AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!! *Spoilers* by CB

ANGELUS ARCANUM

AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!! *Spoilers*

POSTED BY: CB
UPDATED: Friday, March 19, 2004 06:50
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8044
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, March 4, 2004 5:29 PM

Spoilers Ahead...
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
I'm Serious, if You haven't seen "Shells", don't scroll down any farther. Go away. I mean it. Shoo!
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Okay, I assume everyone who made it this far has seen the episode, so you understand the title of this thread. Now, I've been mostly a lurker on this board, occasionally posting a light comment here and/or there.

But I think "Shells" warrants a thread. While I am still obsessing over how hot Illyria/Fred looks (major hottness), it pains me to know that Fred is gone. Not just dead, (

) like Buffy. Not just dusted, (

) like Darla.

GONE.

Everything except a few of her memories were burned away when Illyria came into being. Up until this point, Joss has never made a character GONE. He's killed them bunches, and bunches, and bunches... of times, but it was always reversible, through evil magic, good magic, and suprise, *magic* amulets. I think what he has done is brought Angel Inc. into the real world, where death is not reversible, and people are gone, and you do grieve, and it can bring out the best in you (Angel), or the worst in you (Wes).

It's a terrible feeling, like you're hollow inside, like nothing you do matters anymore, and just when you think things can't possibly get any worse, you remember some trivial detail about the first time you met them, and things plunge into darker territory.

It's the worst feeling in your life, but it's real. Something death has never quite been in the Buffy/Angel-verse.

(Sorry for long double-post, but I just had to get it out)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 4, 2004 5:29 PM

) like Buffy. Not just dusted, (

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 4, 2004 5:34 PM

ASTRIANA

CB... Quick tip for spoilers... look to the upper left for the [ spoiler ]... [ /spoiler ] tags... What that does is force the reader to highlight the text in order to see it... That way, you don't have to worry if someone scrolls into the spoiler by mistake...

Just a helpful tip!

~A~

...I'm still free,
You can't take the sky from me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 4, 2004 5:37 PM

SUCCATASH

CB, I haven't been an Angel fan for very long, but I'd have to say that Fred is not necessarily gone. A few lines of dialogue about her soul being gone doesn't mean much. Anything is possible. Keep the faith. Joss loves you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2004 11:44 AM

INSANESPIKE

Gotta agree with Tash on this one. I don't think there is ANY aspect of death, including everything being burned away, that Joss cannot find a way to reverse on the show. Although, everything would certainly point to Fred being gone for good, I won't believe it until I see that she hasn't come back by the end of the series finale.

Also, remember one thing. Illyria seems to have the ability to alter time. Im thinking this mis going to come into play when it comes to getting Fred back.

"How drunk was I last night?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2004 12:01 PM

MAUGWAI

Quote:
I don't think there is ANY aspect of death, including everything being burned away, that Joss cannot find a way to reverse on the show.

But Josh also likes to do the unexpected. And if you've heard the commentary for the Buffy episode "Innocence" you may remember that Joss said he purposely had Angel kill the hooker right at the beginning so we'd know he wasn't faking. I think he harped pretty heavily on Fred being gone and showed that scene at the end of her all hopeful so that we'd get the point - and feel as depressed as I certainly do now. So as much as I hate to admit it, I think Fred really is gone.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2004 12:57 PM

STILLSHINY

Sad as it is I would lose the appreciation for this episode if Fred came back. The whole parallel of Elyria (sp) & Fred would be unravelled. Fred is dead. Everything Wes was finally willing to take a hold of was stripped away. It has to stay away or else his grief becomes "scripted" not real. Just as Ilyria (sp hey I'm trying) walked into that throne room to find it empty, lifeless. It boils down to what is your purpose when all you've lived for is gone? The question is posed to Wes, Elyria, & all us fans who felt Angel was the only thing worth turning the TV on for. Grief happens...either you carry it, or you get buried alive under it. I love this dark & shiny show.

