by Field, Mark
Camus saw Sisyphus’ condition as a metaphor for that of modern man striving to find meaning in the world: constantly engaged in pointless striving to achieve something which has no meaning. His solution (option 3) was that embracing and accepting this fact ends the absurdity of it. By facing the true state of mankind, people can overcome the sense of absurdity they experience when seeking meaning that isn’t there. Once they recognize that there are no universal absolutes, people free themselves to create their own meaning out of life. Wikipedia phrases it like this:
“The freedom of humans is thus established in a human's natural ability and opportunity to create his own meaning and purpose; to decide (or think) for him- or herself. The individual becomes the most precious unit of existence, as he or she represents a set of unique ideals which can be characterized as an entire universe in its own right. In acknowledging the absurdity of seeking any inherent meaning, but continuing this search regardless, one can be happy, gradually developing his or her own meaning from the search alone.”
With this background in mind, let’s examine the dialogue between Buffy and Angel on the hilltop (that’s intentional, of course, in direct comparison to Sisyphus). Angel wants to commit suicide not because of what he did as Angelus, but because he perceives himself a failure as a person: “Angel: Look, I'm weak. I've never been anything else. It's not the demon in me that needs killing, Buffy. It's the man.” Buffy begs him not to, telling him that if he ends things now, then all he’ll ever have been was a monster. Angel then responds with a key point: “Am I a thing worth saving, huh? (shakes her) Am I a righteous man? (shakes her) The world wants me gone!”
That last phrase, “the world wants me gone”, is a description of the uncaring nature of the universe as it appears to someone who assumes there’s meaning in it. If you operate under the assumption that there is meaning in the universe, and if the universe seems hostile to you, then the natural conclusion is that the universe “wants” you out of it. Suicide is an obvious solution.
Buffy then tries the argument that she herself wants him to stay, but he won’t accept that: “Buffy, please. Just this once... let me be strong.” And this is when Buffy gives him the real answer: “Strong is fighting! It's hard, and it's painful, and it's every day. It's what we have to do. And we can do it together.” Quoting again from the Camus link, “What then is Camus's reply to his question about whether or not to commit suicide? Full consciousness, avoiding false solutions such as religion, refusing to submit, and carrying on with vitality and intensity: these are Camus's answers.”
The fascinating thing about Amends, though, is that Angel knows she’s right but doesn’t formally choose to accept her statement. Instead, the miracle snow spares him the need to choose, at least at that moment. As I’ve mentioned so often before, it’s the power of choice which defines existentialism and absurdism, yet Angel didn’t choose. I’ll let Joss himself explain:
“I'm an atheist but it's hard to ignore the idea of a "Christmas miracle" here... The fact [is] the Christian mythos has a powerful fascination to me and it bleeds into my storytelling. Redemption hope purpose Santa these all are important to me whether I believe in an afterlife or some universal structure or not. I certainly don't mind a strictly Christian interpretation being placed on this ep by those who believe that -- I just hope it's not limited to that (joss Dec 15 22:17 1998).”
Like most of us, Joss incorporates multiple concepts into his view of life. As he mentions here, one of those concepts is redemption; he is, as we say in Buffy fandom, a redemptionista. It’s a theme which we’ll see repeatedly throughout the remainder of the series. Just remember this: redemption is a process, not an event. Nobody gets redeemed by a single act or even many.
The snow, miracle or no, doesn’t mean Angel is forever off the hook. It just means that the snow bought him more time to contemplate the meaning of his existential crisis. We next see Angel and Buffy, no longer on the hill, but walking along the street in contemplation. “After the rock comes tumbling down, confirming the ultimate futility of his project, Sisyphus trudges after it once again. This ‘is the hour of consciousness. At each of those moments when he leaves the heights…, he is superior to his fate. He is stronger than his rock.’” (Quote from Camus link.) It’s on the downward journey that Sisyphus recognizes “the whole extent of his wretched condition: it is what he thinks of during his descent”. (Id.) I’ll explain the result of that contemplation and put it in context next episode.
Three quick points before I move on to the bulk of this essay:
1. There are two stories being paralleled here, Angel/Buffy and Willow/Oz. Neither guilty party actually makes amends, but both are given the opportunity to do so by the power of love. In other cases where amends might be necessary, Buffy does start to make amends to Faith (and vice versa), but the one who tries the hardest is Giles. Xander hasn’t always been Angel’s mostest best friend, but he puts that aside in the Chanukah spirit.
2. Willow’s attempted seduction of Oz is a great scene, but why does she believe that sex is the way back to him? I think Willow heard two bits of conversation as suggesting that. In Lovers Walk, after Oz gave her the PEZ witch, we get this dialogue:
“Willow: (suddenly disappointed) Oh... I don't have anything to give you.
Oz: (smiles at her) Yeah, you do.”
I took this as referring to sex and I think Willow did too. In addition, here in Amends Buffy told her, “I guess now it's just about showing Oz that he comes first.” Again, the wording is ambiguous but certainly could be read to suggest sex.
