IS COLE EVIL?

[vandergraafk]

This thread first appeared in the Charmed Cafe. At first, I was leery to participate, given the voluminous commentary already existing about Cole. Was there anything new to say? My reluctance eventually gave way to curiosity that arose not from anything that had been written in the thread. As expected, it was a sort of rehash of statements already made. However, reflecting more deeply upon Cole/Belthazor as this creature is presented to us and mining the notion of duality to see whether it made any sense, let me to a radical re-appraisal of Cole/Belthazor.

Let's begin with a brief reprise of where the discussion was before I entered it. I will continue with my first foray and the response this engendered. I conclude this first section with my preliminary findings.

[vandergraafk]

As might be expected, whitelightertony got us started by reflecting on a comment made by ljones. He quotes her first, then provides his own analysis.

"I believe that Cole's ability to do good came from the fact that like all sentient beings and forces of nature, he had both good and evil within him."

In response, whitelightertony noted that:

"Under that hypothesis, the terms "good" and "evil" are either relative or ambiguous.

We don't know enough about Cole's backstory and personal history (pre-2000) to really say what his 115 years on Earth were like. This is why I believe there must have been some remnants of goodness remaining from Benjamin Turner that stuck with Cole. Perhaps it was due to the fact that Ben's soul was never able to fully move on?"

[vandergraafk]

Ljones replied but in a rather curious way.

"Good and evil are ambiguous. It's all a matter of POV.

Two, why do you assume that Cole got his "goodness" from Benjamin Turner, because the latter was human? Why do you assume that humans are basically good? I certainly don't. Even CHARMED has proven time and again, over the years, that humans can be monsters. Why was it so d**n hard for Burge and Kern to get rid of that one-note, black-vs-white morality and simply portray ALL characters - regardless of whether they were human or otherwise - as morally gray or ambiguous.

Are you trying to say that Ben Turner's character wasn't able to move on, because some remnants of "goodness" stuck to Cole? Huh? As far as I'm concerned, Cole's goodness was his own. Just as his darkness was his own . . . except in late S4."

What exactly does she mean that good and evil are ambiguous. "It's all a matter of POV." What, pray tell, does that mean? Is she advocating a complete relativity of values?

In the event, whitelightertony replied as follows:

"I never said that. I agree that all humans possess good and evil within them, that can manifest through the choices people make.

I'm saying that it's likely Ben Turner exercised more acts of good during his lifetime than did his demonic wife, Elizabeth Turner - - who killed Benjamin Turner in cold blood.

Because half of Cole came from Benjamin Turner, Cole's potential for good came more from his mortal father than from his demonic mother."

[vandergraafk]

At this point, I attempted to pose a more general question and apply the analysis to a discussion of Cole/Belthazor.

"What do we mean by evil? Do we mean an entity or creature totally devoid of empathy towards others, a true sociopath, as it were? Is this someone who would injure, maim, kill or destroy without any thought as to the pain this might inflict on the recipient? If that is the definition - and I believe it is the one used in Charmed - then Cole was clearly NOT evil.

Belthazor was evil. Cole, the character who emerged in order to destroy the Charmed Ones by inviegling his way into their lives, was not. Indeed, the TRIAD suspected he had betrayed their cause simply by bedding a witch. Once he refused to kill Phoebe when given the opportunity, he clearly had shown an understanding of the consequences both to Phoebe and to himself if he carried out the task he had been commissioned by the TRIAD to execute.

We learn how evil Belthazor had been in Black as Cole, but we also realize that even Belthazor, supposedly the evil half of the half-breed Cole/Belthazor, might not be entirely evil any longer as long as Cole exists. Belthazor fights Sykes in order to save Phoebe. Of course, the price might be that Cole would not be able to return. Fortunately, Belthazor is stripped of his demonic powers.

In other threads, we have argued about the character of Cole when possessed by the Source. Even though Cole tells Darryl in A Witch's Tale Part II that he (Cole) had been the Source of All Evil, we suspect that Cole played but a little role in this phase. The Source was the evil that resided within Cole during this brief period of Season 4.

