Angel told Buffy: he hadn't fed of a living human. Liar !

[ILLYRIAN]

So Angel decided to tell Buffy that he hadn't fed off a living human since he was cursed. Why did he say that, had the demon removed his memory as well, or was he simply trying to con Buffy ?
Alright he'd only drunk from two that I can remember, one in the 1920s and one in the 1940s.
So why did he lie to her ? Was there some of the big bad in him ?

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

So why did he lie to her ? Was there some of the big bad in him ?

Just bare with me on this very technical answer that some people may not understand.

The episodes you are refering to are years away and at that time, i'm pretty sure that Joss and Co had not conceived the idea of the episodes that show Angel 'ate' in the past.

If you NEED show context then how about this.

Angel and Buffy were still at the beginning of their relationship.
She was dealing with what Angel was and also who he had been(Angelus) so he thought that he could save her some pain by not telling her about what he had done to save her feeling even more conflicted.

I don't think there was any 'big bad' intention.
In fact, I'd also suggest it was fear.
Fear of losing Buffy. He later says that he loved her when he first saw her(can anyone else say Pedo-Vamp) so he probably didn't want to jeopardize that by telling her what he had done.

Then later, he found no reason to because it didn't come up again.

 

[nerd4hire]

So Angel decided to tell Buffy that he hadn't fed off a living human since he was cursed. Why did he say that, had the demon removed his memory as well, or was he simply trying to con Buffy ?
Alright he'd only drunk from two that I can remember, one in the 1920s and one in the 1940s.
So why did he lie to her ? Was there some of the big bad in him ?

I'm racking my brain trying to think of the "living human" Angel fed off in the 20s. There's the dead guy in the diner, but that's 70s. OK, I'm ready for my head-slapping, "how did I forget that" moment. Who did Angel feed off in the 20s?

In the 40s when he feeds off the submarine commander, Lawson, Lawson is dying, isn't he? I could see Angel warping the definition of "living human" to think of him as dead. Especially in the context of what BotD just mentioned.

 

[white avenger]

I can't remember anything about the 20'2, but in one flashback, when Angel was back with Darla, Dru, and Spike, (this was apparently after the curse) Darla was saying something to the effect that Angel had started feeding only on thieves and murderers. Whether he was feeding on babies or the dregs of society, he was still feeding off of humans, not pigs. Granted, as Bored of the Dead pointed out, he was trying to spare Buffy's feelings by stretching the truth a bit (okay, a LOT!) but it kind of strikes me as somewhat ironic when he later warns Buffy about Spike's being a liar, and not to be trusted.

 

[nerd4hire]

One could still get technical of course, and say it's never said he actually feeds off them, only that he's killed them.

Darla: "Feeding?"
Angel: "Yeah."
Darla: "On vermin?"
Angel after a beat: "No."
Darla: "Don't lie to me."
Angel: "Look I've killed men. You've seen it!"
Darla, wearing a kimono, gets up form her seat against the wall and walks towards him.
Darla: "Rapists and murderers, thieves and scoundrels. Did you think I wouldn't notice? - Only evildoers, that's all you hunt now. (Angel looks down) You swore to me. You said, if I took you back you'd prove yourself."

There's a pretty strong insinuation of course, and it's just a technicality, but the question of whether Angel has fed off a "living" human as far as he sees is itself a technicality, so I think in this case trivial details are fair argument.

Personally, I think he most likely ate those guys, but if you want to get technical, let's get technical.

 

[ILLYRIAN]

HMM yep, all fair comments.

Bored of the Dead
About Angel being depicted as feeding of humans in later episodes that had not been written, that's all well and good, how-ever there's a thing called continuity. The later episode's should have been following what he had said.
Surely your not suggesting the writers ignored it are you ? In the sentence after, 'Fear of losing Buffy' you agreed he was lying- thanks. With,'he thought he could save her some pain by not telling her what he had done'. That is what is called lying- so thanks again.

nerd4hire
I apologise for stating about the 1920s, when I had previously watched the episode I had taken it to be in the same time as the previous scene, Chicago 1920s. It was only when I watched the scene again that I thought about the music machine not fitting in to that time. I've never bothered with that Manilow's song, until it was done by a group in the 70s. Once again my apologies. But about Lawson going to die anyway so it's ok ? Buffy's mum died, so would it be ok to have a bite of her when she was dead ? Don't think so.

white avenger
Hadn't noticed the bit about Angel feeding off thieves and murderers. Thing is how many had he killed, would 10, 20, or 30 be an ok figure. Would have made the scene a bit different:
ANGEL: I haven't fed of another living human since then, mind you there's the 30 or so that I did kill but I don't count them. Good job he was a liar, or Buffy would have killed him there and then, in theory.

nerd4hire
If blood is the food, taking a little bit is still partaking of food.
Even in todays legal terms if you hit some-one and they die you'd get charged with manslaughter, that's accidental murder.
He drank their blood, the thieves murderers, rapists, scoudrels but he didn't feed off them ? Did he shoot them, did he kill them in a way that didn't involve him taking their blood, no. So he fed off them, where's the technicality ?.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

Bored of the Dead
About Angel being depicted as feeding of humans in later episodes that had not been written, that's all well and good, how-ever there's a thing called continuity. The later episode's should have been following what he had said.
Surely your not suggesting the writers ignored it are you ?

I'm suggesting that the writers came up with a couple of cracking ideas and used poetic license to tell the story.
If you have to be so anal about continuity of something like this, then I would suggest you don't watch TV ever again because you are only ever going to be disappointed.

In the sentence after, 'Fear of losing Buffy' you agreed he was lying- thanks. With,'he thought he could save her some pain by not telling her what he had done'. That is what is called lying- so thanks again.

Your point is?
You make it seem like I said that Angel didn't lie. I actually gave you a very plausible reason for his comment and its obvious what I said works with the lie.
I know what a lie is buddy. Now if you want some lessons in how to be sarcastic, I could teach you. You seem to have the basics and you are doing well but you have a way to go - see what that is, it's a lie AND sarcasm(don't worry, we'll go into that advanced stuff at a later date).

nerd4hire
But about Lawson going to die anyway so it's ok ? Buffy's mum died, so would it be ok to have a bite of her when she was dead ? Don't think so.

I don't know what you are getting at but these examples are pretty stupid in comparison.
Lawson was dying, would have been dead way before 'landing' meaning there would have been human losses and the mission would have been in vain.
Buffy's mum dying, i'm pretty sure, only had consequences of upsetting the people who loved her.
You cannot compare the two situations.
One was the ONLY option available, the other is a silly suggestion.

white avenger
Hadn't noticed the bit about Angel feeding off thieves and murderers. Thing is how many had he killed, would 10, 20, or 30 be an ok figure. Would have made the scene a bit different:
ANGEL: I haven't fed of another living human since then, mind you there's the 30 or so that I did kill but I don't count them. Good job he was a liar, or Buffy would have killed him there and then, in theory.

Maing alot of assumption there and you know what they say about people who assume - makes an ass of u...thats all.

nerd4hire
If blood is the food, taking a little bit is still partaking of food.
Even in todays legal terms if you hit some-one and they die you'd get charged with manslaughter, that's accidental murder.
He drank their blood, the thieves murderers, rapists, scoudrels but he didn't feed off them ? Did he shoot them, did he kill them in a way that didn't involve him taking their blood, no. So he fed off them, where's the technicality ?.

The 'technicality' is the fact no one in any scene states Angel actually 'fed' off them, only that he has killed people.

 

[white avenger]

The fact is that Angel killed people, regardless of whether they, in his opinion, "needed killing" or not. If he fed off of them after killing them, then, technically, no, he had not fed off of a living human. There is a distinction there, if only a small one. Personally, I prefer to think that he was plain out bare faced lying, knowing that Buffy would believe whatever he said anyway, and, even if she didn't, she would have no way of telling one way or the other (regardless of how thorough the Watchers are, I seriously doubt that they keep a running tally of how many people any individual vampire killed and fed off of), and, for that matter, I really don't think she was all that anxious to prove him wrong anyway. If she found out that he had, in deed, fed off of humans in the past while in possession of his soul, there would be no reason to assume that he wouldn't do so again in the future.

 

[alexa]

It's not like he went on a rampage killing innocent people once he was in-souled. I don't see the big. It's pretty clear in BtVS season 1 they never had any intention of making Angel a liar. If I was Buffy and he explained 'Well actually I know Darla is trying to kill us right now, but I'll quickly explain that I actually fed off a dead human in 1973, and the dying submarine guy in the second world war because of blah blah...' It wouldn't effect my feelings of who he is. And it doesn't effect the way I feel about Angel's character, other then he ended up having way more depth then originally intended.

 

[Lillie]

You can mess up on stuffs like that sometimes... I think we'll forgive em xD

 

[Kana]

Well, I love Angel but he was lying. There isn't even a case for a technicality because he did feed off a living person, even if he didn't kill her (1898) and has killed people and Angel not the sort of person to let himself off the hook on a technicality anyway, but like the others have said, he didn't want to tell Buffy something like that. This isn't out of character for Angel either. When Cordy lost her memory he didn't want to tell her everything. I think he wanted to prove he could be a good person before she got wind of the details.

 

[Tranquillity]

...other then he ended up having way more depth then originally intended.

Yes, Angel did technically lie to Buffy but comparing season one Angel to the Angel that developed after Amends and into his own show is like comparing apples and oranges! Season one BTVS Angel was a flat, one dimentional character who was designed purely to be the mysterious love interest. He probably didn't even have a back story to lie about. The later more developed Angel is a much richer, complex character - he carries the weight of guilt on his shoulders and that would be impossible if he'd never done things he was ashamed of after the aquesition of the soul. This is what makes him interesting. This is where we have to make allowances for retcon.