"It started with a girl..."
Joined: 31 Jan 2011
|Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:57 am Post subject: The Hero's Journey
The 17 Stages of the Monomyth
The Call to Adventure
Refusal of the Call
The Crossing of the First Threshold
Belly of The Whale
The Road of Trials
The Meeting With the Goddess
Woman as Temptress
Atonement with the Father
The Ultimate Boon
Refusal of the Return
The Magic Flight
Rescue from Without
The Crossing of the Return Threshold
Master of Two Worlds
Freedom to Live
The Hero's Journey
I'm thinking at Angel of course. The points described in the return, remember the journey of Angel as Twilight ..and the journey is not over yet.
"I just know that when you're around, whether I see you or not, I feel you. Inside."
Joined: 13 Dec 2010
|Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:11 pm Post subject:
|My darling and sweet JANAS offers the great promise of “atonement”—at one with (self)—in the “story’s” incomplete rendering, thus far, in another thread of MISC., and she is absolutely correct to show this in two beautiful way that speak to those needing symbols of picture and those needing symbols of words to represent “the journey” of both Angel and Buffy. I love you for your gentle offering of gifts to “not give up yet” that is given open thanks, even if in my incomplete use.
This post is maybe quite an exhaustive (and exhausting—sorry!) “last gasp” I actually hope gives life to different ideas about this universe, a broader overview of experience in it’s meaning to you, and why it has importance to you, maybe even to your sense of self or POV on the world, inclusive of maybe finding no comparison and thus a curiosity, a form of escape or entertainment, that is worthy enough, to your own experience.
I wonder if you have felt changed for having invested your focus and curiosity, your loyalty and patience to years of a story’s meanderings in what you’ve seen and revisited with a different set of life experienced eyes? Do you notice your own comparisons to other stories that show similar situations, but with different conclusions? Have you reconsidered the myths of romance, e.g. King Arthur, or seen the real fairy tales that are very different from Disney? I will tell you now that Fantasia, for music made visible in story and emotional “show,” Lady Hawke for pure romantic romance, and the power of mythical representations in natural metaphor, and Princess Bride for a funny and harrowing take on several journeys in support of each other, in the journey myths of becoming a person and growing up, and the nature of the formation of different kinds of families, some having power of what is valued as freedom in material and spiritual/social success versus that which is valuable within an individual and between people.
Do you even wonder if love at first sight is real, or if it is and just is uncommon, or is just romantic and an ideal that is “pie in the sky” and the nature of love itself as changeable or, like all things, dies? I wonder about what I think and how that shapes my feelings and vice versa that shape my actions/interactions a lot and, surprising, not because I am so interested in being a good person, but in being clear headed, yet avoiding cynicism, as I find it fearful, if not cowardly and defensive, holding to preconceptions as proof in judgment, using sweeping generalizations and a calcified POV, all to be “right” rather than adept or wise. The cynic believes “people never change” and “human beings are a species likely to destroy itself by its own hand.” I think life is better, over all, in faster communications all over the world that lead to deeper understanding of people who struggle to live and struggle to live as the heroes of their own lives, as best able, despite the gaffs and mistakes and misunderstandings. I think the problems of war are based on misuse of resources and people that give rise to fear, enabling power to flow to propaganda and those producing it in sheer ‘repetition makes reality” itself a lie.
I enclose the Kafka letter here I promised in answer to a different thread, as I never got to it. I think the emotional world of Liam and especially Joss will take on a surprising view under the bluster, over the “magnificence” in your own compassion for them.
I couldn’t help the (!) commentary in the word and punctuation of the intimate and formal greeting juxtaposition. And there is no mystery of father/state lost on anyone.
Dearest (!) Father: (!!)
You asked me recently why I maintain that I am afraid of you. As usual, I was unable to think of any answer to your question, partly for the very reason that I am afraid of you, and partly because an explanation of the grounds for this fear would mean going into far more details than I could even approximately keep in mind while talking. And if I now try to give you an answer in writing, it will still be very incomplete, because I even in writing this fear and its consequences hamper me in relation to you and because the magnitude of the subject goes far beyond the scope of my memory and power of reasoning
You were for me the measure of all things. From your arm chair you ruled the world. Your opinion as correct, every other was mad, wild, * meshugge, * not normal.
