The Sweet Release of Death (Spoilers for AtS 5.13 "Why We Fight")

[dlgood]

Death, in its many forms, has been a constant presence in the Jossverse. Particularly as the two lead characters were a slayer and a Dead Thing. Repeatedly, I'm left questioning when it's right to kill, and when not. And what alternatives exist.

Particularly in regards to suicide, mercy killing, and, necessary. killings. Sam Lawson is the most recent test case on these three issues.

Is Lawson coming to LA to attempt a suicide-by-angel? If so, then it fits nicely into tradition alongside Faith in "Five by Five" and Connor in "Home". All three facing lives they can't seem to handle, and begging for release.

Should Angel have killed Lawson? On that submarine in 1943, knowing what he then knew about Vampires - Angel should probably have staked both Lawson and Spike. But as seen in the cases of Darla & Drusilla, Angel seems to have a very tough time staking his "family" - perhaps in part because they feel like family. But also in part for the same reason Willow was against Spike's staking in S4, and Buffy had trouble staking Harmony & Spike. Because to him, violent as they are, these are people and he can't easily kill them. So yes - Angel should have staked Spike and Lawson, just as Buffy should have staked Angelus numerous times in S2, Spike on numerous occasions in S3-5, and Harmony.

Like Chris Rock, I'm not saying I agree with what Angel did re:Lawson in 1943. But I think I can understand.

But should Angel have staked Lawson in 2004? Lawson had a bloody past, had recently initiated violence and possible torture upon Angel's friends, and instigated combat with Angel. Just as Faith did.

Speculation that Lawson had a partial-soul aside, we've already seen that Harmony doesn't have to be killed - so the argument that it's necessary to kill Lawson doesn't seem to apply. At least not in the short term - if Lawson was looking for a mission, Angel could certainly give him that.

If so, then one might argue that this was an assisted suicide/mercy killing. Which, to be honest, I have trouble finding many examples of in the Jossverse. Had William killed, rather than turned, his tubercular mother. Had the Master killed, rather than sired, a syphillitic Darla. Had Darla not spared Angel in China. Had it not snowed on Christmas Day 1998. Had Willow and Xander not interrupted Spike's suicide attempt in S4. Had D'Hoffryn not killed Halfrek instead. Had Spike not interrupted Buffy's dance in OMWF. Had Buffy not spared Angel or Spike when they offered their lives to her. Had Willow been killed following her rampage, as she expected and may have wanted. And maybe Buffy was pursuing suicide-by-vampire herself in S6...

The only instances where I can identify anything that seems tangentially like a successful suicide/mercy-killings are:

Buffy leaving Billy Fordham to get his wished-for-death by Spike in "Lie to Me"
James shoots himself in "I Only Have Eyes for You"
Buffy in "The Gift"
Darla in "Lullaby"
Connor in "Home"

And even in these cases, other factors are in play. Buffy immediately stakes the rising Ford, not to "put him out of his misery" but to prevent him from future killing. James is forced to replay his suicide until he is prevented from repeating it, and resolves his trauma. Buffy's suicide is couched in terms of Martyrdom, rather than simple release from her burdens, and even then - she is not allowed to keep it. Darla's death is a true act of Martyrdom, though in the form of suicide. And Connor's situation has, as of yet, not been clearly followed up and resolved.

We also have the murder-suicide attempts: Giles against Angelus in "Passion", VampJames against Angel in Heartthrob, and Holtz in "Benediction".

Personally, I don't think Angel was right to kill Lawson at the end of "Why We Fight" - granted Lawson had killed for 60 years. And if he was going to try to keep going in a future, he'd have to live with his past, and with not being able to kill and drink from human blood again - just as Harmony has to live with that. And maybe it would have been hard for Lawson to do.

"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."

Strong is Fighting. And in the Jossverse, as in life - you have to live with that. With pain and disappointment, and with a life that wasn't what you'd hoped for, or what you wanted. You don't get the "sweet release of death" on your own terms.