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the road less traveled by and they CANCELLED MY FRIKKIN' SHOW. I totally shoulda took the road that had all those people on it. Damn." --Joss

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2004 7:21 PM

ANGELDOVE

Quote:
Everything except a few of her memories were burned away when Illyria came into being. Up until this point, Joss has never made a character GONE. He's killed them bunches, and bunches, and bunches... of times, but it was always reversible, through evil magic, good magic, and suprise, *magic* amulets. I think what he has done is brought Angel Inc. into the real world, where death is not reversible, and people are gone, and you do grieve, and it can bring out the best in you (Angel), or the worst in you (Wes).

Not that I am in anyway trying to be critical, but Joss has killed main characters, Cordy on Angel, and Tara on Buffy. So I don't think it is infeasible to believe that Fred might be gone for good, especially if this truly is the last season (which it is looking like more and more). However I don't feel this is the end of Fred, if there is another season. I think insanespike is right in the belief that the foreshadowing is just an attempt to cover the possibility of Fred coming back. It will all be very interesting to watch unfold. I know a few people were upset about this story line, and felt it was yet another character going to the dark side, again. But I really feel this time is different and much more interesting than the Cordy goes bad story line. And I have to agree, Fred does make a hot bad chick.

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the road less traveled by and they CANCELLED MY FRIKKIN' SHOW. I totally shoulda took the road that had all those people on it. Damn." --Joss

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2004 7:38 PM

SHADOWVESSEL

Here's another possibility: Fred is gone for good, but Illiyara (sp) becomes the newest member of Team Angel. I'm sure an Ancient would come in pretty handy in an apocalyptic battle that could be used to end the show. Well? If Spike can do the evil guy turned good why can't Illiyara?

"I'll be in my bunk."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2004 7:38 PM

SHADOWVESSEL

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2004 9:30 PM

PEACE

Fred is gone. This saddens me, although it's not all bad (Illyria is still here, and Amy Acker is utterly hot in any incarnation). She's likely to stay gone since Joss is under the gun to end the series in a few episodes.

This is Joss at his best. This is what keeps us coming back-- fidelity to the pain of real loss, and the joy of real triumph. Joss is going to figure out some way of wrapping Angel up as well as he wrapped Buffy. Just you wait and see.

And did I mention Amy Acker is utterly gorgeous?

Oh, bugger! Now I have to wait for someone to wake up!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2004 3:10 AM

LITWOLF689

Quote:
Originally posted by ShadowVessel:
Here's another possibility: Fred is gone for good, but Illiyara (sp) becomes the newest member of Team Angel. I'm sure an Ancient would come in pretty handy in an apocalyptic battle that could be used to end the show.

Excuse me while I run away screaming.

Not to be mean or anything but I really would be crush, horrified, and maybe even disgusted if the Angel Team took Illiria (sp? does anyone know how to really spell her name) onto the team.

First off, Illiria is evil. Period. I know Spike and Angel were able to come back after being evil but they got souls and Illiria is one of the Old Ones, the meanest demons ever.

Second, I dont think Fred is completely dead. Yeah she is gone but the team should be able to get her back. Like it was said in Buffy sometime, Willow was able to bring Buffy back because of unatural causes (she jumped into a hell portal). The reason it was so risky and not advised to bring Joyce (Buffy and Dawn's mom) back was because her death was natural. A health related death, like Joyce's (died of a brain tumor), was natural.

Fred was possesed by a demon with her organs liquified, that is really not natural. So I think they should be able to get her back.

She just cant be dead! I refuse to believe she's dead!!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2004 3:27 AM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by Litwolf689:

Excuse me while I run away screaming.

Not to be mean or anything but I really would be crush, horrified, and maybe even disgusted if the Angel Team took Illiria (sp? does anyone know how to really spell her name) onto the team.

First off, Illiria is evil. Period. I know Spike and Angel were able to come back after being evil but they got souls and Illiria is one of the Old Ones, the meanest demons ever.

Well this gets into definitions. Is evil evil because its a threat to you? Because of what it is? Or is there some sort of metaphysical evil essence that it possesses and can't get rid of?

Is something evil because of what it does or evil because it simply is?

Quote:
Fred was possesed by a demon with her organs liquified, that is really not natural. So I think they should be able to get her back.

"Flash fried in a pillar of fire, saving the world... I got better."

Quote:
She just cant be dead! I refuse to believe she's dead!!!!

