me out a bit (though not as much as "Angel being Twilight is mostly defensible and a little moping means that he's 'already' atoned for it'. Because that's total WTF?! territory for me.)

[kassto.livejournal.com]

Great analysis of both shows.

I agree with you about ditching Bangel on watching Sanctuary. By that point Buffy and Angel were worlds apart, with no sympathy for each other's world view.

And IWRY.... there wasn't even any chemistry between them anymore, quite apart from the dodgy dynamics of the plot. The supposed romantic angst just seemed like holding on to past fantasy, more than anything else.

I like very much what you said about why Cordy was a good partner for Angel. Very psychologically astute.

[queenofthorns.livejournal.com]

I've always felt that Stannis and Melisandre were basically Martin's take (via Schiller - and Verdi - in Don Carlos) on Philip II of Spain and the Grand Inquisitor - some of Stannis's "never been loved" thing is definitely very Philip II-like and Melisandre's religious fanaticism expressed in a love of burning people at the stake ... well ... there you go! The important thing, I think, about Stannis (at least until ADwD, which I haven't yet read) is that I don't think he deep-down in his soul of souls actually BELIEVES in his being Azor Ahai. He just wants "justice" if he can't have love, and Melisandre has convinced him that the terrible things he does for "justice" are actually ok because he has a higher purpose. Even though killing his own brother is an abomination and deep down inside, I think Stannis knows that (which is why I think he relents in the matter of Edric Storm once Davos saves him from doing the terrible act of murdering an innocent boy.)

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Ah well, by ADwD, he's going up against the Boltons. So who are you going to root for then? Stannis or the Boltons? What he did to Renly is appalling, but compared to Boltons??! We've run out of white hats! (LOL)

[rebcake.livejournal.com]

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.

You'll get no argument from me. I don't know if I agree with some other commentors that he'd have made the sacrifice for Darla or Cordy, though. I don't see him giving up his power for anybody. (Okay, maybe Connor.)

I also agree that it's possible to see him falling for the "it's up to super special you" argument during the Twilight debacle, but not sustaining the thing over months and years of badness. Although, he did seem to think he could beat the house from within with Wolfram & Hart, so it's not like he hasn't done the long con before.

He's not my guy, but I still don't think he got fair characterization in S8.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I think he got totally shafted in Season 8. So shafted that the only thing Dark Horse knows to do with the mess they made is to ignore it.

[nmcil12.livejournal.com]

"The important thing, I think, about Stannis (at least until ADwD, which I haven't yet read) is that I don't think he deep-down in his soul of souls actually BELIEVES in his being Azor Ahai. He just wants "justice" if he can't have love, and Melisandre has convinced him that the terrible things he does for "justice" are actually ok because he has a higher purpose."

And this brings us right back to Angel, IWRY, NFA and his Twilight Persona. He "took his stand" against The Senior Partners and CoTB, all because it was his "Greater Good Truth" - He did the same in taking on "The Plan" and using the premise that Killing thousands for a greater good was perfectly acceptable and imposed that perspective on people whom he was suppose to love and have respect for. He made his CoBT choices without asking the advice of the very people who he expected to die following his plans. The same way that he kept Buffy and everyone else in her camp out of the decision making process.

Angel's greater good sent millions of people to the LA Hell dimension -

In IWRY - he again makes it all about him. Angel wanted to be The Champion more than he wanted to live that "normal Joe" Love/Life existence with Buffy.

Angel could no more be Mr. Joe Normal than Buffy could ever be Mrs. Joe Normal. Angel at least knows, that he wants more than anything to be "The Champion/Hero/Warrior." Buffy tragedy is that she seems to never be able to integrate the reality of her life - that she is not normal, and can never be normal since she became The Slayer and that,IMO, she would be completely miserable as Ms. Queen of Normaland.

Frankly, I am still completely mystified over entire Great Space Frak and Twilight Creation Premise. It is one of the most nonsensical stories I have ever come across. That Buffy and Angel have the power to create a sentient universe - I just don't get it.

And Riley, being a good and true love - when did that character ever accept Buffy as she was? He never accepted his position as being less physically strong than he was or that he would never be her equal as a soldier/warrior. Riley was primarily a soldier and he loved that life, it's what he wanted and what identified him.