|
Post by Emmie on Jul 7, 2009 21:30:55 GMT -5
He was just Exposition Man in the story, a one-dimensional plot device. He's a "doctor" of the supernatural so that makes him semi-reliable in the sense that he'd be qualified to understand these things. He's not some random idiot like Harmony. His agenda is never revealed, but there's no implication that he's lying in the text, so why would the audience question him? Fans only doubt him because they want to, not because there's indication that they should. In a world where Warren's death gets retconned, I think this kind of thing where it's told by a suspicious and evil character is fair enough to question. It'd be so easy for Joss to go "oh yeah, Sparrow was lying. Fred's in heaven." It's an easier tweak than Warren coming back, that's for sure. And let's not forget Joss also wanted to bring back Tara. Saying that Fred's soul is 100% destroyed hasn't been proven true. Sparrow's word isn't enough. It stands as the first, last and only word spoken on the subject. Just like when you see a doctor, he tells you you have cancer; you go get a second opinion and turns out you don't have cancer. It's always nice to get that second opinion. The simple fact is that Sparrow isn't trustworthy to the audience. So he's not a good sell for this info.
|
|
Mathieu
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,069
|
Post by Mathieu on Jul 7, 2009 21:39:38 GMT -5
Andrew:
Ok, I believe in the atrocity of Fred's soul being destroyed, and my next course of action is to go get back the Angel sets you just threw away to put them on a shelf in my room... because they're awesome just like that.
Diablo Robotico:
Come on. We all know how remarkable people become actual legends... It might be a little far fetched but Elvis Presley, JF Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe and now Michael Jackson all became legends for a reason and we know which one. Fred was an extraordinary character but her death took it to a whole different level.
|
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Jul 7, 2009 21:44:00 GMT -5
He was just Exposition Man in the story, a one-dimensional plot device. He's a "doctor" of the supernatural so that makes him semi-reliable in the sense that he'd be qualified to understand these things. He's not some random idiot like Harmony. His agenda is never revealed, but there's no implication that he's lying in the text, so why would the audience question him? Fans only doubt him because they want to, not because there's indication that they should. In a world where Warren's death gets retconned, I think this kind of thing where it's told by a suspicious and evil character is fair enough to question. It'd be so easy for Joss to go "oh yeah, Sparrow was lying. Fred's in heaven." It's an easier tweak than Warren coming back, that's for sure. And let's not forget Joss also wanted to bring back Tara. Saying that Fred's soul is 100% destroyed hasn't been proven true. Sparrow's word isn't enough. It stands as the first, last and only word spoken on the subject. Just like when you see a doctor, he tells you you have cancer; you go get a second opinion and turns out you don't have cancer. It's always nice to get that second opinion. The simple fact is that Sparrow isn't trustworthy to the audience. So he's not a good sell for this info. Yeah, but as you say, Joss can retcon anything. Anything can be alterted or outright ignored in future storylines, that's just fiction for ya. But as it stands, we have a character delivering exposition that Fred's soul was destroyed, and the only evidence to refute it is the optimism of her friends and fans. It's not set in stone, but it's certainly leaning heavily towards the "soul was destroyed" direction.
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Jul 7, 2009 21:48:19 GMT -5
That's really my point. It leans heavily, but there's still room for interpretation. And I think the reason there's wiggle room is because there are people who believe that a soul cannot be destroyed.
The immortal spirit is not immortal in the transient sense of immortal vampires who can be staked. It's the epitome of immortal - eternal. Forever. No wiggle room. Now this depends on what you, the viewer, believe to be true.