Hence the world was for me divided into three parts: into one in which I, the slave, lived under laws that had been invented only for me and which I could, I do not know why, never completely comply with; then into a second world, which was infinitely remote from mine, in which you lived, concerned with government, with the issuing of orders and with annoyance about their not being obeyed; and finally into a third world where everybody else lived happily and free from orders and from having to obey.—KAFKA
I would mention this article by Jorge Volpi, Aug 27/Sept 3, from *The Nation * in a review I also thought germane to what Angel’s journey was actually turned into, vis a vis the Twilight/Giles story and this is a paraphrase to condense it.
In the book * Oblivion * by a Columbian writer, Hector Abad Faciolince, the link from father to fatherland holds up a protagonist who has a son, a doctor, invested in human rights work, who isn’t killed by his son, but is killed by the state. The book shows no apology, but is the son’s attempt to resuscitate the father who is absolutely opposite of Kafka’s father, for this father is tolerant and kind, making this act a kind of literary defiance. end
While, I (personally, me, myself) do see currently in Angel & Faith, the reversal on the Isis/Osiris myth, in this “lost father” (and fatherland), as well as the journey through the underworld from the Book of the Dead, which Jo the Librarian2003 used so imaginatively—I hope you’ve read her work—I do think you see the essential parts of Kafka reflecting Liam, in the prior post of mine above, even as I tried to state how reprehensible the rise of the father in the sacrifice/death of the self (to suicide/disappear) for a man’s growth/change to become ‘father’ is not being shown as a progression of a maturing person, that was promised in the beginning of the narrative of BTVS, but is only device of dissolution and regression to “start over” in “the hero’s journey. Big cheat, big bore, big time.
But this time, we the audience have a different truth to see in the review of what that beginning was (really supposed to mean?) with regard to child/father crises. This is a father/monster, as was Angelus in the “making his family,” as the distant father, now betraying his “love object” in handing back, or cancelling Joss’s actual intention to show Buffy’s greater “maturity” to love , in the Jungian notion, of “the other” for this thumb sucking love in the familial parent she actually lost (when she first was “called” in Hank’s betrayal). And now for using Giles, as would they have used “the Master” and doesn’t address the metaphor in Angel’s view o fhimself, other than destruction of identity, but maintaining a vampire body, and doing nothing about the real hurt also called father in Hank. After all, Faith got a visit from the “real deal,” and not ghost Mayor, so what is impossible to juggle in the subconscious and conscious worlds is not that tough, after all. No magic or portals required, either.
Thus, we have the new overcoat/information/truth on “what the understanding/intent” “really was along” and it is creepy. The older father figure and young, betrayed daughter, called to a life, without guidance to “the real world” of harsh, cruel and everyday, that means we are to see the child without a father to the socialization s/he needs, that some figure must be installed and actually to be reformed in bits or in whole persona within the psyche, as helper, and now he will lovingly give her, “what she wanted all along.” So, we have this story of separating Angel/us as gone, with the Angel/us body (!) that actually slept with Buffy’s, housing the bits of unified Giles into being we are talking about as father returned to daughter. Yuckeew!
This is why we have the strange “age difference” was used, NOT to show Buffy, the mature, and Angel, the ignorant, as Joss intended, despite the innocence of both (in the opposition of love and making love), just as we are now being shown this Giles, the younger, who is dead, juxtaposed with Angel himself, who is so much older, to become the father—dead to live—the lover trying to restore the gift of a “suitable father,” that is not himself, (in a growth of lover becoming a father within himself) simply because Angel insists he is unsuitable, even to his own son, and thus he is the “lover –the other in Jungian terms—who becomes “the father” to his love object, Buffy.