It is a very interesting issue, and one I don't think Joss has really dealt with on the metaphysical level. What is this "soul" that Spike and he have, besides a glowy thing? How does having a soul make it any different. But more importantly, what happens to this soul when it is "consumed"

Is it destructable? What about its constituent parts? When you eat food, it does not go away, some of it becomes part of you, and a lot of it just gets changed into something else. Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, just changed in form. So where do souls fit in, and what form was Fred's soul changed into?

(It should be pointed out that one of Illyria's powers governs time.

)

Sorry for going all philosophical here.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2004 10:03 AM

SOUTHERNMERC

To continue the philosophy bits...

From Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition:

Quote:
evil: adj. 1 a)morally bad or wrong; wicked; depraved
b)resulting from or based on conduct regarded as immoral {an evil reputation}
2 causing pain or trouble; harmful; injurious
3 offensive or disgusting {an evil odor}
4 threatening or bringing misfortune; unlucky; disastrous; unfortunate {an evil hour

adv. in an evil, wicked, or offensive way Now only in hyphenated compounds {evil-hearted}

noun. 1 anything morally bad or wrong; wickedness; depravity; sin
2 anything that causes harm, pain, misery, disaster, etc.

SYN. bad

The word "evil" is used, primarily, as a descriptor of a person, place, or thing which is either: a) harmful or b)wrong. It is also used as a proper noun (ex. The First Evil), but much more rarely. Since the noun usage implies the use adjective or adverb form of the word, we will stick to the latter forms.

Evil is used to describe actions. For a being to be evil implies that the being is harmful, or immoral in some way, thus acting evil. For Illyria (will use this spelling from now on as it seems to be used the most often, and fits better to my mind) to be evil, it must act in a way considered evil. These actions MUST be, in some way, considered harmful or immoral. Evil is not a state of being, it is a description of an act or way of acting. To be evil means to act in a way considered harmful or immoral.

If the phrase "considered harmful or immoral" seems to give alot of leeway toward moral relativism, that would be because it does. Sort of. To discuss relativism here would require MASSIVE posting by myself. This isn't a theme paper, but a brief discussion of what evil is. Maybe we can make a post sometime later on the subject (evil Alliance/evil Serenity crew?). For right now, this is it.

What Joss has done previously in the Buffyverse (BV) would seem to point to the soul being some aspect of a person that allows them to choose between an evil or good act. The conscience if you will. (Interesting sidebar: Is Harmony evil?) The conscience, to briefly summarize the afformentioned dictionary, is the knowledge of right and wrong, with the urge to do right. There have been many within the BV who have souls yet do evil. They know right and wrong but choose wrong over right. Do they have a conscience?

Does Illyria have a conscience?

Does she consider right and wrong? Does she even KNOW right from wrong? Fred knew right from wrong and chose to do right (posses a conscience? Yes). Angel knows right from wrong and chooses right; Angelus knows right from wrong and chooses wrong. So the soul seems to contain part of the conscience that CHOOSES, that makes a CHOICE. It also seems to house some sort of spiritual "memory," for lack of a better term, the remembrance of self. Now here's the fun bit, does Illyria have a soul? What about Lorne?

More questions...mmmm, I smell a debate brewing, smell neurons firing. Smells good.

Edited to correct quotations.

Jayne: "How big a room?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2004 10:24 AM

MALSDOXY

I know what did this...

Yeah, but what about the PTBs...are they still around or what ? Surely the 'Champion' still has some sway with them, do ya think ?

Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

"...and my nose comes off..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2004 10:58 AM

FLYINFREE

Sociopaths have no conscience, they know the difference between right and wrong, they just don't care. Not all sociopaths do wrong though, there are other factors, the fear of getting caught for example. Harmony is still evil but she does good because she wants Angel and the gang to like her (and not kill her). Illyria is lost and helpless (still VERY powerful, but helpless nonetheless), she needs someone to show her how to exist in this new world, she is alone and lost. She will do whatever she has to in order to get that help, even if that means behaving herself. Since being evil gains her nothing (and a big motivator for evil is selfishness) except enemies (Angel, the senior partners, etc.) and she has lost all hope of having her kingdom back, there is a very good chance she will do what Wes wants in order to have his (and their) support. Harmony doesn't really care about any of the people they are helping but she does it anyways, Illyria may do the same thing. Evil has one big advantage over good, an evil being can act good as much as it wants and still be evil, a good being can't be evil all it wants and still be good. Illyria could spend the next thousand years saving helpless beings in distress for no other reason than it's entertainment value but she is still evil and could turn whenever it suites her, the same for Harmony.

