I wonder if you read my Angel essay for the Idol Reflection community?
Just did (perhaps obviously). Is that on StA? I feel like I read the first part and not the rest. I know you wrote it forever ago, but (of course) it still holds true and it's a really good overview of Angel.
I'm not so sure this one is--I'm not so sure I agree with all my points, like I said in the very beginning. I think the main thing I wanted to explain to myself was this (taken from your Idol essay):
"Angel has never been shown to hesitate when sacrifices need to be made; he will take on insurmountable odds for a good cause, and he will give up everything in order to save those he loves, or the world at large. But Angel has a great deal of difficulty accepting the consequences for those kinds of choices. He is, as stated earlier, a perfect martyr, willing to suffer for his sins and the sins of mankind. What he cannot stand, however, is to be called on his choices, to have them debated or declared wrong."
I think the question I was asking myself when I came up with this is the question the Jeeves-PTB-guy asks in "The Trial": 'is it really worth it to die for Darla? What good will saving Darla do for the world as a whole? Can't you do more good if you stay alive?'
Angel realizes in "Epiphany" that you can never Win, that the point isn't to Win, but do What You Can. And yet, if a "small act of kindness" is the most meaningful thing you can do, why is he so given to grand gestures? Shouldn't he be trying to survive as long as possible to perpetuate those small acts of kindness, instead of throwing himself into annihilation every chance he gets? Especially when such self-sacrifices might not even be a kindness at all?
One the one hand there's an Angel who understands that in the long run, nothing he does is going to matter, so he might as well do his damnedest to save everyone he can, no matter the price, because there is nothing else--which I think is the Angel in your essay. OTOH there's an Angel who might understand, but refuses to accept, that nothing he does matters, because there are things like Darla, Whistler, Buffy, snow, Doyle, Shanshu, et al that his part in apocalypse does matter. And that Angel does his damnedest to save everyone he can because he really thinks he can save him, and a part of him thinks he can even save himself--and that's the Angel I was going for here. OTOH the whole idea of the "nothing we do matters" line is obviously paradoxical and debating about what he means by it is perhaps an exercise in absurdity.
OTOH, I've grown so many hands that now I'm Tevye.
no subject
Just did (perhaps obviously). Is that on StA? I feel like I read the first part and not the rest. I know you wrote it forever ago, but (of course) it still holds true and it's a really good overview of Angel.
I'm not so sure this one is--I'm not so sure I agree with all my points, like I said in the very beginning. I think the main thing I wanted to explain to myself was this (taken from your Idol essay):
"Angel has never been shown to hesitate when sacrifices need to be made; he will take on insurmountable odds for a good cause, and he will give up everything in order to save those he loves, or the world at large. But Angel has a great deal of difficulty accepting the consequences for those kinds of choices. He is, as stated earlier, a perfect martyr, willing to suffer for his sins and the sins of mankind. What he cannot stand, however, is to be called on his choices, to have them debated or declared wrong."
I think the question I was asking myself when I came up with this is the question the Jeeves-PTB-guy asks in "The Trial": 'is it really worth it to die for Darla? What good will saving Darla do for the world as a whole? Can't you do more good if you stay alive?'
Angel realizes in "Epiphany" that you can never Win, that the point isn't to Win, but do What You Can. And yet, if a "small act of kindness" is the most meaningful thing you can do, why is he so given to grand gestures? Shouldn't he be trying to survive as long as possible to perpetuate those small acts of kindness, instead of throwing himself into annihilation every chance he gets? Especially when such self-sacrifices might not even be a kindness at all?
One the one hand there's an Angel who understands that in the long run, nothing he does is going to matter, so he might as well do his damnedest to save everyone he can, no matter the price, because there is nothing else--which I think is the Angel in your essay. OTOH there's an Angel who might understand, but refuses to accept, that nothing he does matters, because there are things like Darla, Whistler, Buffy, snow, Doyle, Shanshu, et al that his part in apocalypse does matter. And that Angel does his damnedest to save everyone he can because he really thinks he can save him, and a part of him thinks he can even save himself--and that's the Angel I was going for here. OTOH the whole idea of the "nothing we do matters" line is obviously paradoxical and debating about what he means by it is perhaps an exercise in absurdity.
OTOH, I've grown so many hands that now I'm Tevye.