And you don't get to give it to others, like Connor or Sam Lawson, because you don't get to have it yourself or because you want to spare them that. I'm not saying I don't understand what Angel did, or why. But I don't agree.

Comments

[ljgould.livejournal.com]

Dave, first let me say that I love reading your musings...your insights make me think and question happenings in the show. So, here goes.

Should Angel have killed Lawson? Although I understand the necessity of making Lawson a vampire to save the sub and others in it, I found this act a morally questionable one. It really bothered me that a man was turned in the name of expediency. Although, now that I think of it, I guess that's why all vamps are made.

It also bothered me that the fledgling was abandoned to make it on his own...Angel sent him away much as Darla did him after he got his soul. I think I would've been more comfortable with Angel staking him after he fixed the boat, rather than just turning him loose to prey on humanity. Still, as you pointed out, this is not something that Angel can easily do.

I do think Lawson came to LA to commit suicide by Angel. Yes, he tied up Wes, Gunn, and Fred, but he could have killed them outright. He didn't want to kill them, he just wanted Angel to have an excuse to kill him.

Like you, I don't agree with what Angel did, but I also understand it. I just wish there had been another way for Lawson.

L.J.

Re:

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I understand the necessity of making Lawson a vampire to save the sub and others in it, I found this act a morally questionable one. It really bothered me that a man was turned in the name of expediency.

I hardly define the circumstances of his turning as "expediency" - and indeed, I think it's a choice Lawson himself favored, and may have encouraged.

Sam Laswon
"I can even handle dying, if I know it's for a greater purpose."
"I just want to make sure this boat gets to where it's going. That, and my crew, are all that matters"

Turning anyone into a Vampire is a profane act. But to not turn Lawson, and thus doom all those others on the ship to certain death. There is no alternative in which Angel is not responsible for an evil act. This, at its heart is a morally ambiguous situation.

I just wish there had been another way for Lawson.

There probably was no "other way" beyond dusting him in the sub, or dusting him later. That is, until Angel learned that a soulless vampire - even in limited circumstances - could be more than a killer. But now, there may well have been another way. Ultimately, it's academic, because nobody looked to find it.

[(Anonymous)]

I think we are not meant to compare Lawson to Harmony at all; was it right for Angel to kill Connor? Like you said, that issue hasn't been resolved.

But okay; I can see why the Lawson/Harmony comparison persists. I think that in comparing Harmony and Lawson as 'evil' vampires (vampires without a soul, I guess is better), Harmony is the anomaly. So, perhaps we should be focusing on the differences between Harmony and Lawson, rather than the similarities? For instance:

1) Harmony is all about self-preservation, Lawson was not.

2) I didn't perceive of Lawson as a sheep like Harmony; he needed a purpose, but I also think he was the type who needed to be convinced it was the right thing for him.

3) Harmony has never expressed any disillusionment with the fact that she was turned during the big fight against evil, IMO because she's without depth, pre and post-vamping. Lawson, OTOH, suffered a huge blow to his idealism shortly before he was turned (I finally understand the purpose for his outrage at the vampire experiments - huzzah!) If, as you say, the human informs the vampire, then that has to have made a huge difference and since Angel was present at the interrogation of the Nazi, he would have known about it.

I'm sure there's more, but I have to think about it. :-)

I'm not saying I fully support Angel dusting Lawson, wait...yes I am; unless they could have shipped Lawson off to Africa to visit Lurky, I don't have a problem with it. Even if he had become souled, I'm not so sure that would have helped him, or saved any future victims. I think we are meant to believe he was past the point of no return, vampire or human. Essentially, I don't see an assisted suicide, I see a slaying.

Connor, OTOH...I have to wait until I see how that's going to play out before I make any judgement calls. I know I'm contradicting myself here, but for right now that's where I stand.

- CleaPet (btw, Hi! Love your work.)

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

Lawson asked for a mission, a purpose, and Angel, his creator, gave him death. In a way that's what we all get - death defines life, we have to find the meaning in a finite existence. Vampires stand outside that though, they take life but they don't truly live. Sidestepping all the practical issues you raise, can a vampire find any meaning in existence without this connection to their own mortality?

Just having a ponder moment...

Re:

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Vampires stand outside that though, they take life but they don't truly live. Sidestepping all the practical issues you raise, can a vampire find any meaning in existence without this connection to their own mortality?

That's a tough question. Angel himself, seems to have had trouble with that. But that may have been due more to who he is, and not so much what he is. Harmony seems to have found meaning in her Vampiric existence - though she's a bit shallower and her needs are a bit less. More importantly, I don't know that Harmony was ever given to contemplating her mortality or the meaning of life when she was human.

It's a tough question - most every philosophical investigation of the meaning of life that I've read was written by mortals, and the type of immortality vampires have is presented as the false or undesirable state. We don't have the luxury of eternal youth, so we're supposed to learn to accept and embrace our mortality, so that we might make the most of it.

So, from my own perspective, I'd like to be able to answer your question with a "no" - that human mortality and aging is the "blessed" state over that of being an eternally young creature of the night.

Re:

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

I agree that Lawson was well on his way to a crisis of faith before Angel vamped him. Lawson didn't just want orders (something that Harmony seems to enjoy) he needed the purpose, the underlying meaning. Angel couldn't offer him that because he doesn't have it for himself.

I keep coming back to the idea of mercy waaay back from the beginning of the season. We've seen Angel in this situation twice and the only mercy he can offer is death. Is there going to be a third time before the end? And will Angel find a different answer?

Mercy Theme

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I hope he can find a different answer too. Maybe saving Lawson wouldn't have worked, but what really bothered me was that Angel didn't seem to look to try. Angel's reaction to Lawson reminds me too much of where I think Liam went wrong. And to me, that's the real direction along which Angel needs to grow.

Re: Mercy Theme

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

I found it interesting how Lawson and Spike were linked: the good son vs. the doofus son, both definitely not staked and both cast out into the water at the same time. They both come back to Angel in this episode but in such different ways.

The real problem I think is that Angel sees no mercy for himself anymore and thus can't offer it to others.

Re: Mercy Theme

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Good points. If not for Harmony, I don't know that I would have thought so critically about Angel's staking of Lawson without entertaining alternatives. But he essentially has a pilot program in place for peacefully integrating the soulless vampire into a human social setting. And I have to ask why he'd just kill Lawson, when he might be able to offer him something of value instead.

And it gets back to Angel's own lack of mercy and hope.

[stephanierb.livejournal.com]

Is Lawson coming to LA to attempt a suicide-by-angel?

That's the big question, isn't it? There's much in the episode to suggest that was the case, but I'm not so sure. If Lawson believed that Angel's threat to kill him if he ever saw him again was sincere, why did he attack Wes, Gunn and Fred? There was no need to provoke Angel, at least not to that degree. Angel would've staked him anyway.

I think there was more to it than just Lawson wanting to end his existence. He believed Angel to be the reason that he couldn't take pleasure in feeding and/or killing and thus wanted revenge. Perhaps he did want to die, but he also wanted Angel to suffer.

Could Lawson have lived like Harmony? I don't think so. I think we were supposed to believe that Lawson would never be capable of dealing with this lack of purpose and that if Angel hadn't staked him, Lawson would've killed Angel. Given that, I don't have a problem with Angel killing Lawson in 2004. Not staking him in the sub, that's another story.

Of course, we don't know if Lawson had a partial soul, but I don't think that's something ME had any intention of addressing, and since this is now the last season of the show, I doubt we're ever going to find out.

[ljash.livejournal.com]

That's interesting. I have several disconnected thoughts on it:

I'm not sure if Lawson was suicide-by-Angel, though you're right that he was not the first. I think he popped in because this decade he found out what Angel had been up to. Angel met Buffy what, 8 years before? So everything we've seen of Angel is all new to Lawson. He seemed almost offended by the idea. Add to that the weird idea of doing good and running W&H. He showed up partly out of curiousity. But there was more to it. He wanted a showdown. Maybe he even wanted to kill Angel, or Angel's friends. Maybe he explicityly wanted death or maybe he just wanted something, some kind of resolution and confrontation. If Angel is suddenly saying he's a moral thinker then Lawson has to see what's up with that, maybe to punish Angel for saying it or maybe to learn some answers.

I'm not sure it was right to kill Lawson. Soul/vampire ideas aside (though I think they meant to imply that Lawson had a fragment of a soul, just enough to really screw him up), Angel seemed responsible for him. Faith came for death and he didn't kill her. He also didn't kill that girl Dana in "Damage" even though she was maybe further gone than even Lawson. Yet what else could Angel have done? Take him in? Try to reform him, give him a job, keep an eye on him? Treat him like a fledgling, a son? I don't think Angel is up for it. One of the things that happened in "Home" was that Angel decided once and for all that he couldn't help Connor. That's not just a statement about Connor, it's also a statement about Angel. Angel gave up on his ability to do anything for Connor. I doubt he thought he could help Lawson. And I might agree with him there. Angel seems exhausted.

And if he can't solve it all himself, then he's going to kill. Because Lawson had to be dealt with some way. Because Lawson was going to battle until there was some kind of resolution, and Angel wouldn't let his friends get hurt. Because Angel might just think that dying is better. The Jossverse has things to say about suicide. You're right in that it's been pretty consistant. But I don't think Angel shares the view of the Jossverse. I think that the Connor is going to hit the fan and then Angel will be in for some revelations.

Re:

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Yet what else could Angel have done? Take him in? Try to reform him, give him a job, keep an eye on him?

W&H can do for Lawson what it does for Harmony. For all those other soulless vamps on the corporate payroll.

And if he can't solve it all himself, then he's going to kill. Because Lawson had to be dealt with some way. (snip) The Jossverse has things to say about suicide. You're right in that it's been pretty consistant. But I don't think Angel shares the view of the Jossverse.

As mentioned, I don't agree with Angel, but I do understand his fatalism. The contrasts with Faith and Connor/Lawson are relative to who Angel was/is at the time. An Angel who has Faith in his mission, and a belief in what he's doing - is very willing to put himself out to try to help Faith. Or to argue for Dana to be spared. The Angel who has lost the mission, doesn't see the point, doesn't know what to believe in...

That Angel isn't very strong, doesn't know how to fight - for himself of for others. That's, IMHO, why he doesn't save Lawson or work for Lawson, when he could save and work for Faith. Why he couldn't save himself as a human. Why he was looking to die on the hilltop in Sunnydale. I think its very "Liam" of him, and the type of fatalism he needs to be fighting against.

Re:

[ljash.livejournal.com]

I agree about Angel. Yet I still think comparing Lawson to Harmony isn't quite right. The point is not that Lawson is a soulless vampire. The point is that Lawson wants to hurt Angel and his friends. Lawson wouldn't have wanted a job. He wouldn't have wanted to have a place there at the firm. To help Lawson would require as much attention as Faith did, and his chances seem worse.

Actually, I'm slightly wrong, here. Let me see. Lawson wouldn't have just wanted a job because he didn't just need a place to go and somewhere to fit. He needed a mission. He wanted to be good again but didn't really think that possible. Could Angel have given him a mission? Maybe if they were still the same old agency, the small group of friends charging out in a disorganized way, trying to do good. Maybe that would have been enough ties to keep Lawson knowing where he's at. But even Angel can't deal with working at W&H. It's not going to help Lawson with any of his beliefs.

Someone recently said that the Angel gang used to be a family but now they're a corporation. They used to work in a small space and bump into each other, and now they work in different departments and have to have meetings. They're not as close, and it's hurting them. This was almost addressed in the beginning of this episode, where they decided to have another meeting in a few hours just to see each other. Lawson could easily get a job at W&H and probably even be busy enough to keep killing in check. But it wouldn't have meant anything to him and so he wouldn't have wanted it.

It's not just Angel who's different, it's all of his circumstances. And I think that's wearing him out. Badly.

Re:

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

To help Lawson would require as much attention as Faith did, and his chances seem worse.

I don't think we know that, because we didn't see Angel really try. For all that Lawson was supposedly there to hurt Angel and his friends, he goes out of his way to make sure Angel's friends don't actually die when he's flung in their direction by Angel.

The problem is that Angel doesn't buy into his place at W&H. He doesn't buy into what he's doing. Just as, after Jasmine, he didn't buy into his place as boutique detective anymore. Angel can be an evangelist for Evil-holics Anonymous for Faith in S1 when he believes in it.

It's not just Angel who's different, it's all of his circumstances. And I think that's wearing him out. Badly.

True. However, that's been the real test that he's failed throughout his life. He's a fairly swell champion when he believes in what he's doing. But can he be a good man, do real good, even when he doesn't have a mission he can believe and get passionately behind?

Yeah, it's wearing him out. But, if he's going to be the big champ, doesn't he need to find a way to dig deep inside himself and tough it out? Strong is fighting...

Hi

[visigoth-ie.livejournal.com]

Hi, just added you to my Flist - amazing essay btw - so now I just HAVE to keep track of your musings in order to catch the next instalment.
Visi

Re: Hi

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Cool! and Thanks.

[mshepnj.livejournal.com]

Dave,

As always, your posts are thought-provoking. I enjoy reading them.

Like Chris Rock, I'm not saying I agree with what Angel did re:Lawson in 1943. But I think I can understand.

I both agree with and understand his decision for vamping Lawson, although less so that he didn't dust Lawson (and Spike).

I don't see what choice Angel really had *but* to turn Lawson. Yes, it meant death for Lawson, but preserved life for the remaining humans, and got the sub underway again. The alternative was more death (including Lawson's)and being stuck at the bottom of the ocean, and possibly bombed to bits by Allied or Nazi forces. No matter what Angel's lack of engagement in human life, the fact that he had a soul gave him a sense of mercy that would not have existed otherwise. He did the merciful thing for all of the humans, including Lawson, who had a desire to try to complete his mission and save his friends. Being turned made that possible.

OTOH, considering that Angel dusted plenty of vamps before, I think his failure to dust Lawson in 1943, Drucilla and Spike (pre-soul Spike, that is, during S2 of BtVS the last known time that they were all in the same place) is more questionable than his decision to dust Lawson 60 pears later. Angel may have reasoned that it would be too upsetting to the remaining crew who might see what appeared to be an old friend (even if technically he wasn't) disintegrate into dust. It still doesn't explain why he didn't dust Spike though.

In a way, dusting Lawson at w&H was merciful and consistent with who Angel is now. Angel created that monster, and Lawson without a mission was aimless destruction and not happy to exist. Would Lawson have been able to do as Harmony does, and live something of a benign existence? Who knows? Lawson wasn't, I think, asking for a job when he came to Angel so I think he did want it to end.

On the nit-picky side... Buffy immediately stakes the rising Ford, not to "put him out of his misery" but to prevent him from future killing.

All I remember was that Ford's body was dead when Buffy returned to retrieve it. I don't remember him rising. I always assumed the Spike just drained him and left him dead because the plan didn't work out.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I both agree with and understand his decision for vamping Lawson, although less so that he didn't dust Lawson (and Spike).

Actually, that's my position as well. I wasn't criticizing his decision to turn Lawson into a Vampire. Perhaps I was a bit vague with my language on that score. The issue I was going after, was that of dusting VampLawson.

All I remember was that Ford's body was dead when Buffy returned to retrieve it. I don't remember him rising.

He does. That's why Buffy and Giles are sitting in the cemetary at the end of "Lie to Me".