AndrewCrossett and I don't think a soul can be destroyed. So that scene is Sparrow trying to protect the creation and resurrection of Illyria. And to me, a doctor would have less knowledge about the supernatural spirituality than say a witch or a higher being of some kind. I'd trust Willow more in trying to locate her soul than I would Sparrow saying it's destroyed when saying so suits his own interests and causes pain to his enemies.
|
|
El Diablo Robotico
Ensouled Vampire
Robo Pimp-Daddy
"Surely you have heard about our great victory over the Devil's Robot."[Mo0:3]
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by El Diablo Robotico on Jul 7, 2009 21:48:30 GMT -5
Diablo Robotico: Come on. We all know how remarkable people become actual legends... It might be a little far fetched but Elvis Presley, JF Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe and now Michael Jackson all became legends for a reason and we know which one. Fred was an extraordinary character but her death took it to a whole different level. Leaving aside the ridiculous notion that that pedophiliac nutcase should even be in the same sentence with those other 3... Fred was a great character. Does her death make her stand out a little more as compared to someone like Xander or Faith? Maybe. (Maybe not). But you'll never convince me that that little tidbit about her soul supposedly being destroyed makes her death any more tragic than Tara, Anya, or Cordy...
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Jul 7, 2009 21:52:22 GMT -5
Fred was a great character. Does her death make her stand out a little more as compared to someone like Xander or Faith? Maybe. (Maybe not). But you'll never convince me that that little tidbit about her soul supposedly being destroyed makes her death any more tragic than Tara, Anya, or Cordy... Especially when the climax of the tragedy was the moment that Fred actually died in A Hole in the World and there wasn't a whisper of her soul being gone.
|
|
Mathieu
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,069
|
Post by Mathieu on Jul 7, 2009 21:52:24 GMT -5
Diablo Robotico: Come on. We all know how remarkable people become actual legends... It might be a little far fetched but Elvis Presley, JF Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe and now Michael Jackson all became legends for a reason and we know which one. Fred was an extraordinary character but her death took it to a whole different level. Leaving aside the ridiculous notion that that pedophiliac nutcase should even be in the same sentence with those other 3... Fred was a great character. Does her death make her stand out a little more as compared to someone like Xander or Faith? Maybe. (Maybe not). But you'll never convince me that that little tidbit about her soul supposedly being destroyed makes her death any more tragic than Tara, Anya, or Cordy... I'm only speaking for myself but I didn't shed a single tear over Tara, Anya and Cordy's deaths. Fred's death did make me cry.
|
|
|
Post by hitnrun017 on Jul 7, 2009 21:57:49 GMT -5
I'm only speaking for myself but I didn't shed a single tear over Tara, Anya and Cordy's deaths. Fred's death did make me cry. I think this has more to do with how the episodes flow. Fred's death took up the entire episode, we saw every agonizing minute of it. I can't watch that episode without crying. Anya is my favorite Buffyverse character, but the only time I've cried about her death was the day the episode aired. It's because of how sudden and quick it is with no emotional follow up. Fred's death was long, painful and the entire episode is just tears. The same can be said for Tara and Cordelia. Quick and unexpected.
|
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Jul 7, 2009 22:03:28 GMT -5
That's really my point. It leans heavily, but there's still room for interpretation. And I think the reason there's wiggle room is because there are people who believe that a soul cannot be destroyed. The immortal spirit is not immortal in the transient sense of immortal vampires who can be staked. It's the epitome of immortal - eternal. Forever. No wiggle room. Now this depends on what you, the viewer, believe to be true. AndrewCrossett and I don't think a soul can be destroyed. So that scene is Sparrow trying to protect the creation and resurrection of Illyria. And to me, a doctor would have less knowledge about the supernatural spirituality than say a which or a higher being of some kind. I'd trust Willow more in trying to locate her soul than I would Sparrow saying it's destroyed when saying so suits his own interests and causes pain to his enemies. But as I said earlier in this discussion, I don't think her soul was "destroyed" so much as it was altered into Illyria's new form. It's the old "energry can't be created or destroyed, only transformed" argument. The essence of Fred continues to live on eternally in Illyria's newfound humanity. But that's my interpretation, you're welcome to your own. Even if it's wrong. Obviously Willow would be the most reliable source. She's the Buffyverse's resident soul expert. But remember that Sparrow isn't just a doctor, he's a W&H doctor with knowledge of psychic implants and the supernatural.
|
|
Mathieu
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,069
|
Post by Mathieu on Jul 7, 2009 22:03:59 GMT -5
I'm only speaking for myself but I didn't shed a single tear over Tara, Anya and Cordy's deaths. Fred's death did make me cry. I think this has more to do with how the episodes flow. Fred's death took up the entire episode, we saw every agonizing minute of it. I can't watch that episode without crying. Anya is my favorite Buffyverse character, but the only time I've cried about her death was the day the episode aired. It's because of how sudden and quick it is with no emotional follow up. Fred's death was long, painful and the entire episode is just tears. The same can be said for Tara and Cordelia. Quick and unexpected. True, you really destroyed my argument but true.
|
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Jul 7, 2009 22:10:29 GMT -5
But you'll never convince me that that little tidbit about her soul supposedly being destroyed makes her death any more tragic than Tara, Anya, or Cordy... I disagree. Tara will reunite with Willow in the afterlife. Cordy lives on as a Higher Being. But Fred's gone forever and that really twisted the knife. As an atheist/agnostic myself, it felt more realistic. It also made Wesley's death waaay more poignant because Illyria's words about them being together rang so hollow.
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Jul 7, 2009 22:12:41 GMT -5
Sparrow still is an untrustworthy authority. His expertise would be thrown out of court because of his involvment in resurrecting Illyria.
There's no second opinion confirming what Sparrow says so again, while it leans heavily there's wiggle room for interpretation and I choose to believe he's a lying jackass. He's already shown he's into manipulating people with how he played Gunn. It's not a stretch to think he'd lie to protect his interests.
As for villains not lying, that's not true. Wolfram & Hart employees lie all the time. Lilah and Lindsey certaintly did. Being evil doesn't equate to always being honest. So I still say Sparrow is an unreliable, compromise authority. Which just makes it problematic that he's used as the only authority.
|
|
Hallow Thorn
Bad Ass Wicca
Oh and You're Welcome
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 2,306
|
Post by Hallow Thorn on Jul 7, 2009 22:16:02 GMT -5
Does it finally move on to the afterlife? We saw Ghost Darla in "Inside Out", but that was Darla the vampire, not her human soul. I always think about Vampires and there Soul, but how do we know that Darla did not have her soul when she was a ghost? because she last it when she became a Vamp again in season 2? it's so confusing...
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Jul 7, 2009 22:21:09 GMT -5
I fail to see how a person's death is "cheapened" by their soul not being destroyed.It's not so much that the death is cheapened by the soul not being destroyed as it is the death being even more tragic because there is no hope of an afterlife. In other words, Fred's death sucks more because Fred ceased to exist, rather than Fred just died.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Jul 7, 2009 22:31:28 GMT -5
It's not so much that the death is cheapened by the soul not being destroyed as it is the death being even more tragic because there is no hope of an afterlife. In other words, Fred's death sucks more because Fred ceased to exist, rather than Fred just died. My psyche is unable to process or comprehend the desire by many people -- on this board particularly, for some reason -- to see the heroes die, as horribly as possible.To me, that is entirely outside the purpose of story. We are supposed to enjoy the villains' deaths, not the heroes'. I know from experience that no amount of discussion or debate will enable me to understand this any better, so in the interests of peace I'll just leave it alone and stand by my position, which Emmie has expressed perfectly in her last couple of posts. I just don't have the energy for a fight right now. Sorry, guys.