But I repeat: this body has actually been WITH his love object, and not quite as would the body create/connect/lie with (!) the child he creates in conception. THIS is the “father” Angel did not become, but suddenly that Giles did. And the simplicity is this: Angel is no longer ‘the other’ as in ‘the lover.” He is the “other” who is not only not other, but is now “lost.” Get ready for the great unwind of Spike as the ensouled herald and Angel the pathetic, the ditherer of the fight with no meaning or direction; the lost monster in need of grudging reformation, dependent upon the kindness of strangers, rape and a cuddle included. Not Buffy. The great worst in fanfic known as * 50 shades of grey. *
Great, UGH. This is not merely dissolution in opposition to solution; otherwise, why does Buffy also regress in Angel’s quest? This restores the Oedipal, that which has often been heralded often as “creepy” in Buffy’s choice and love for Angel. A 240 something dead guy, with “no viable life in his risings and in his life takings in love makings.” That wasn’t only to be clever re animation and sex, but in the nature of vampires “fathering.” I see this transformation of the lover to fatherhood going backwards, as actually the attempt to * regress * from lover to the * child’s * father, and, worse, it is the “wanted father,” who was her lover—not the father she really has named Hank. Angel is not “becoming a father,” he is de facto a father, but he doesn’t “become himself.” Still. This is not good or progress or anything like the dissolution of self intended in great sacrifice. After all, that dead body is still animated by a demon that has no where to go, even if souls are easily enough removed or trapped in “ vessels.” Giles now is the fantasy father Buffy grieves to have, (back) ever since Hank betrayed her. But, in the THAT body of “other.” Welcome back, Spike. We are at the beginning and Angel “showing up” again, is named Spike, and merely as herald to the wheel. As Joss intended before the great epic “chemistry” of actors derailed his story intention.
Besides, like Whistler, there is no hope. Anyone who dies becomes a god—evil—or eventually is “turned evil.” Even sweet Tara was supposed to be revived for grieving Willow. Well, we know Tara was supposed to turn evil as the great First. Glad Amber Benson refused the role, and still they used her persona as evil in a phone call! Same thing over and over and it no longer works as meaningful in just repeating the same POV, and saying it louder, as if repetition makes it “the great and only true/truth.”
My views see the original “move from the Oedipal” that Joss showed and intended in Buffy’s maturity, shown in her independence, her responsibility to “complications” emerging between emotional want and duty to self and the world, as being sabotaged into making her a foetus of fantasy.
I see that Angel’s endless Oedipal conflict has no end, despite all the promise of what and who Buffy is to him, and to what her meaning is for him to himself. In Joss’s original intent to me was the growth from the infantile and Oedipal to acceptance of the “other.” This simply made Buffy and Angel as “one for the other” as “ The Lover,” at once, equal and opposite, in condition and place, and primarily, in the life of the human being, i.e. to move from the Freudian Oedipal, to the Jungian condition of independence, beyond the “brother/sister” helper, but that of the more mature person’s development in accepting a wider world and self in it in a wholly new role of potential and self expression that supports the continuation of growth/change as the basis in forming “a new world” in childrent that are the actual future of life itself.
I wanted to pose this cynical rendering of “dualism” regarding death that I think is every reason for existential bankruptcy in utter lack of imagination. And this guy, like Joss, is also called “a genius.”
Good creatures, do you love your lives
And have you ears for sense?
Here is a knife like other knives,
That cost me eighteen pence.
I need but stick it in my heart
And down will come the sky,
And earth’s foundations will depart
And all you folk will die.
This is a very long post, and I think it is so because I am in hopes for something different than guessing what the plot is getting at, and even what the plot can mean to the current story, or the stories of the past, which may or may not be all that important to the “new reader” each issue. I do appreciate the experts here, making the great connections through years of actions, to shape the bits into some kind of cohesive narrative, and most likely, I think, to be the intention of Joss’s outline of development, despite the vagaries of shall we say, the human reality upon this “made up” universe.
