![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
no subject
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.