VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 00:16:12 11/29/01 Thu
Author: KhaliG
Subject: Re: The *real* rambling theory.. ; )
In reply to: Trinity 's message, "Re: The *real* rambling theory.. ; )" on 23:05:35 11/28/01 Wed

>This is originally from an e-mail to a friend, so it
>may sound kinda funny sometimes. I'm just going to
>copy and paste as it's getting rather late..
>
>
>Also, I'll explain that I often times get an
>(speculative, and sometimes just downright crazy) idea
>that will just *explode* in my head.. *g* This is
>mainly just rambling thoughts that made me go
>hmmmmmmm.. Don't *necessarily* believe or want all
>these things, just thoughts!

Cool. Let's have a looksee :)
>
>
>
>Hey.. hey! Here's a thought!! =) You make a good point
>that it wasn't in fact *Darla's* soul that was making
>the choices the vampire did.. It was the baby's..
>Darla knew the baby was dying, and knew there was just
>*nothing* she could do, nothing she could give, to
>stop that from happening. Darla finally realized the
>*one* thing she could offer, and gives her life to
>save the baby. But like you, and then I *g*, just
>said, *Darla's* soul wasn't there to make that
>realization/choice. It was the baby. So what if the
>baby had enough influence over the demon to force it
>to kill itself??????

Personally, I think the baby's soul only influenced what was already changing in Darla. I think Darla had changed in The Trial and that change carried over into her death. She was not as evil or as brutal as before and I think that change scared her witless. So, in order to squash these feelings, she acted as black hat as ever, trying to overcompensate for the changing feelings she had since her second death. When she got pregnant, it is my private belief that Darla *did* care about her baby and tried her hardest to not act like she did. It led her to doing some really awful things (Offspring comes to mind) and it wasn't until she was slapped in the face with a picture of her son that the walls started crumbling.

I will always think of that moment when Darla was crying in the car in Quickening and started covering up her feelings as the moment when the dam broke and the pause after she started to say, "Angel..." was when she started acting on those feelings. It was only in Lullaby that those feelings began to be expressed in a very visible fashion. This is why I don't really believe in the whole "It was the baby's soul!" as the reason for why Darla changed in Lullaby, I think it was a combination of the baby's soul and Darla herself that caused the changes. However, Lullaby's ambiguous enough for either interpretation to be true.
>
>OK, now I'm just going to run off a bunch of evidence
>here and attempt to form it into some sort of
>plausible theory.. bare with me??????? ; )

I'm listening.

>
>~~In an ancient prophecy, Darla was meant to return,
>apparently to tear Angel from the PTB.. but what if
>only indirectly.. what if it's the child she and Angel
>create that accomplishes this?? Though the syphillis
>kinda
>negates this point, I do find it rather ironic Darla
>originally returned as a human..

Prophecies are tricky things. They mean one thing at first, but can mean another. Take the Shansu thing. We all thought it meant that Angel was going to become human in the end. I always thought that was just plain boring, but with the baby, that interpretation of Shansu needed to be re-examined and by Goerge, if we're not getting another view of Shansu. You know, I'm loving the baby, he's a canon-buster to be sure ;) Maybe they should call him Buster? *g*
>
>~~In the very same prophecy is the ritual to raise
>Darla. The words Lindsey uses to finish the spell at
>the end of TSiLA translate to, "And the five shall be
>a sacrifice... and the one who is dead shall live..."
>"Even as life and death are not two things but one...
>in darkness is the light, in light is the darkness.
>Arise!" The word "Shanshu," meaning both life and
>death is also mentioned.

I think that idea is pretty common in some cultures. Life and Death are two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other. In TSILA, five vampires were killed so that Darla could live. In Lullabye, Darla killed herself so that her son could live.
>
>~~Now we have another prophecy which states that in
>the coming of the baby, there will be *no* life,
>*only* death. Wait.. aren't they the same thing???

I'm thinking that Darla's death fulfilled the prophecy. She was literally death and she died to save her baby's life, yet once she was gone, there was life. I think there's a whole Circle of Life thing going on in Lullaby.
>
>~~Darla tried repeatedly to destroy the baby inside of
>her. She failed each time. Something prevented her
>from succeeding. But was something protecting it, or
>was it powerful enough to protect itself?????

You know what, I'm kind of thinking that the invulnerable protection bit is probably Darla's body protecting her child. The child was growing inside her and since she was immortal, as long as he was inside her stomach and she was attacked in non-vampire lethal ways, he was pretty much invulnerable to being killed. I guess he took on the immortal aspect of him mom while in utero.
>
>~~Why didn't Sahjhan tell Holtz about the baby?? Why
>was he soooooo adamant that Holtz kill (Angel, or
>Angel and the baby, or even just the baby?? He does
>forsee the future afterall.. And he did bring Holtz
>back *just* in time for the baby's birth) at the end
>of the eppy??

Like I said below, this demon is up to something. Why is he insisting that Holtz show no mercy? if he didn't tell Holtz about the kid, is it because the kid is important for an upcoming apocalypse? Is the kid somehow an affront to what Sahjin believes to be the 'proper" way of things and he figures that by not telling Holtz about the baby, he hopes that Holtz's hatred will be enough to kill two birds with one stone.
>
>~~The Tro-Klon is a confluence of events that will
>bring about the ruination of mankind. Holtz came with
>orders to destroy Angel (but only Angel?? Did they
>make that clear????). Sahjhan was adamant he do it
>then.. The baby is
>born, yet was dying, so one would assume weak..
>Perhaps too weak to protect itself with whatever
>powers it *might* have?? This may have been Holtz's
>*one* chance to destroy it, but since he didn't, the
>Tro-Klon begins.. Fred never was too sure of those
>'dates/times' afterall..

One of the most interesting things about this storyline is the fact that Holtz has every right to be angry at Angel for the crimes that have been done to him, yet, he could easily do things that could make him twice as evil in the name of vengeance. It could wind up being that the sins of the father are paid by the son. There's also the demon that summoned Holtz, I'm wondering what's his deal and why is he so angry with Angel? Is it Angel or Angelus that Sahjin is angry with?
>
>~~The Shanshu prophecy said the vampire with a soul
>not only had to survive the coming darkness, but also
>the Apocalyptic battles (ruination of mankind???). I
>can't help but notice how much Buffy's and Angel's
>journeys have mirrored each other. They continually
>experience slightly different versions of the same
>"events." Buffy had to send the ensouled man she loved
>to Hell to save the world.. Will Angel perhaps have to
>send the ensouled (yet still possibly very evil and
>very powerful??) child he loves to Hell to
>save the world as well??

Interesting theory, but you know what? I couldn't bear with that. Why? because this would be another "evil baby" storyline like Rosemary's Baby or the evil demon kids that Cordy had or even Ryan, the kid from a season 1 ep. Granted the scenario is dramatic and tragic and we'll all be going "poor Angel!", but seriously, I would far prefer it if this kid were good, powerful, but good. For me, there's a sense of irony that the two of the worst vamps in the Buffy/Angelverse have begotten something really good. Who would ever believe that and besides, for me, the wonderful thing about babies is that they have he potential to be good or evil, what matters is (show-wise) is whether Angel loves and accepts this kid and treats his son well. Again, this is just an opinion, not an attack on the idea.


~Khali

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.