I have had to accept ideas as the floor and walls and anatomy of structure in ideas I don’t hold, but have to accept for “world formation” to describe the objects moving within this world. However, I have learned what Joss has to say within several of his offerings, and saying it another hundred ways is just strident, when the conclusions are the same result, whatever story he tells, and doesn’t make what he says anymore true than it did the first time around. This is not an indictment of Joss’s story telling abilities, which are strong, but he holds a vision of Buffy that became a person burdened in emotional traps of her own making, even as Angel was viewed with suspicion for his very existence.
Yes, Joss is petty and he needs to win. He admires the person struggling, but doesn’t believe in success, even though he is living it, in all the forms a human being can hope to have in this life. He believes in betrayal, but not people’s vision to seize what he ventures is the correct vision/solution, as they always stumble over ego or escape from pain over everything else. Human beings are incapble of real learning and wisdom; they are made for the extreme ends of defensive negativity and “pie in the sky” idealism, of cynicism to deal with the existential crisis and the maw of the abyss in nihilism: laugh it off, as the antidote to suffering that never fills that hole, nor adds feeling to that scar. That isn’t learning. That is avoidance. Laughter may be a gift, but I think it as expression to wisdom’s arrival—that dam breaking and coalescing into the moment flashing upon the flow of everything: the laughter at the edge of death. Maybe you remember Angel dancing with Buffy in the warm white, cable knit sweater of Irish design, even as half his face filled with worms, and the ring of his troth slipped from Buffy’s finger.
What do you think Joss meant in that vision, other than “Forever doesn’t last, but betrayal actually does.” Not to mention, we are often invited to look at the tropes of being “the one and only” as romantic and put them in the creepy factor of “being watched”—when helpless and asleep-- and “the obsessive/deadly stalker” of a need that overcomes the grave, in obsession as powerful and also quite pathetic. These are to designed to look at the myths of romance as quite dangerous.
Maybe I am ready for more than ‘narrative’ and I really do enjoy your own struggles to make this stuff make sense and have value for having made the effort. And the effort of birthing this stuff is really great and often too much agony to be fun.
The next season and the next is just “the next” so whenever it comes, as the narrative once promised, in the great “death metaphor,” won’t finish the tale, or the promise of the comic book medium in multiple universes existing, that I hoped for; and that has been one of my problems. I hoped that “death” would lead to deacay, and revitalization between Buffy and Angel as adults, capable of sacrifice to bear the world of the child, but also the playful spirit unbound within duty supported and understood, as was between these two; and would finally lead to the “new stories” that usually are never told, even in most “remembered endings” of myths, that actually are not how they ended. Orpheus did “get the girl” Eurydice, Hercules’ labored his entire life to get the girl, and did, despite his death at the hands of the ‘dark wife’ (represented in Cordelia/Jasmine with Connor). So, to me, this story is not one of “shared independence” in a marriage, but the success of an individual, given the power to stand alone, and finding success in the relief of sacrificial death aka “Kitty Pryde.” The goddess, in a word, for no god actually exists, just as Dawn is real, Buffy is an avatar, and Angel is merely her subconscious working out the myths of romance, appropriate mates, and the reality of life and death: each dies in the other. That is quite the solution of B/A as dissolution if it is done in world ending glory, as it should, if myths are the method. But WHICH world is what was subverted in season 8 and “adult Buffy” was never the intention all along, even if Willow does die at both ends of the “fairy tale.”
And BTW, the political agendas being dredged up, left, right and center, require a transgender slayer, a vampire vampire slayer rising from the bitey as a calling and let’s throw in some roaches, too, a people apocalypse in zombie land, since the pron was screwed out of existence under the guise of virtue the terrified wear, like the Kevlar of protective burkas, never asking why it’s “their job” to control their terrible powers over the actual weakness of those holding status as interpreters for silenced voices and “powers that be.” (And back to Kafka).
I think the episode that gave me the proof of dual worlds and the nature of reality was “Normal, Again.” A grey world of no helpers, no weapons, no hope, other than her own retreat into a hell she knew and could at least act. She could form a new family, find new weapons and trust in solutions she made out of herself. Then she died and “normal again was actually flipped that the empty, gray, real world of the insane asylum is now the hell you once thought she could protect even at giving up her own life to do so. Dying in this world won’t bring on “new dimensions”. It means she will be the murderer of her best friend and betray everything good she thought she knew about others and about herself.