3. Amends is a very important episode for purposes of Season 7, so keep it in mind. I’m holding off discussing some features of the episode for this reason (and because this post is long already).
Through Angel’s Eyes
I’m going to take two controversial positions in the remainder of this discussion of Amends. In both cases what I say is almost certainly a minority view among fans and may very well be unique to me.
First, as I mentioned in discussing POV in The Wish, I see Amends as a POV episode. That is, we see the world as Angel sees it himself – feeling guilty and a bit sorry for himself. We also see, though, what we might call Angel’s fantasy version of events. Angel wants others – whether the Scoobies or the Powers That Be – to notice him, to forgive him, to accept him, and to give his life meaning and purpose. He gets all of these here. Giles and Xander more or less accept him, Buffy begs for his life and gives him the “comfort” of existentialist purpose, the PTB grant him miracle snow. If nothing else, the episode allowed Angel to put aside thoughts of suicide and begin to address his past.
Did it really happen precisely this way? That’s up to you to decide, but keep the question in mind as we get to the other POV episodes I mentioned and see how you answer for other characters.
Angel’s Responsibility For The Crimes Of Angelus
The second controversial position involves the merits of Angel’s moral case. I’ve held off till now any discussion of a very important issue in the Buffyverse: what does it mean to be a vampire? I’m referring to moral culpability here, not genre details such as whether they breathe or not. The key question, as we’ve learned from Angel’s story over the last 2.5 seasons, is whether we should consider him guilty of the crimes of Angelus.
I could have brought this up earlier, in Passion maybe or certainly in Becoming or Revelations. I could also wait till later because future episodes bear on this issue. While raising it here is somewhat arbitrary, any other time would suffer from the same problem unless I waited until the very end. That’s too long to hold off discussing such an interesting issue. My excuse for choosing Amends as the focal point is that we now have enough evidence to make the discussion productive and the episode itself does bring the issue to the forefront. I will, though, limit the arguments to those which don’t rely on spoilers, so those who haven’t seen the remaining episodes may want to hold off coming to any final conclusions until you’ve see
n them all.
I’m going to set up the debate by letting Masq frame it. Masq used to be a philosophy professor (she has a real job now) and she ran the ATPO site which I mention regularly. This is from a post on June 3, 2002:
“There are two major theories for the vampire-human relationship, both of which emerge out of the text of the shows themselves:
(1) Vampire as spiritual and physical infection, the vampire is a different "person" from the human predecessor and
(2) Vampire as physical infection only, the vampire is the same "person" as the human predecessor, minus conscience
-----//-----
(1) The first theory comes from bits of dialogue that have been scattered through BtVS … over the years. We've seen these quoted many times before. Just off the top of my head, I can think of these instances (there might be more).
Giles in The Harvest: "The books tell the last demon to leave this reality fed off a human, mixed their blood. He was a human form possessed, infected by the demon's soul.
Giles to Xander in The Harvest: "Jesse is dead! You have to remember that when you see him, you're not looking at your friend. You're looking at the thing that killed him."
Buffy in Lie to Me: "Well, I've got a news flash for you, braintrust: that's not how it works. You die, and a demon sets up shop in your old house, and it walks, and it talks, and it remembers your life, but it's not you."
This view depicts the vampire demon as an infection of body and most especially of spirit--a replacement for the outgoing human soul. It states outright that that vampire is not the same "person" as the human predecessor, and in doing so it implies that the soul that has been lost is something more than mere conscience, it is a unique spiritual aspect of the human person, their self, and that all that is left behind of the person we knew is a body, memories imprints in the brain, and habits of walking and talking. The person we knew is gone, banished to the ether. All else is appearances, 'cause someone else is driving the machine.
(2) The second theory appears not in dialogue (at least not directly), but in ME's writing in general, most especially the behavior of the characters themselves.
Basically, this theory posits that the "vampire" is not a spiritual infection, but a physical one only. The original demon who bit a human (see Giles quote above) gave them animal-aspects of the demon such as blood lust and violent tendencies. It altered their physiology to make them stronger and give them vamp-face when they feed. The vampire is a brute animal; everything else about the vampire is supplied by the human: intelligence, personality, love, family issues. The only thing missing from human predecessor is the conscience.
Theory #2 has its support in the long history of vampires resembling and amplifying the traits their human hosts, from Jesse's inept stalker tendencies blooming full-grown in VampJesse to ….”
In considering Masq’s two options, we have to start by recognizing that Angel certainly feels that he is guilty. In that way, he’s on the same side as Xander. Buffy, however, takes the opposite view. Indeed, it may very well be essential that she do so: if she really believed that Angel – not Angelus but Angel – murdered Jenny and tortured Giles, even her formidable power of forgiveness would be challenged. Yet the moment Buffy saw Willow’s spell take effect in Becoming 2 she recognized that something essential had restored Angel and she could tell him she loved him.