|
|
Mathieu
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,069
|
Post by Mathieu on Jul 7, 2009 22:44:25 GMT -5
It's not so much that the death is cheapened by the soul not being destroyed as it is the death being even more tragic because there is no hope of an afterlife. In other words, Fred's death sucks more because Fred ceased to exist, rather than Fred just died. My psyche is unable to process or comprehend the desire by many people -- on this board particularly, for some reason -- to see the heroes die, as horribly as possible.To me, that is entirely outside the purpose of story. We are supposed to enjoy the villains' deaths, not the heroes'. I know from experience that no amount of discussion or debate will enable me to understand this any better, so in the interests of peace I'll just leave it alone and stand by my position, which Emmie has expressed perfectly in her last couple of posts. I just don't have the energy for a fight right now. Sorry, guys. This is an interesting point indeed. I know for a fact that I am very sadictic when it comes to fiction. I always wish for the worst because this is what makes great stories. This is what's great about fiction, you can wish for anything. I want Fred's soul to have been destroyed because it saddens me and it challenges my mind... and I like that. I know a lot of people function differently and take everything very personally. I don't think it's very healthy though. You have to establish a clear barrier between real life people and fictional characters. I will never get upset over a character's death the same way I can be affected by a friend or family member's death.
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Jul 7, 2009 22:47:03 GMT -5
It's not so much that the death is cheapened by the soul not being destroyed as it is the death being even more tragic because there is no hope of an afterlife. In other words, Fred's death sucks more because Fred ceased to exist, rather than Fred just died. My psyche is unable to process or comprehend the desire by many people -- on this board particularly, for some reason -- to see the heroes die, as horribly as possible.To me, that is entirely outside the purpose of story. We are supposed to enjoy the villains' deaths, not the heroes'. I know from experience that no amount of discussion or debate will enable me to understand this any better, so in the interests of peace I'll just leave it alone and stand by my position, which Emmie has expressed perfectly in her last couple of posts. I just don't have the energy for a fight right now. Sorry, guys. I'm sorry, but I'm not exactly reveling in Fred's death over here. I was merely explaining the POV of the opposition to you.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Jul 7, 2009 22:56:12 GMT -5
I know a lot of people function differently and take everything very personally. I don't think it's very healthy though. You have to establish a clear barrier between real life people and fictional characters. I will never get upset over a character's death the same way I can be affected by a friend or family member's death. This is entirely a matter of individual personalities. There's nothing unhealthy about it unless it interferes with your daily life or you start to lose the ability to distinguish reality from fantasy. I can still distinguish them quite well (to my frequent disappointment). I don't like it when the good guys die. I understand its occasional necessity from a storytelling standpoint, but it's not something that brings me any sort of enjoyment. But it's not Fred's death that bothers me so much. It's the idea of her soul being destroyed, which I find viscerally objectionable in ways that go well beyond the bounds of the story. This was all covered in excruciating detail in a previous thread a few months ago.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Jul 7, 2009 22:58:25 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I'm not exactly reveling in Fred's death over here. I was merely explaining the POV of the opposition to you. I know. I wasn't directing the comment at you personally. Sigh. I need to learn to stay the hell away from certain topics. I really do.
|
|
gumgnome
Junior Vampire Slayer
Who has got the button?
Get out of my BRAIN![Mo0:1]
Posts: 970
|
Post by gumgnome on Jul 8, 2009 6:40:34 GMT -5
I'm with Mathieu on this one. I am one to get deeply emotionally involved in fictional pieces, as are, I would suspect, most poeple on this board. I feel great pleasure when good things happen to characters I love and great sorrow when bad things happen. However, I appreciate being able to feel both of these emotions. It is what draws me to shows of such emotional depth as Buffy and Angel. Fred's soul being destroyed stands as one of the more heart-breaking events in either series. This gives it the ability to push our emotional response further in one direction that other events. The awesome thing about fiction is that your response carries no real consequences regarding your own position in life and with those around you, so it provides an extremely healthy way of exploring and learning to understand feelings that we would normally only feel during times of extreme stress. From this point of view, I am willing to see characters I love put through hell because it stimulates me emotionally in unfamilar ways. I do not regard this as sadistic, but rather it is a cathartic exercise.
|
|