Metaphor, Analogy, Fred

[butterfly]

Okay, I'm starting to understand Tolkien's pov re: analogies. If you only see something as an analogy (or a metaphor) instead of also as story and character, it definitely limits emotional attachment to the characters and the story.

littlesammy mentioned that Fred is used as a metaphor for innocence in A Hole in the World - which I agree with. But that doesn't mean that she stops being Fred. I get the sense from reading other journals that Fred was flattened in this episode into just this one thing. And I don't see that.

To me, she's still Fred. And Fred has always been among the most light-hearted of the gang (Lorne, too, but as a demon, he does come from a significantly different background - he's the way he is because he's deliberately being the opposite of the average Pylean - but that violence that he was raised with is still familiar to him). She's been a light for them, reminding them that keeping their humanity is more important than just keeping their lives.

Now they have no reminder. I don't worry about Spike - he found his own moral ground this season and doesn't need Fred's reminder anymore. Nor am I worrying quite so much about Angel - he has Spike and he went as insane as we'll ever seen him go, I think, in the aftermath of Connor.

It's Gunn, Lorne, and Wesley that I'm worried about. Gunn, who brought the instrument to destroy Fred into the country. Lorne, who hit and threatened a frightened and clearly defenseless woman. Wesley, who shot a man in the kneecap for daring to suggest that his priorities were not the only ones to be considered.

Six men. Three of them in love with her at some point. 50% isn't a horrible percentage - though it's still flunking, of course.

Could we divide them into cavemen and astronauts? The problem, of course, is that they're all both.

Last season, Fred was the second one to see the truth about Jasmine (Connor always knew). Illyria is different than Jasmine - she doesn't seem to feel the need to pretend she's other than she is. And she doesn't seem to have the ability to automatically sway people. She's merely Illyria. As Jasmine felt an ultimate expression of the worst of Cordelia, I wonder if that's how Illyria will strike me at the end - as the worst of Fred (As Angelus is the worst that Liam could be - transformed by a demon).

The heart consumed by a demon. It's Angel's heart, of course. Fred was in danger from the moment she started being the heart of the show - because the literal heart of the main character is a dried, dead, demonic thing.

Comments

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

But that doesn't mean that she stops being Fred.

It certainly doesn't have to mean that, but in my opinion, in this case, it did mean that. Yeah, sometimes seeing something as purely an analogy can flatten it in the reading -- but it's also true that working too hard to make it an analogy can flatten it in the writing, and that's what I'm seeing in A Hole in the World.

I suspect the underlying issue is that we disagree on what her character is in the first place.

If you believe in things I never bought, then it makes total sense that it's enough for you to still see them there and say "that's still Fred". 'Cause yeah, they're still there. But it's not enough for me, because I never believed that stuff was enough to make her a person in the first place.

In my opinion it took her way too long to *start* being Fred, and virtually all of that -- what hit me as actual character and not Mary Sue or generic archetype -- got wiped by the way she was presented in this episode.

But then, I never saw her being a light, and I never saw her being the heart, either. What I did see was characters periodically delivering speeches to convince me of those things, which I found just as annoying and unconvincing as I did the same tactic when they used it to sell Angel/Cordy. I only found her tolerable before they started that (in her crazy stage) and after they stopped (in Supersymmetry).

Obviously your mileage varies. And that's cool. I'm not trying to convince you. Just want to explain that the cause and effect here is not "belief in analogy blinds me to presence of character" but "belief in absence of character is explained by over-emphasis on analogy". I believed the character was gone long before I saw littlesammy's post and fell on it with a cry of relief as a better explanation for what was already bothering me than Joss forgetting how to write.

Mer

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Sorry - both about the lateness of this reply and about my presumptuousness in the actual post. It isn't for me to say that people should see in Fred what I did. It just gets so frustrating, always feeling like I'm seeing something different. It's like enjoying Season Six and Seven of Buffy - when I'd read too much critism about it, I started to wonder what was wrong with me that I liked it. And in response, I got way defensive. And the same thing happened here with my view of Fred.

[livinglaurel.livejournal.com]

Last season, Fred was the second one to see the truth about Jasmine (Connor always knew)

Ooh, now that's fascinating. Could you say more abt why you think that? I thought he didn't care after he knew when they "infected" him with Jasmine's blood, but not that he knew all along. Perhaps I was just inattentive.

moi

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

He says (in Peace Out) that looks don't matter to him because he was raised in a hell dimension and implies (if he doesn't say flat out - I can't remember at the moment) that he always saw her true face.

[livinglaurel.livejournal.com]

Duh, that would make sense, especially if -- since he's her parent -- his blood might also have the same properties. I thought I'd remembered that line, but my impression was they kept it open whether or not he'd always known what she looked like. It makes sense if he did, though.

moi