Any explanation we give therefore has to account for the fact that (a) Angel perceives himself as guilty; but (b) Buffy, the hero, does not. I do have a way to account for these facts, and it’s probably best if I disclose that up front. I’m going to do that by copying a dialogue I (Sophist) had with Rahael (of ATPO) on her livejournal page. As you’ll see, Rah disagreed with me and I’m sure others will too. I’ll get to some of the disagreements afterwards (spoilers removed):
“Recently, Sophist and I have been having a discussion concerning two quite differing ways of viewing souls & personalities in BtVS …on my livejournal. We thought the Board [ATPO] might like to read/comment on the exchange, so here it is. It was quite lengthy, so I might split it up into parts.
It's part of a longer thread, and so it might start a little abruptly, but bear with us!
Sophist
it is argued that when Vampires kill people, it can't be classified as 'murder'.
I haven't seen many people make this argument [Note today: I probably was wrong about this]. A much more common argument, and a better one (hey, it's my own), is that Angel is not responsible for the killings of Angelus…. It's the only way I personally can justify Buffy's behavior in S3….
Rahael
We have to segment all kinds of actions that require thought & emotion in order to make the show's metaphysics work, as far as vampires are concerned - we are forced to jump through hoops.
Oh, and I must just mention another complicating factor. … If he acts as if he should receive redress for ill treatment, or act as if it still matters to him, then, doesn't that complicate the whole thing where he's a completely different person?
Sophist
… I don't think it's surprising that the souled vamp would feel responsibility for "his" previous actions. All the memories and feelings are there; psychologically, there appears to be only one "him". That is how I understand the torment of the gypsy curse to affect Angel -- all the more poignant because it's not strictly rational. I don't think it complicates the moral issue, I think it deepens the psychological one.
…
Rahael
…
I agree it deepens the psychological moment. I think the show hangs around this paradox. Sometimes it works really well, this faultline. Sometimes, it breaks the suspension of belief.
Because if you have such psychological realism, it renders the soul/no soul distinction as increasingly troubled.
There was an excellent Babylon 5 ep called "Passing through Gethsamene" where a murderer had his mind wiped clean, and programmed to have positive impulses towards society. He became a monk, a very holy man. When his memories came back, it was induced by the angry relatives of his victims. They then crucified him.
That ep was all about vengeance and forgiveness. The person who led the crucifixion subsequently had his mind wiped, and became a monk, taking the place of the man he crucified. He was offered the same chance of forgiveness and redemption.
At no point were the crimes excused, despite the fact that the 'mindwiped' men felt like a totally different person. Different personalities, no memories.
Forgiveness was offered, and it was a very strong theme in the ep, but I felt in no way that the crime was diminished. …
Sophist
…
There was an excellent Babylon 5 ep called "Passing through Gethsamene" where a murderer had his mind wiped clean, and programmed to have positive impulses towards society. He became a monk, a very holy man. When his memories came back, it was induced by the angry relatives of his victims. They then crucified him.
This is, in some ways, the mirror image of the situation in BtVS. Based on your description, in B5 the person felt different but was the same. In BtVS, the person (Angel…) felt the same but was different (at least in my view of it).
I've never seen the B5 episode, but from your description I don't believe it has the psychological or moral complexity of BtVS. I don't personally believe that memories alone are important enough for us to treat the same person as though we had also forgotten the past. If, for example, Josef Mengele showed up today claiming amnesia, I would have no trouble trying him for war crimes. And I would hardly watch a show in which the heroine falls in love with him.
In contrast, the soul canon on BtVS, at least in my interpretation, separates the person (in his "essence", not physically) and the deed while preserving the memories. That solves the moral dilemma, in no way diminishes the previous crimes, and still allows for a very complex exploration of psychology, both for the (former) killer and for his victims. YMMV….
Sophist
&nb
sp; I think I can justify Buffy's behavior in S3 under my view of the show's metaphysics, but I can't do it under any other. If I believed Angel to be the same "essence" as Angelus, I'd have been with Xander in Revelations (and we know that could never happen!). I'd also have to have even more problems with Amends, since it would then appear to let Angelus off the hook not only with Buffy but with Giles and everyone else. My view avoids this problem.
Rahael
hahaha re Xander.
Well there might also be this: that both meanings are possible, and that the credibility of one or the other rises and falls depending on the ep, the theme, the arc.
Sophist
I quite agree. However, let me reprise the B/A arc in your terms by removing the metaphor:
Buffy meets a man who seems attractive and mysterious. She begins to develop feelings for him. After shared experiences which awaken in her a physical desire for him, she learns that he is living incognito but was previously a concentration camp guard who tortured and murdered a large number of innocent people. (I'm not treading on Godwin's Law here; the portrayal of vampires leaves us with only a few plausible real life examples.)
He admits to her that this is the case (note that he did not tell her this before she learned it on her own), but says that he has reformed his life and no longer behaves as he did in the past. Rather than turn him over to the authorities, she kisses him and tells him she nevertheless can't continue to see him. She avoids reading books which are available to her which describe his earlier crimes.