The Lindsey Question.

Slayer said:
I do think that 'true heroism demands suppression of conscience'. What Giles did in the Gift may have been wrong, but in the end it was obviously right.

It really is like war in the fact that they're are casualties and horrible things that have to happen for the possibility of good. It may be wrong, but it's right.
Click to expand...

Giles took a mostly-innocent life, while a few hundred feet above him, Buffy was dying rather than doing the same. Neither action can be wholly condemned, but both actions can also be considered "heroic". So two opposing ideals are simultaneously presented as The Right Thing to Do.

Lorne's assasination of Lindsey (murder or not, it was at least assasination) leaves no such wiggle room. Lorne's distaste for violence isn't simply because he's not as physically capable as the others - hand him an M-16 and he's quite capable, I'm sure - it goes beyond that. He represents the sole voice of non-violence in the regular Angel cast. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single Angel character who hasn't tried to kill somebody.

Even if he really did know for certain that Lindsey was going to do more harm than good, the scene breaks my heart. For two reasons.

a) Four seasons of "anybody can be redeemed" have been lost. Which means Faith, Angel, Lilah, Spike, Willow, Anya and Connor are all characters who should rightfully and justifiably have been disposed of long ago. The Buffyverse considers guns beneath it's heroes to use, but Lindsey was an exception because he's evidently not even considered a real adversary. They used him and dumped him, without so much as an "It's not you, it's us."

b) If we are being asked to see Lorne's act of violence as heroic overall, then the implication is that his previous pacifism was weakness. And thus, that all pacifism is cowardice. Anybody ever tried it? 'Cause it's bloody hard. If somebody hurts me, physically or otherwise, I will lash out. I'd love to consider myself a pacifist, but know I couldn't claim to be, and I can strip and assemble a Steyr before you can say Unnecessary Boasting. I have enormous respect for people who can practice pacifist ideology. And though, as Xander said, protesting with placards didn't Save Angel, pacifism has been immensely effective in situations where it looked like lunacy. Both Luther King and Ghandi ultimately won their non-fights, and as much as Republicans like to pretend otherwise, it was political protest that created the Irish Free State.

I love the drama created by moral complexity in Angel, but part of me objects to presenting violence as an unavoidably necessary tool for good guy. I happen to love A Clockwork Orange, but then I happen to think Malcolm McDowell has the coolest voice ever.
 
I just watched Not Fade Away again. I saw some stuff I missed before.

I'd alway hypothesized that maybe Lorne had in some way seen Lindsey's future, and the consequences of it were such that they demanded his death.

As it turns out it looks like that theory actually has support. They pretty much tell us that's exactly what happened. We miss it, because it's one of those scenes where they kind of matter of factly say, "oh and by the way...", in a manner that doesn't appear significant.

It's this one:

LINDSEY
They're sending me in with karaoke boy. How tough can they be?

EVE
With Lorne?

LINDSEY
(puts his arms around Eve)
What's up? You worried about his reading? Said your future's gonna be crappy? He's probably telling you that just to mess with you.

EVE
Yeah, probably.
Click to expand...

Wrong Eve. He wasn't just messing with you. He saw your future with Lindsey, and decided to do something about it.

He told Angel what he saw, and Angel hatched a plan. How do we know that? Because of this:

ANGEL
Looks like we're getting kicked out of the garden, Eve.

EVE
Where's Lindsey?
(Angel turns to go, but she grabs his arm)
Where is he?

ANGEL
He's not coming for you.
Click to expand...

Angel knew what Lorne was going to do. He'd planned it.
 
Wrong Eve. He wasn't just messing with you. He saw your future with Lindsey, and decided to do something about it
Click to expand...


When you kill someone, because he or she might kill someone in the future, IT IS STILL MURDER. I don't care what Lorne had forseen. What he had done was WRONG. It was MURDER. Why? Because Lindsey WAS NOT an immediate threat. I think that the incidents of "Lies My Parents Told Me" and Buffy's reaction to Giles and Wood's decision said it all. If Angel wanted to off Lindsey, he should have waited until the ex-lawyer became an immediate threat.
 
Obviously he was an immediate threat and the quotes N4H provided basically prove it.

If you can stop the world from ending and saving billions of lives by ending one who has the power and desire to ruin it all, then that's not murder, it's tactical warfare...
 
That's very Machiavellian. 😀 But what about a Minority Report scenario? It's possible that a prediction like that has the potential to derail itself, but the gang chose not to take that chance. Lindsey is denied the chance to redeem himself based on probability, and the fact that Angel and Co are... er... otherwise engaged. Which serves a just purpose, from where the gang are standing, but isn't fair to Lindsey personally. If the show had been about Lindsey, is it fair to say Lorne and Angel would have been cast as the bad guys?
 
C
Cordelia
All very good points...I forgot about Minority Report...
Maybe Machiavellian is a good word. I'm not a Machiavelli expert, but isn't his best known book called The Prince, and doesn't it deal with the moral compromises a person in power has to make? Isn't that also one of the things Angel Season 5 is about?

The Lindsey thing wasn't the first time in Season 5 Angel was trapped into making a "greatest good for the greatest number" kind of descision by his position of power. He had to allow Fred to die, because according to the advice he was given, saving her might cause the death of innocent thousands. He had no way of knowing if what Drogyn was telling him was the absolute truth, but based on the information he had, he chose to kill her, by not giving the word to save her.

I'm not saying everything Angel did is right or wrong, or good or evil. That's a personal decision the viewer has to make for his or herself. I'm just saying that's what Season 5 is about, and I can't fault the writers for presenting it.
 
Mm, I've read the Prince, and that's a few hours I'll never get back. But the Prince is a guide to getting and holding on to power, never commenting on the morality of it. Power, and I forget who said it, can never be a noble end in itself, and Machiavelli knew it.

He came up with the theory, but he didn't support it. His book would make it appear that he was all in favour of a ruthless dictatorship government, but Nicolo Machiavelli himself was in favour of a republic run by its citizens. He was a diplomat at heart, and wrote the book to win favour with the Medicis, who'd just seized power by some fairly amoral means. They had him tortured for his passionate support of the previous reformist government. His actual beliefs are discussed in his lesser known "Discourses on Livy". His name's been rather unfairly hijacked.
 
The medicis kind of sound like the WB. I wonder if maybe Mutant Enemy was doing a kind of Machiavelli presenting the issue of power corrupts to highlight the opposing arguement that maybe it shouldn't.

ME is pretty tricky you know. Didn't you love the one where they had the WB convinced S-5 was going to be all stand alones as per WB directions, then once they were in the middle of it, they unleashed the most arc heavy series, probably in the history of Angel.

The WB must have known they'd been sucked in, but they would still point at S-5 and say "see how our ratings have improved. It's because ME is writing stand alones like we told them to".

It kind of worked for the WB too. You can never under-estimate the gullibillity of TV viewers. I still run into fans who want to refer to Season 5 as the season of stand alones.

Anyways it was all very Machiavellian I think. Warner was. Me was, and I don't know have we decided yet if Angel was?

I do remember a couple of the Me bigwigs saying words to the effect Angel Season 5 was meant to reflect what Me was going through with Warner.
 
Obviously he was an immediate threat and the quotes N4H provided basically prove it.
Click to expand...


I disagree. I never got the impression that those quotes hinted that Lindsey was an immediatethreat in "NFA".
 
Combine those comments Eve and Angel make with Lorne's comments in the murder scene. Lorne says to Lindsey "I've heard you sing". He also says words to the effect of "this was Angel's plan".

If they're not saying, Lorne saw something in a reading that made Angel decide Lindsey had to go, then what are they saying, and why do they keep saying it? Why are those passages in there?
 
Lorne was one of those people who could kill if it got done to it.

But he was a peaceful, laid guy.

Anyone who was or is a peaceful person who would never hurt a fly would change if the where thrown into a dangerous situation like that. Angel did ask him to kill Lindsey, but most people don't think about is if Lindsey didn't die he may have killed Lorne and/or Angel.
 
Are some of you trying to say that since Lorne had forseen Lindsey becoming a major threat in the future, it was okay to murder him in the present?

Because I don't agree. Killing someone to prevent a future problem/evil is not excusable. It's murder. Plain and simple.

Now, if Lindsey had been an immediate threat, I would have no argument against having him killed.

But Lindsey wasn't an immediate threat at the time. Therefore, I believe that Angel and Lorne are guilty of murder.
 
Re: The Lindsey Question

I'm with Cordelia and a couple of the others, Lindsey WAS an immediate threat and taking him out was something that HAD to be done right away. I just don't think Lorne should have been the one doing it, someone else should have just because of the type of being Lorne is and his not liking of violence.
 
C
Cordelia
[No message]
Could Lorne divine the future through his readings? Or just intuit people's state of mind or intentions? I guess even if he could literally predict future events, that's still an iffy proposition. Is it "the" future he'd be seeing or a possible future?

So I guess you could argue Angel was committing strategic murder (through a proxy) for the sake of what he believed to be a greater good. He's making a judgement call.

Like offing a Nazi soldier cause you don't have the time or rope to tie him up. He could escape and kill others in your absence. A moral failure? A moral compromise? Unmitigated evil? What is it exactly?
 
goldenboy said:
Could Lorne divine the future through his readings? Or just intuit people's state of mind or intentions? I guess even if he could literally predict future events, that's still an iffy proposition. Is it "the" future he'd be seeing or a possible future?
Click to expand...

Good question. Lorne is described as being anagogic

anagoge n. 1. a spiritual or mystical interpretation or use of words, esp. of Scripture. anagogic adj.

Wesley describes what Lorne does this way:

Host to Angel: "Welcome to Caritas. How about gracing us with a number?"
Wesley to Gunn: "The Host, he helps demons, reads their souls, senses their futures."
Cordy: "Yes, but he can only do it when they sing Karaoke."
Click to expand...

In season 5 though Lorne is beginning to doubt his abilities. There's this from a Hole in the World:

ANGEL
You've been wrong before.