"...we're still flyin'."
"That's not much."
"It's enough." Malcolm Reynolds and Simon Tam - Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2004 11:08 AM

SOUTHERNMERC

Not really. I COULD be a immoral killer, but just want to fool everyone into thinking I'm a good guy. Even doing acts of kindness, acts of charity, and promoting the welfare of my fellow beings. Then, on my deathbed, I recant and say "I'm a viscious, immoral creature who would enjoy slaughtering your babies. AND I'VE FOOLED YOU ALL!" Except for the fact that I DID NO HARM, and even HELPED. Intentions buy you nothing. They may color your actions, but make no mistake, actions are what define you as "good" or "evil." If a good person can slip, an evil one can atone. These things are possible, especially in the BV (see the whole Shan-Shu prophecy thing for Angel). Atonement is not an easy act, but it can be done.

Jayne: "How big a room?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2004 11:13 AM

FLYINFREE

Atonement only comes with a true change of heart, intent. Doing good acts only for selfish purposes isn't good, it's selfish deception. Even the law (albeit the worst indicator for good and evil) is predicated on intent, if you meant to kill it's murder, if you didn't it's manslaughter, if your reason was good enough it's justified. If I save someone's life so that I can fool them into thinking I'm a nice guy, that doesn't make me a nice guy. If I save someone's life because I will be punished if I don't, that also doesn't make me a nice guy.

"...we're still flyin'."
"That's not much."
"It's enough." Malcolm Reynolds and Simon Tam - Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2004 11:29 AM

DAVCO92

I don't have a reply so much as another angle to question. How do you integrate friendships and love between "evil" beings into this framework (besides as just good storytelling LOL)? Comradery, watching each others back, teamwork such as existed between Angelus and Spike in years past? It didn't seem to be just self-preservation and bowing down to someone that would kill you if you didn't stay in line. How about Drucilla and Spike? Could you say that "evil" is simply subjective ethics? How do you define ethics in this case? Just curious.

Burn the land, boil the sea...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2004 11:42 AM

FLYINFREE

Just because you're evil doesn't mean you like being alone and you aren't capable of liking someone's company. You can't show off if there is nobody to show off to. Spike and Angel didn't like each other, their staying together was for the protection of the group, and the enjoyment of showing the other up. There is also the need for sex, having women in your group makes that a lot easier. A lot of criminals have the mentality that family is the only thing that matters, you protect family and screw everyone else.

"...we're still flyin'."
"That's not much."
"It's enough." Malcolm Reynolds and Simon Tam - Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2004 11:51 AM

SOUTHERNMERC

Only problem with intent is that it can't be quantified. Only someones actions can be seen to be defined as good or evil. Intent can be infered from previous actions, such as the difference between murder or manslaughter, but cannot be clearly seen. I personally don't care if someone truly has the INTENT to be good, as that same intent can lead to evil actions as well as good ones. Thus that person is described as evil. For an example of good intention/evil act, the movie "Natural Born Killers" shows Woody Harrelson's character to believe the people he kills are possesed by demons (or are demons? can't quite recall). Thus his murdering of them is seen, by him, as a good act of removing wickedness from the world. People commit wrong acts for the best intentions every day. Conversely, good works are performed for the wrong reasons every day, as well. What a person thinks is largely (but not completely) irrelevant. Since I can't read minds, and thus know what someone is TRULY thinking, I must judge a person based on their actions.

As to saving a life to fool them, it's your later actions which define that original action. As for saving someone because of the negative consequences of NOT saving them, it is still a choice on your part. Granted, self-interest plays a very large part in it, but you could choose not to save them. You are right, you aren't a nice guy if you have to be coerced into saving a life. The fact that you HAD to be coerced, that you would choose innaction, is in itself wrong.

What I think is very important to understand is the difference between self-interest, and enlightened self-interest. The former promts actions which benefit the wants and needs of the self only. The latter promts actions which benefit the wants and needs of others as well as the wants and needs of the self. To be clear and complete, there are those who do good acts for the sake of doing them, but there are many more who do them because they benefit themselves as well as others. This is how a civilisation is formed.

If the actions Illyria takes from here on are to the benefit of not just itself (herself? did they say if Illyria was male or female anytime?), but others as well, then this can be called "enlightened self-interest." The acts are still good, and if Illyria continues, Illyria (gad, I need a pronoun here), could be considered "atoned," as Illyria (arrgh) would be behaving in a "proper" way.

Harmony tho...she's an interesting case. Would she commit evil without the restrictions placed upon her by Angel and Co.? That requires alot of others to comment upon her previous behavior to gain some insight, as I haven't seen but a few episodes of Buffy from season 4 and 5. Please enlighten me! (Honest questions here and in last post.)

And remember, what Rene Descarte ACTUALLY said was: "I drink, therefore I am!" Everyone keeps misquoting him.

Jayne: "How big a room?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2004 12:08 PM

FLYINFREE

I have to disagree, I think intent is what defines good and evil. Animals rape, kill and maim because it's in their nature to do so, they are not good or evil because they cannot form intent, they just do what they do. Animals are no more good or evil than a tornado that wipes out a city, without intent there is no good or evil. If you judged everything strictly by actions then all animals and forces of nature would be evil since they kill and destroy. Also in the Buffy/Angel 'verse beings are inherently evil or good regardless of action, it has been stated many times that someone/thing is good or evil in nature (ie. vampires are evil).

As for Harmony, she is evil, she joined Angel's team before and betrayed them all when the opportunity presented itself.

You are right, intent is not always easy to determine, but that doesn't make it any less the cause.

"...we're still flyin'."
"That's not much."
"It's enough." Malcolm Reynolds and Simon Tam - Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2004 2:57 PM

FLYINFREE

It occurs to me that we may all be looking at this the wrong way. Nowhere does it say the old ones are evil, just REALLY powerful. It could simply be a case that Illyria just doesn't care, considers herself above mortals and therefore killing mortals is no different to her than killing ants is to us. If you woke up a million years from now and the ants ruled the earth you would want to take it back too. Now that she has found herself alone and helpless in this world of ants she may now be looking at trying to live with the ants rather than wiping them out. Given the choice she would probably want to wipe us out but since she doesn't have any choice it's "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

"...we're still flyin'."
"That's not much."
"It's enough." Malcolm Reynolds and Simon Tam - Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 8, 2004 5:41 AM

SOUTHERNMERC

I'm going to make this a two part reply. Bear with me.

First off, intent.

As I said earlier, intent does color one's actions, but the action itself is the basis for judgement of good or evil (or right or wrong). For example, when Wes stole Connor from Angel as a child, he was doing so to protect the child from what he believed to be a terrible fate. He then placed the child into the hands of Angel's enemy, thinking the woman would keep the child safe from the prophecy of the father killing him. First off, it is immaterial that the child went into enemy hands, or that Wes believed he was saving the child when in reality he was condemning him. Wes asked NO ONE for advice; not Fred, not Lorne, not Gunn, not Cordy. He went out of his way to hide what he found from the others. Instead of getting their opinion on possible solutions, he acted on his own. Kidnapping is a wrong act, could be considered evil even. Even if the child had been taken to a safe place, Wes did WRONG in stealing him from his family. His intentions were good, but his actions were very wrong.

Intent buys you very few good graces from the legal system, if they buy you any at all. And murder must be proven by prior actions. Evidence must be brought forward showing intent without a doubt, but it is PHYSICAL evidence. Witnesses saying "Well, he just seemed mean" don't count. They must establish, based on prior actions, that intent was there.

Hate to say this, as it can be misconstrued so badly, but evil as an action is relative to the one acted upon. To a she-wolf killing a prey animal for food, her action is right and good, because he feeds herself and possibly her family. To the prey, the act is an evil one.

I restate the definition found in Webster's again. It is not the only one, to be sure, but it is the one I have handy.