This world of guilt, shame and decay is the morass I think Joss feels the soul is subject to, and there is simply no surviving it as a human being. A human being must therefore be a failed thing, for love as redemption, is itself not understood, as the power of love, too, brings betrayal, lost opportunity, and death.
I have a different take on all this “no help, no weapons, no hope” that has no mercy, caritas, sanctuary, afterall, and love doesn’t exist really when its seeming absence is actually happening to you. (Buffy had the answer: me, and yet, to see it in Angel’s journey, the gate keeper never has the keys, as Buffy breaks through, if you recall. My example is that Angel never grasps his journey in “Amends” is not to “beat the bad guy” in others and in himself, it is to “merely” give the love he was given in mercy, as sanctuary, to himself, for it is not a quest to find what he already experienced. It is to know what love looks like, when all is lost and no path can be found for it is guiding you home from hell itself: if I were blind I would find you. That isn’t a romantic notion alone, it is to find the path to your home in you. So you can always go home again—unlike Joss’s assertion, proved in the endless resurrecting the dead over and over to revisit “old bones for new lessons.” Afterall, where is all that going on? In you!
Spike pointed it out, he always has his weapons and he is in love with life, for he takes it, seizes it between his teeth; and he is love’s bitch because he is totally helplessly in love with himself. Now Angel is a (whiny) bitch because he knows the difference of what love really looks like, with the sword through his heart, the tears pouring down Buffy’s face, and his hand empty because he is totally and helplessly without love for himself so he remains a half thing of ego and designs, ends and means, and desert between. (I hope you read that poem in “Animals” under this thread. I happen to celebrate it as my lessons from Buffy, even as the goose can find love as its home on land, on water or in the air).
I guess for the self aware gay man, to find sex of any kind, not only to a view of escape from the bullies’ fear of him, for this sense of self in the “empowerment political story of a “gay is me” crossover to “female empowerment,” in “the slayer” as the One in, actually thousands, for duty in “all humans’ human rights, doesn’t work for me, as being seen as solution to the “wrong rights of man,” with apologies to Thomas Paine or President Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms. Unless straight people or bullies are the burgeoning zompires, now being radio controlled against their own bodies and wills from demonic interest “afar.” Citizens United we are talking about you or corporate America as Cancer connecting us all, but in some unknown good way. Or something. But the “obvious” sermon from the fount” of Jane Espenson seems to be more important than the true symbol of “female empowerment” herself, in her complete absence from her own story and physically from her own *comic * book because…because…I got nothun., in whatever their station, whatever their gender. I guess I didn’t understand that there are ‘gay fairy tales’ and not just ‘human being’ fairy tales.
Maybe, I hold on to Buffy because this world was developed for “existential identity” in crisis and the idea that there are no new stories is exactly false if the insisted premise is “each of us is unique.” I do not think “more stories” stuck into Buffy’s story is quite the same thing as a different POV in telling Buffy’s story, with ideas Buffy herself may yet need to see or learn from. I don’t think it’s a mule to deliver messages, when I always thought “the story” was why myth must always be “updated” to communicate the “meaning behind the metaphor” in recognizable ways on the “same story.”
I have no idea why instead of “two worlds” and “two timelines” and the integration/separation of “loops” in experience in the ebb and flow of sun/shadow sides, we find instead that death is at both ends, but neither end holds the “show me” of B/A, which got subverted into “evil” at either end; and some theoretical greatness of the female Buffy to willingly march out of some other god’s creation to assign themselves god hood—completely ignoring she and Angel created their paradise out of themselves, but the cost was heinous and selfish. So, if all that there is that exists is evil, I will gladly bow out, as I don’t see “IS” equals “evil” in any equation. Maybe good/evil are human ideas and that doesn’t necessarily describe all of reality, which I suggest, includes you, includes those worlds or universes we may not inhabit, but by math, imagination, or empathy.
The thing that isn’t shown (really) is how mightily the body struggles to breathe, to move, past all this “will and fate” talk, “the dumb beast of body” to actualize its own purpose and potential: survive. For human beings to declare themselves triumphant in suicide does make A.E. Housman a genius, if everyone agrees, eventually.
I once had great hope in that scene of human Angel, eating the apple Cordy gave him. It was not the apple of Eden in the cold box of the grave/ memory of Eden, as temptation and disobedience in some sin he should not have taken, in pleasure or appreciation of “the missing” that “hunger” informs, just as he was once informed of his need to dare, to ask why he should remain ignorant in paradise? (And they made sure to show the “possessed” and “forced” in the skeezy and Oedipal, of lust to just “eat” her),
I trusted in the promise of the resurrection red and pure white of death/renewal carrying the seeds of promised life and death (there is arsenic) within the same seeds of this fruit, for it was given by “blood,” by another (Christ/ his helper/grown and human sister) to the promise of his redemption/resurrection to life: shanshu. And the death of his stuck sense of self in loathsome, isolated immortality.
We celebrate “failure” rather than “imagination.” (Remember Giles destroying the world because there has to be better than this? Jezus! Everything is indeed a metaphor, but one can’t tell the tale with half the universe missing, which seems to be what “horror” as a genre requires, for it really is just “agenda.”
So these “promises” of myth and narrative cannot be kept, as these books procede, despite the fact Joss himself tells a linear story, and promised the emotional show in the solution to these specific people and their “real” lives. I can’t complain about my story not being Joss’s story because he needs Buffy to be himself, thus he is the father to his story, and he has to bring her to life to marry him. Just ew in the metaphor. Angelus, after all.
Every finale will be the “magic seed” of dissatisfaction in some “dare” to win in the face of losing it all, for the next “resolution” that isn’t. People merely “disappear” for all these “right reasons” of “professional authorship.” The caveat for human error all over the place in so many chefs dipping in and out of the stew is very simply this: Life is messy: accept anything because, ya know, you just didn’t get how hackneyed and trite all this really is.
This unique experience—that is what got lost over the years in “shame and blame” as answer. Thus, the rising self hate and even self degradation and shame for using the necessities of the body and the spirit to reach accord, in the reach for the “pleasure principle,” are treated as “false gods” and mere escape from pain, in the nature of “reality” that really is a show of addicts, who actually are showing a very different kind of crisis of depravation and starvation that is not being met, and actually has solution. Thus, there is simply no joy of experience, that isn’t the expression of power in some ability to blame that proves to be the responsibility to feel only shame to give use to blame for the next plot line, and so on. Thus, the “winning,” over integration and inclusion, that greatest power of Buffy, not only in how she tries, but in the mercy she gives the very worst, as hope for all that is human having worth and the right to survive. This is the slayer, the killer of death itself, in showing the way to hope for claiming himself as redeemed, loved and capable of love, for he can see himself as everyone else, shining and worthy.
Those conclusions are some of “what I learned,” but now the lessons are offered at the cost of character and “half universes,” that do not add to my understanding anymore. These won’t enlighten me, or cheer me, or inform me, especially since they can’t even be bothered now to put Buffy in her own book anymore. I repeat. Are you even noticing this? Joss insists that “life is pain.” He, therefore, makes Angel merely the vehicle of “struggle,” –not the hero of his own life, but the slave of dissatisfaction (ego) and “remedy.” (id). The superego is merely the excuse of self-hate.
As I said, the wheel JANAS shows indeed turns, but these books are a spiral, which one could actually surmise in my post in why Angel, the herald to Buffy, mirrors a “father problem,” that is given such excuse over the entire universe of this story’s rendering. The embrace of Angel for his son is actually ‘problematic’ in that Angel himself doesn’t accept himself—which Brian Lynch actually and correctly addressed in the ‘baptism of tears upon his fac(e) ing himself with love, the use of the female principle of the brine from which we are born, upon his face, (his Buffyness and connection to it) and used in rituals of baptism/rebirth.
I do think that the idea of sodium and chloride as two poisons that are unified in the pure white and crystal form of salt, like the desert near mountain and sea that the griffin inhabits, is “genius” for both necessity and spice to all life, in using Darla and Angel to birth a human child, even if they didn’t bother with the salt metaphor, but used child blood for body and leaky souls for invitro defintion of “human” and “the spirit.” We can never know what the powers of W&H had in mind in giving Darla back “their body” of a vampire, made of four others, as we can’t know what it means for Spike, unless we are to understand that all bodies are mere corruptions of pure (read evil) spirits, that will destroy souls. Or something.
This is the actual journey this “hero” is supposed to be taking, but Angel’s transformation is always handed to “the external” in“the powers” over his life. Note his first “truth” uttered in his new belief in what and who Buffy is, beyond the love of her: which were “I’ll be damned.” —which is Joss speak for Angel’s real fate in being stuck as a vampire, and as mere mirror to Buffy. Period. Afterall, Joss writes the union with his own avatar in Buffy as the struggle with “shame,” and “blame,” now, and this is how he struggles against both self hate and hatred of the unjust father, both well shown in Xander’s fear of marriage to Anya, herself an unrepentant demon, given “spiritual transformation” as a human being, good enough now for sacrifice, yet her (female) body as triumph over struggle in the disrespect of mere meat.
Further, this “new Buffy” who was empowered in the “sting of her old self to “death” is accomplished by the bite of the ‘father/Master’ and she doesn’t feel weak or cuddle and compromise with evil; she kills him. For a series that didn’t know it was going to survive, it is a complete hero’s journey.
As for Angel, he is left in the ‘between world’ as he is the actual avatar of himself in Connor. Note the birth of Connor, made of despair, self hate, the use of the whore made virgin once more by “powers,” with the “son’s sleeping with her” in all it’s Oedipal awful and deadly grandeur. And the dual hunger is born: natural hunger (kill to live) and “nuture”—the love *denied *--and always the search for it in some way to make the innocent reprehensible.
Yes, love for the vampire is indeed sure death, just as Buffy’s death means she is “normal” and grew up—which can’t be allowed as long as “Connor and Dawn” exist with no other “outlet.” Thus, they disappear, like all the other adults in the tellingof the tale. Now, we have the promise of a dual time line loop created in the duality of Faith’s calling as the shadow side to Buffy, which makes a “happy ending” possible for both realities of heroes and “normals.”
But ! The reality being shown is that Willow dies at both ends. This means the new life created always is sourced in evil, is “evil” and “turned evil” and therefore the world is only some “corruption of innocence” and not how the “disappearance” of adults showed death to mean “growing up.” I would even enjoy the notion of “wavicles” from “corpsicles” if it had been handled better and not the failed zombie apocalypse that is promised in the “Twilight of the Gods” dealio going on.
I guess I prefer “nothing is lost or gained,” well stated by Einstein, in “conservation of mass and energy”—even in the “disappearance” as process, from dissolution of matter to (potential) energy. I call that life. I call that seeing the love in all of it.
I guess I can’t help notice the half thing worlds Joss actually shows to provide some means to shock. Cabin in the Woods deals with the inescapable of the “down powers,” but no mention of “the Up powers” which could be nature herself or merely “waking up from a dream.” Which is a cheat, in describing “reality.” He did a better job with Buffy/Dawn and Normal Again, and Faith as shadow side Buffy, as Spike is tanist to Angel than this awful of redeeming the wrong protagonist to maintain a duality well established that has now made this universe “all the same guy”
I miss every beginning and still hate every finale for all the reasons of the wheel made into a spiral of “failed intentions” and abandoned obligations, in maintaining Oz, as the important story. You know, like the tv series you heard about or watched: a prison with windows for watching what passes for “human animals” who are put in an unnatural situation and expected to act “normal.”
Maybe I should have pulled my questions to you in a poll to lead to those snappy, pithy short answers you all famously can do, for you actually do know what you think and I wander around trying to figure that out. Thank you.
HUGS! a whole bunch. Now go lie down. It's important to keep priorities! ha!
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group