![[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.
Re:
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:
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...