Finally, we have the Cole of Season 5 who possesses all sorts of powers that have been claimed from the demonic Wasteland. Again, we have argued elsewhere whether powers in and of themselves can be evil. With very few exceptions, it does not appear that particular powers are evil or good. Both Piper and Cole (Season 5) have the ability to slowdown particles ("freeze"). The power is not the issue; it's the purpose to which it is put that matters.

It seems, though, that once again in this thread we are reliving the argument of old about the Charmed Ones as evil. To me, this is a sleight of hand. The Charmed Ones are not evil. The question is: do they use their powers in ways that betray less than lofty intentions? I will repeat the argument I have made elsewhere: the critierion repeatedly stated in Charmed is utterly useless. Personal gain cannot effectively be used to allow us to judge the Charmed Ones behavior.

We can, however, ask whether they use their powers to act upon their own whims to, say, turn inquiring reporters into rats (Piper in the Lost Picture Show). Whether they use their powers to satisfy their own selfish desires at the expense of other people (the Avatar experiment that cost Agent Brody his life)? Whether they use their powers to attack demons not for what demons have done or might imminently due, but for nebulous reasons that seem to be nothing more than random acts of pre-emptive behavior (the Trok demon in Valhalley of the Dolls)?

Should there have been consequences for these misuses or abuses of power? Yes. Were there? Hardly. Does this make the Charmed Ones evil? No. It simply means to me that mechanisms for accountability are underdeveloped in Charmedverse."

[vandergraafk]

A flurry of commentary ensued, not all of it inspired by this posting. First, Elder chimed in (briefly):

"Was Cole Evil?
No.

I hate to possibly take this thread off on another tanget, but how could Cole's lesser human self overtake the more powerful demonic side?"

Whitelightertony commented on several ideas:

"I mean he had evil powers, but he was part human as well.



That's what I've been trying to say. Cole got his ability to have the potential for goodness from his father, who, as a powerless mortal, had that same potential.


Quote:I hate to possibly take this thread off on another tanget, but how could Cole's lesser human self overtake the more powerful demonic side?



Do you mean in Season 3, when Cole fought between alternately repressing and embracing Belthazar?

I believe Belthazar was a manifestation of Cole's demonic heritage, which he acquired from his mother - - psychologically, Belthazar was similar to the human concept of the "id." Cole's de facto "superego" would have been his capability to make rational choices (and to either succeed or fail at such), which came from his mortal half. Cole was able to suppress that side of his essence through channeling the human emotions he was capable of (due to his father's genes).

When Cole felt love for Phoebe, or disagreed with the motives of other demons, he was able to restrain Belthazar from manifesting. But when Cole was tempted by urges of hedonism, unbridled lust, or selfishness, Belthazar would bubble to the surface.

This phenomenon became moot when Belthazar was expunged from Cole's body in "Black as Cole."

[vandergraafk]

Pubesy responded to both whitelightertony and vandergraafk. She noted:

Quote (vandergraafk): "What do we mean by evil? Do we mean an entity or creature totally devoid of empathy towards others, a true sociopath, as it were? Is this someone who would injure, maim, kill or destroy without any thought as to the pain this might inflict on the recipient? If that is the definition - and I believe it is the one used in Charmed - then Cole was clearly NOT evil."



"but do you have to be sociopathic, devoid of empathy, killing without thought, to be considered evil? or can you perform some "good" but still be evil? can you still be "evil" even if you regret your actions?"

Quote (whitelightertony): "Belthazar was similar to the human concept of the "id." Cole's de facto "superego" would have been his capability to make rational choices (and to either succeed or fail at such), which came from his mortal half."


using Freud to explain Cole's actions, interesting......can you explain further?"

[vandergraafk]

Embracing the Freudian analysis suggested by whitelightertony, I responded as follows:

"Well, pubesy, I think that your question tackles exactly where I was going. One can perform acts of evil without being truly evil. For example, I have no doubt that George Bush has a compassionate side. However, his continued pursuit of war in Iraq and his desire to remain there for 50 years or so, I regard as an evil act. Charles Manson, on the other hand, strikes me as truly evil. What you are asking for and questioning is whether there are gradations of evil. Yes, there are; but, that question was avoided in some respects on Charmed.

Usually, it was cast as an all or nothing proposition, the character of Cole notwithstanding. Second, had the Charmed Ones been called to account for the Avatar adventure, then we might have seen a more differentiated analysis of their behavior in terms of a continuum of behavior ranging from purely evil to purely good.

Elder, I am not certain what you mean by Cole's human side being lesser. For the years previous to his acceptance of the TRIAD mission, I could easily accept that Belthazor was dominant. However, for his mission to be successful, it seems as if there had to be a shift in the balance so that Cole could pull off his deception. Whether that required the TRIAD to strengthen his superego (temporarily) to restrain the id I cannot say for certain. But, it would seem to make sense.

It would also make sense that the TRIAD would monitor Belthazor to see whether the superego indeed was becoming dominant. And, we know that the TRIAD did monitor him closely. Perhaps, too, that is what Cole meant that should he fully embrace Belthazor in order to defeat Sykes he would lose control of Belthazor for good, i.e., the temporary fix from the TRIAD would be lost.

However, the language of Charmed seems to suggest that the two halves were equal, at least for Season 3. Black as Cole strongly suggests, as I indicated above, that this might have only been a temporary arrangement in order to accomplish the TRIAD mission."

[vandergraafk]

Ljones demurred from whitelightertony's point by arguing the following:

"Do you mean in Season 3, when Cole fought between alternately repressing and embracing Belthazar?

I believe Belthazar was a manifestation of Cole's demonic heritage, which he acquired from his mother - - psychologically, Belthazar was similar to the human concept of the "id." Cole's de facto "superego" would have been his capability to make rational choices (and to either succeed or fail at such), which came from his mortal half. Cole was able to suppress that side of his essence through channeling the human emotions he was capable of (due to his father's genes).



I don't view Belthazor as some kind of manifestation of Cole's demonic heritage. Nor do I see him as some entity that had taken over human Cole, as Leo had viewed him.

To me, Belthazor is Cole . . . and Cole is Belthazor. Both are two sides of one coin. The problem with Cole is that he had spent his life either repressing one side of his nature. He had never learned to accept both his human and demonic natures as a whole individual. The Source, Raynor and possibly his mother probably encouraged him to supress his human side. Phoebe and the Halliwells had encouraged him to suppress his demonic. I wish that the writers had allowed Cole to finally tell them all to take a walk . . . and learn to accept both his human and demonic heritage in order for him to be a complete individual.

But here's the thing. I don't see why Cole had to be a hybrid to viewed as having both good and evil within him. I would have liked the series to have gradually portray all characters with good and evil within them. Sure, your demon can be evil, but he or she could still have the potential for good or show that side. Even more interesting would have been a demonic character that wsa not evil. The Hellboy character is like this. Both BUFFY and ANGEL have portrayed demonic characters who have chosen the lighter path. I mean . . . if CHARMED can include some truly evil humans - and they have - then I don't see why the series could have included some demons who have accepted the good within him or her, or demons who are basically ambiguous."

[vandergraafk]

Pubesy dissected ljones' commentary and raised some interesting questions in the process. Quoting ljones, she noted:

"The problem with Cole is that he had spent his life either repressing one side of his nature. The Source, Raynor and possibly his mother probably encouraged him to supress his human side. Phoebe and the Halliwells had encouraged him to suppress his demonic."


good point. no one could accept cole for who he really was. it could be argued that the triad DID accept cole for his human and demonic-ness. But then again, did they really accept his human half, or did they merely encourage cole to "use" his human side, (like you would "use" any common object) rather than "be" human, to blend into human society as a DA?



Quote (ljones):. . . and learn to accept both his human and demonic heritage in order for him to be a complete individual.



"the question is, though, could he really BE both human and demon equally?
in charmed characteristics of a demon were: cold, use powers for evil, violent, powerful, emotionless, unable to feel, no morality, killers.

the characteristics of being a powerful human: sense of morality, use powers for good, saviors of innocents, compassionate, made mistakes and chose the "wrong path" but always tried to fix their mistakes etc.

(i know, this was not how ALL demons and humans were portrayed, some demons could feel, some humans were killers etc etc, but thats how writers portrayed them on the whole)

could being a human and a demon ever be equally balanced? I don't know. i tent do think they couldn't as they are just so opposing."

Ljones countered by arguing:

Quote (pubesy): "the question is, though, could he really BE both human and demon equally?"

in charmed characteristics of a demon were: cold, use powers for evil, violent, powerful, emotionless, unable to feel, no morality, killers.


"Of course he can. He has been a human/demon hybrid for over a century. Being both good and evil is natural to all sentient beings . . . regardless of what one is. Humans can be both good and evil. Light and dark. Cole can be the same. So can other demons.


Quote (pubesy): "could being a human and a demon ever be equally balanced? I don't know. i tent do think they couldn't as they are just so opposing"

Why not? As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, I have come across websites on demonology in which a good number of demons are described as being ambiguous. Before the advent of Christianity, demons - or daemons - were supernatural beings somewhere between mortals and deities that were described as being as ambiguous as humans.

What harm would it have been for CHARMED to gradually embrace that viewpoint? Just because the series started with a black-vs-white mentality, does not mean that it had to stick with it.



Quote:the characteristics of being a powerful human: sense of morality, use powers for good, saviors of innocents, compassionate, made mistakes and chose the "wrong path" but always tried to fix their mistakes etc.



The majority of humans are not like that, regardless of whether they are powerful or not. As a species, we're extremely ambiguous. Being human also means being murderous, bigoted, greedy, lustful, vindictive and lacking in any remorse. Most humans don't bother to fix their mistakes. And many humans are not willing to express remorse for their actions.

[vandergraafk]

All of this preceded my radical re-interpretation of Cole:

"Let me embrace a radical re-interpretation of Belthazor/Cole as depicted in Charmed. I would prefer to avoid comparisons to Angel/Buffy, two vastly inferior shows on so many levels in my view, and to express opinions about how Charmed "ought" to have been constructed. None of us, I assume, has ever served as a writer for the series. None of us, then, can claim to have any special privilege with respect to what was written. We are all critics to one degree or another.

Having said that, I can't wait to be slammed for "dissing" Angel and Buffy. That's not my point. I have never attempted a direct comparison on any analytic level. My impression, especially of Angel, a show I am more familiar with, is that too often the pacing is plodding. The plot contortions are just that, and the characters are far too one-dimensional. I won't even offer an opinion about Buffy beyond the obvious. I liked the movie better than the series. And, I hated most of the characters for the teenage twits they were.

Okay, I can smell the flames of fresh fuel scorching at my heels. "Jackman, how dare you?" Oh well!

Most of us have been seduced by the supposed duality of Cole/Belthazor, the "eternal" battle between "good and evil" embodied in this one creature since that's the way we were presented with the character during Season 3. But, look at Season 4's Black as Cole and consider the little that we know about Belthazor prior to his acceptance of the TRIAD mission.

In Sight Unseen, when the Charmed Ones first learn of the "other" TRIAD assassin, Belthazor, the Book of Shadow entry speaks about Belthazor only. That's the image we have of this demonic hit-man. Perhaps an ancestor of the Charmed Ones ran into this character or heard about this demon between the 1890s, let's say, and the 1950s. Or, maybe the entry was inserted by the Elders since, according to Leo, they knew he was a demon to be feared. The point is: do we have any proof that Cole ever existed or was allowed to exist any time prior to his acceptance of the TRIAD mission?

Maybe. To some degree, a human entity - a soul, perhaps - might have resided in Belthazor, but remained totally repressed in much the same way that the Source generally suppressed Cole's soul while possessing Cole's body. As some have suggested, here the id was totally in command. Yet, we know that Cole accepted the TRIAD mission in order to liberate his father's soul from demonic control. This point was more or less stated in Sleuthing with the Demon when the TRIAD summoned him to the Underworld. It was reinforced when we were introduced to the Brotherhood of the Thorn.

One could argue that this would have been Cole's agenda even prior to the acceptance of the TRIAD mission. Perhaps. However, it appears that the presence of the Charmed Ones raised the stakes in the demonic Underworld, stakes that allowed Cole to press effectively his case. Besides, acceptance of this mission necessitated that Cole, the superego, if you will, be given temporary control, or at least an equal share, of the demonic assassin called Belthazor.

For the TRIAD, the risk was clear. Unless carefully monitored, Belthazor's superego might gain supremacy and risk successful completion of the mission. Their fear was justified, as the events in Power Outage and other episodes before Sleuthing with the Enemy demonstrate. The ace in the hole for the TRIAD, as indeed for the Brotherhood itself, was possession of the soul of Cole's human father. They could always threaten its destruction in order to maintain compliance.

Did the demonic Underworld have to resort to such threats prior to the Charmed mission? Probably not. From Avatar Alpha (Centennial Charmed), we have a description of Belthazor as the Source's right-hand man. Though this statement is not entirely free of contradiction - was Shax, then, the Source's left-hand man? - it does serve to suggest that up until the Charmed drama, the underworld could usefully rely on Belthazor to accomplish whatever mission he was charged with. That's why he had gained the reputation as a feared demonic hitman, the impression that Leo conveyed in Sight Unseen.

I don't know whether, as ljones would have us believe, that good and evil are natural to all sentient beings. I am skeptical of her claim, given the lack of overwhelming evidence in its favor. Nor do I wish to debate a concept that is analytically underdeveloped at this stage. However, we might accept - at a minimum - that humans may be placed or find themselves in situations where they might be required to "choose" a path. Their educational upbringing, the morees of the society in which they find themselves, the extent to which they as individuals are perceived to have rights to self-choose, all these and others are relevant variables that I cannot begin to generalize from, given the research that is available. We do know from the Stanford Prison Experiment that humans are capable of doing horrible things to others when freed from any shackles. Doesn't Abu Ghraib lend credence to that?

Religion, philosophy, family upbringing, societal morees, all of these are relevant factors in "determining" how we might act in any given situation. At best, they are probabilistic factors that might suggest how we might respond. Are we then inherently good or evil? Doubtful. Do we make choices? Sometimes. Are choices made for us? Oftentimes.

Allowing Cole to "appear" in order to destroy the Charmed Ones in an insidious manner was an excellent ruse. In a sense, the Charmed Ones never saw it coming. However, the tactic left the demonic Underworld open to the possibility that its ruse might backfire since it required the "release" of Cole, the reflective, sensitive superego, in order to be successful. Try as they might, the TRIAD could not control the genie once let out of the bottle. Their physical forms were attacked and seemingly vanquished by Cole, the Charmed Ones were not destroyed, Cole turned on the Brotherhood and ultimately Belthazor defeated Sykes.

That last step, of course, carried grave risk to Cole. Yes, he could summon the monstruous id of Belthazor to defeat Sykes; but, a price would have to be paid. Once unleashed, with no lingering concern for his father's soul left to check Belthazor, Cole feared that he might never ever surface again. Stripping Belthazor's powers was the only solution, a solution that is especially problematic in Charmedverse.

"Where did the powers go?" as Paige rightly queried in Charmed and Dangerous. "Yes, where did they go?" Not to Sykes. He was already vanquished and headed for the Wasteland. Not to any of the Charmed Ones. Not to Leo. Might they have entered the woman hellbent on avenging the death of her boyfriend at the hands of Belthazor? Temporarily perhaps. As we learned in the Fifth Halliwell, this solution would have proved fatal had it lasted any length of time without the power brokers arriving to extract these powers for trade in the demonic Underworld.

To conclude: if we are to accept the notion of duality as the best way to describe Belthazor/Cole, a concept presented to us in Season 3, then we are forced to inquire whether this duality was only temporary as a result of the TRIAD gambit. I suggest it was. And, I am convinced that the opposing point of view that Belthazor/Cole had always existed as a duality is especially problematic. Were the superego and the id in battle, as perhaps the Cole/Belthazor drama suggests, then Belthazor would have been ineffective as a demonic hitman. His reputation never would have soared to the heights of infamy that it had, and the TRIAD never would have made their fateful bet with a demon with a difference at war with itself. No, duality is precisely the wrong term to describe Belthazor. Nor is he a human/demon hybrid, if by that we mean a creature composed of equal part human (father) and demon. Genetically, that may be true. Psychologically, genetics tell us nothing. We need to consider how Belthazor functioned in order to assess whether such a dual genetic background had any consequences for his demonic entity.

In my view, prior to the Charmed mission, Belthazor was a demon whose id was in total control. There was never any doubt as to the necessity of destroying his demonic targets. There were never any moralistic qualms about the certitude of his deeds. He was a hitman who eliminated targets without passion, compassion or hesitation. Yet, there remained an underdeveloped superego, driven to restore his father's soul to its rightly place, free of demonic control, and perhaps desirous of experiencing some of the perilous charm that is attached to the human condition.

What ljones seems to be suggesting is that Belthazor/Cole should have come to an acceptance of the evil and good within. How is that possible? Belthazor would have failed as a hitman. He would have engaged in acts of duplicity that would have forced the demonic Underworld to control him (the Brotherhood and Raynor). Let me suggest that perhaps what ljones wishes to see was only approximated - and not very satisfactorily - in Season 5 when Cole, possessing tremendous powers and accountable to no one, could use those powers for good (Siren Song) or nastiness (The Importance of Being Phoebe, Y Tu Mummy Tambien, Centennial Charmed).

Ironically, Wyatt is the counterpart of Cole to a certain extent. He is blessed with tremendous powers. Yet, from one future scenario, we know that he is capable of using these powers for power's sake. And, to hell with San Francisco and presumably the rest of civilization. Chris spent an entire season chasing demons whom he believed had "turned" Wyatt evil. He was wrong, and not just because Gideon was fingered, too. Rather, what turned Wyatt evil was a combination of events that led to choices being made. The death of his mother, his estrangement from his father, the inability of the Elders to control him and his refusal to kowtow to them under any circumstances, the unwillingness or reluctance of Chris to openly challenge his brother, and perhaps other factors - rejection by a potential (female) partner - who knows? any one of these events or any combination of them could have pushed him more and more along the path of the abuse of power.

In this regard, I can agree with ljones. Charmed had tremendous potential in exploiting the temptation of evil and power. The Avatar affair was one such temptation. The Ultimate Battle could have been another, especially if the TRIAD had engineered to send Billie into the future to see a world where Wyatt had turned "evil". Or, maybe the TRIAD could have sent her to a future where the Charmed Ones once again tempt fate and attempt to achieve normality by eliminating evil from the world by imposing a world where dissent is not allowed.

Characters, of necessity, would have had to become more complex. One could easily imagine a split between, say, Paige and her sisters over "normality". Imagine the conflicts between Paige and Phoebe, the sister with whom Paige had bonded more deeply, when Phoebe sides with Piper, her full sister. Imagine Paige torn between her responsibility as a whitelighter and her "loyalty" to her sisters. Imagine Phoebe siding with Billie against Piper. Or, Paige and Piper taking up the battle against the Jenkins sisters with Phoebe remaining neutral.

Alas, it is seldom in the realm of mass TV that characters are allowed to develop beyond the mere shallow. And, if they do, the results are not always illuminating. Plot-driven, serial TV tends to eschew the typical literary conventions of character development in the hopes of creating fast-moving, attention-grabbing plot lines. Desperate Housewives, Lost, Charmed, Angel, whatever ... most of these shows are driven by plot, and not necessarily character development. Interestingly, the shows where characters are sometimes allowed to develop have been shows where initially characters were disdained (Law and Order) or whose elaborate plots with unexpected twists and uncertain conclusions (Law and Order: SVU) have given us shows where some of the characters are intensely rich."