Quote:
evil: adj. 1 a)morally bad or wrong; wicked; depraved
b)resulting from or based on conduct regarded as immoral {an evil reputation}
2 causing pain or trouble; harmful; injurious
3 offensive or disgusting {an evil odor}
4 threatening or bringing misfortune; unlucky; disastrous; unfortunate {an evil hour

adv. in an evil, wicked, or offensive way Now only in hyphenated compounds {evil-hearted}

noun. 1 anything morally bad or wrong; wickedness; depravity; sin
2 anything that causes harm, pain, misery, disaster, etc.

SYN. bad

Part of the definition includes "morally bad or wrong." In that respect, the evil is defined as a moral choice. And it is hard to dispute that the morals of one person can differ from the morals of another. This can make an act evil based on the former's moral beliefs, but not evil based upon the latter's. However, "causing pain or trouble" seems clear cut. If someone causes pain for another, that act can be said to be evil.

This, unfortunately, runs afoul of other circumstances, such as when one visits a dentist (this is on my mind, as I have to visit the dentist shortly). The dentist does cause pain, but only as much as is required to help heal the patients teeth or gums. This act is not an evil one. It can be argued, however, that if the dentist relishes the pain, and even chose his or her profession for the simple act of causing pain in others, that it could be evil. This is intent figuring into the definition of an evil or good action. FlyingFree is right about intent to a significant degree, and I agree with him for the most part. But it must be stated that intentions are not always necessary for the determination of the right or wrongness of an action. Most often, actions themselves are the basis for judgement, as only an action or its outcome can be viewed or witnessed.

Now for the second bit.

Illyria not caring doesn't change how humanity, and Team Angel, view her actions. Those actions against humanity are still considered evil. Now as for herself or her allies (now deceased), those actions are viewed as right and just. Her treatment of humans is entirely justified, based on the belief that her welfare is more important. Now she has lost her world and her center, she needs to find a new way. Wes is willing to show her an alternative, for whatever reason, and she is willing to consider treating humans more fairly. Granted, she has little choice in the matter, but she IS willing to change. This change in her behavior is a kind of atonement, and she could be considered "good" at some later date (much later probably).

Now for a third part (gotcha)!

By the way, it looks to me like Joss is going to answer his own question. Illyria is ancient, powerful, but behind the times. Wolfram and Hart are also ancient, powerful (in different ways), and they (the senior partners) are intelligent, organized, and "with it." This looks like the "caveman vs. astronauts" encounter posited by Spike and Angel. Looks to be quite exciting!

Edited for proper grammer and spacing, again cause I'm nitpicky.

Jayne: "How big a room?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 8, 2004 6:51 AM

MAUGWAI

This conversation reminds me of a completely different episode form season 1. Remember the kid who was possessed by the demon and had to exorcized? When they found the demon after he escaped from the kid's body, the demon told Angel and Wesley that the body did things "not out of a belief in evil" and that the boy was the only thing the demon feared. It was as if the boy was more evil than the demon, who in his turn bragged about "corrupting men's souls". I just thought this added a new angle to the conversation. If the demon is evil, how is the boy more evil? What is the difference between doing evil things out of a belief in evil and doing them out of simple absence of conscience? I thought this applied pretty well to the Illyria issue.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 8, 2004 7:02 AM

PARADIGMSHIFT

The fact is that this show *loves* to play around with the definitions of evil. Angel can go evil, and has done evil things while "good", Wes has done most assuredly evil things in the name of the greater good. Every character had evil in them, whether it be deliberate, or simple negligence that allowed evil to come to pass (hello, Charles).

So, I think we'll end up with one of two options: Wes actually manages to teach Ilirya good, and she joins the Fang Gang, or, he can't and eventually has to destroy the body of yet another girlfriend.

The question here, really, isn't whether she's evil. She is. There's no doubt. The question, as it often is on this show, is whether or not she can be redeemed.

"Once, just once, I'd like to be able to land someplace and say, 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel.'"
"I fail to see the humor in that situation, Doctor."
"Naturally. You could hardly claim to be an angel with tose pointed ears, Mister Spock. But say you landed someplace with a pitchfork . . ."
-McCoy and Spock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:29 AM

KILLEDBYRIVERSBRAIN

Quote:
Originally posted by Litwolf689:
Second, I dont think Fred is completely dead. Yeah she is gone but the team should be able to get her back. Like it was said in Buffy sometime, Willow was able to bring Buffy back because of unatural causes (she jumped into a hell portal). The reason it was so risky and not advised to bring Joyce (Buffy and Dawn's mom) back was because her death was natural. A health related death, like Joyce's (died of a brain tumor), was natural.

Fred was possesed by a demon with her organs liquified, that is really not natural. So I think they should be able to get her back.

She just cant be dead! I refuse to believe she's dead!!!!

It's extremely difficult to absolutely, definitively kill people with the precedents set by the show. As it is mentioned above, the usurper of the body of the most adorable character Joss Whedon has ever seen fit to write can control time, so that's always a possibility. Further, I'm wondering what Fred is doing in the alternate reality made in BTVS's The Wish. My money says she's looking insanely cute. It wouldn't technically be "our" Fred, but it would be Fred. Those are just two ideas I came up with really quickly, and I'm sure there are variations on the theme.

At least for now, Amy Acker is still on the show, but there is one thing Ilyria doesn't do: she doesn't wear that little pair of glasses I like so much.

I hope it's not too much to hope that ATS and Fred both live on.

Edited for grammar. Whoops.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2004 1:15 PM

KARENKAY99

Quote:
Originally posted by RaptorX:
Here is an interesting thought:

The prophecy states that a hero will become human.

Joss could be using that to bring back Fred, since Illyria isn't human.

what an interesting thought. i need to ponder ...
anyone remember exactly what the prophecy says? something about a champion? would illyria qualify?

Huh.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2004 9:00 PM

KILLEDBYRIVERSBRAIN

Quote:
Originally posted by RaptorX:
Here is an interesting thought:

The prophecy states that a hero will become human.

Joss could be using that to bring back Fred, since Illyria isn't human.

Maybe stupid, but just a thought.

But if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you.

Stupid? Not remotely. Had you not brought it up, and were it to happen, I would have never considered it. Can't you just see both Spike and Angel at the end. They've persevered, sacrificed, all in the name of becoming human just for Fred to be the one to become human. It would be a great moment for them both to decide they won anyway.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2004 4:10 AM

ATHERTONWING

well that theory is flawed the procphecy states the vampire with a soul will shanshu, live. shanshu means the vampire will live. it doesnt mean he will earn a human life for another it states he will become human. but i do think we will see fred back one way or another!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2004 4:33 AM

KNIBBLET

I can't believe it hasn't occurred to anyone that Ilyria would simply ... lie. Tell an untruth. Fib. Fabricate. Lie.

She has to make Wes believe Fred is gone so that Wes will stop trying to kill or change her.

She's lying ... she's a fibber ... she's an untruth teller.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2004 5:30 AM

KILLEDBYRIVERSBRAIN

Quote:
Originally posted by athertonwing:
well that theory is flawed the procphecy states the vampire with a soul will shanshu, live. shanshu means the vampire will live. it doesnt mean he will earn a human life for another it states he will become human. but i do think we will see fred back one way or another!

Granted. I thought of that, but Wes has already messed up the translation slightly once, and the arrival of Spike has proven the exact meaning is not entirely known.

It's reaching, but the theory is still interesting: We thought Angel would die; then we thought Angel would live and become human; then we realized it might be Spike; then wait the word translated as vampire was actually the generic word for demon hybrid, and it didn't say "demon hybrid with a soul will live," it said "demon hybrid will live with a soul. Again, reaching, but interesting.

Your vote for expecting Fred to return: much appreciated.

I'm not sure I wouldn't be angry if it all amounted to a lie. "Fred's dead." That would just be sadistic, possibly an example of Joss channeling Mal Reynolds.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2004 6:50 AM

SOUTHERNMERC

Quote:
I'm not sure I wouldn't be angry if it all amounted to a lie. "Fred's dead." That would just be sadistic, possibly an example of Joss channeling Mal Reynolds.

Well, it's not like he hasn't been sadistic before. Remember in BtVS when Angelus killed Jenny Calander? Then dressed up Giles home to look like she was waiting for him upstairs and dropped Jenny's body into Giles's bed? That's ALOT sadistic. I found that ep to be truly showing of just how HORRIBLE Angelus was. There are quite a few loopholes that could be used to bring back Fred, but my money is on her staying dead (which is a shame, cause she is friggin' CUTE).

Jayne: "How big a room?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE