|
Tuesday 6 April 2004, by Joshtek : In my memory of the Buffy and Angel this statement is not 100% true: "When his soul is restored, Angel goes from heartless murderer to helpful vampire dedicated to redemption for his various crimes." and "So yes, the vampire with a soul is good. He chooses not to kill humans, time and time again." Although Angel did progress to be more good, when his soul was first returned he continued to killed humans, albeit now humans he judged to be sinful. So he did not suddenly go from zero to hero, it took a lot of soul-searching (pun intended) before he started being the good guy we see in Sunnydale. Tuesday 6 April 2004, by Alex Engel (the writer) : You’re very right. It took about one hundred years if I’m not mistaken for Angel to become the character we recognize in Welcome to the Hellmouth. However, my original audience for this paper had no Buffy background so I decided my point was better made by not complicating the situation, ie.( Angel killing humans, drinking from a human as late as the 70’s in Orpheus and countless other events that murk the water a bit.) I hope I made my intended point clear, that Angel recieving his soul was integral in his journey to become a hero. Thanks for the feedback!Tuesday 6 April 2004, by norman : in buffy season 1, angel said after he killed the gypsy girl and his soul was returned "i havent killed a living human since that day"Wednesday 7 April 2004, by Joshtek : norman: Angel lied. Don’t worry, it was not his fault, he was not aware how important his life story would be and the fact he would get his own show. He was only a newbie and although he had a history it was undeveloped. Through all my noting of the inaccuracies of the paper I forgot to say I liked it. It is a pretty good paper, and is about Buffy which is a major plus. Oh, and it’s easier to understand than other studies such as the one explaining how Buffy managed to make a sustainable vampire population, and showed a mathy model to show how it worked in theory and how that corresponded to how it seemed to work on the show. Although it was interesting it was harder to understand. Friday 9 April 2004, by buffyverse fan : I’m curious as to why Spike wasn’t mentioned in this paper, after all he was an evil being who chose to follow his un-beating heart and fought for his soul. Though i’m guessing at least part of the reason was that mentioning that would require a lot of back-story and that would ultimately be useless in regards to the actual thesis. still, i am curious... Sunday 11 April 2004, by Joshtek : buffyverse fan: From what I’ve heard the author wanted to keep it simple, and only say what they needed to prove their point. Although complicating things would make it more in-depth, it would add confusion and make it longer :)Sunday 15 August 2004, by Anonymous : I thought this paper was well thought out and researched. I agree that including Spike might have made some additional good points, but there is nothing wrong with this paper. Any number of additional characters could have been added: Illyria, Harmony (for comparison with Spike), Ben/Glory, Anya, and to a lesser extent Giles or Dawn. Good thesis. :) Wednesday 1 September 2004, by Alex (the writer) : I’m surprised to see there is still heat on this. Glad you enjoyed it. I didn’t feel any other characters were needed to make my point. And god how hard would it be to explain Illyria to non Whedonites. "Well, she’s a god, in a human’s body. But she doesn’t have ALL of her old power. Just some of it. And she’s good. Even though she was bad."These comments are an anwser to this article : How Buffy explains Good, Evil and Soul - Research Paper
|
Sitemap XML