LORNE
Yeah, and I might be now, but she reads clean. Her future's not too bright, but...
Click to expand...

and also this from Underneath:

LORNE
(blasé)
A June wedding. There's rain, so get a tent.

BARTENDER
She's gonna say yes?

LORNE
(monotonous)
Ain't love grand?

BARTENDER
(excited)
I'm getting hitched?

LORNE
Yeah.
(holds up his cocktail glass as the bartender refills it)
More sea, less breeze, huh?

BARTENDER
(pouring)
From now on, your money's no good here.

LORNE
All right.

BARTENDER
I was wondering, about the possibility of a Carlos Junior? What do you think?
(smiles widely)

LORNE
What do I think? I think I'm tired. I think I'm sick and tired of wearing bells on my toes and making like everything's gonna be OK. I think it's pathetic that lately I'm too scared and sad to tell people the truth so I just say what they wanna hear instead.
Click to expand...

Lorne has had success with his predictions in past Angel seasons though. In Judgement he tells Angel the exact street corner where the trial will be held.

Angel knows what Lorne is capable of. He's had faith in him in the past. Lorne is losing faith in himself, but that doesn't mean he doesn't want to believe in himself again.

So can Lorne tell the future? I believe in the past there were circumstances when he believed what he saw was certain to come true. I believe Angel had total faith in him when Lorne had faith in himself.

I believe had the old confident Lorne seen the future for Lindsey that the S-5 screwed up Lorne saw, he would have been absolutely certain of the inevitability of whatever horrible future he saw for the world as a result of Lindsey's existence. I think Angel would have been equally certain.

In these circumstances though, there is reason to believe there was doubt.

So were Lorne and Angel right to decide Lindsey had to go. I have to confess I lack the confidence with the "What is good?" question some of you seem to have. I don't know if Lorne and Angel were good or evil to decide to do what they did. They did have their reasons though, and it wasn't just "We hate Lindsey. Let's kill him". It was very complex, and may even have been wrong.

But you know what? We're not required to believe in the absolute righteousness of Angel's deeds, especially not in S-5. He's an anti-hero.

I like what they have to say about comic book anti-heroes at Wikipedia:

Comic books also feature anti-heroes, also known as "dark heroes", who are characters fighting for the side of good, but either with some tragic flaw (such as a tormented past) or by using questionable means to reach their goals.
Click to expand...
 
C
Cordelia
[No message]
nerd4hire said:
Good question. Lorne is described as being anagogic

anagoge n. 1. a spiritual or mystical interpretation or use of words, esp. of Scripture. anagogic adj.

Wesley describes what Lorne does this way:



In season 5 though Lorne is beginning to doubt his abilities. There's this from a Hole in the World:



and also this from Underneath:



Lorne has had success with his predictions in past Angel seasons though. In Judgement he tells Angel the exact street corner where the trial will be held.

Angel knows what Lorne is capable of. He's had faith in him in the past. Lorne is losing faith in himself, but that doesn't mean he doesn't want to believe in himself again.

So can Lorne tell the future? I believe in the past there were circumstances when he believed what he saw was certain to come true. I believe Angel had total faith in him when Lorne had faith in himself.

I believe had the old confident Lorne seen the future for Lindsey that the S-5 screwed up Lorne saw, he would have been absolutely certain of the inevitability of whatever horrible future he saw for the world as a result of Lindsey's existence. I think Angel would have been equally certain.

In these circumstances though, there is reason to believe there was doubt.

So were Lorne and Angel right to decide Lindsey had to go. I have to confess I lack the confidence with the "What is good?" question some of you seem to have. I don't know if Lorne and Angel were good or evil to decide to do what they did. They did have their reasons though, and it wasn't just "We hate Lindsey. Let's kill him". It was very complex, and may even have been wrong.

But you know what? We're not required to believe in the absolute righteousness of Angel's deeds, especially not in S-5. He's an anti-hero.

I like what they have to say about comic book anti-heroes at Wikipedia:
Click to expand...


I have never believed in the absolute righteousness of Angel's deeds. I really wasn't surprised that he had ordered Lorne to kill Lindsey. But I certainly could not condone it. I guess I'm speaking from how I feel on the subject. I
 
it was the worst part of that episode for me. although there were many horrible things.

for years, horrible things would happen and Lorne would still stay happy and cheery (act or not)
but in the last episode, he gave up. To me that was the saddest thing. He just gave up. so much that he would kill another person (and yeah, ok, lorne was a demon, but you know what i mean)
and decided he wanted nothing more to do with the others. poor lorne.
 
J
Joamna
It was really sad seeing Lorne like that..
Lorne was just doing what Angel told him to do - as always.

The fact that under normal circumstances Lorne wouldn't get involved in the fighting is part of his nature, he wasn't naturally violent but he was able to step up to the plate and do what had to be done.

After making his deal with Lindsey Angel probably guessed that whether or not he (Lindsey) survived the fight he'd most probably betray him (Angel) and so Angel made a concious choice to eliminate a potential problem before it became a real problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom