|
Post by vandergraafk on Jul 1, 2008 18:04:36 GMT -5
What does it mean to become an Avatar? Does a magical being retain his or her moral compass upon becoming an Avatar? Or, is one's preexisting moral orientation subsumed gradually and adapted to the moral structure of the Avatar collective? Since there are only two examples of magical entities becoming Avatars - Cole and Leo - there is not a whole lot of evidence to base any analysis on. Still, it's worth a try.
In the Charmed Cafe, whitelightertony used the phrased "physical Avatar" to discuss the transformation. I immediately protested.
"As for Leo's transformation into an Avatar, I would protest this use of language. Leo embraced the Avatar cause; he was not transformed by it, unless we restrict transformation to mean only the enhancement of powers. For that matter, Cole was not transformed into an Avatar either. (Nor did he embrace their cause!)"
Whitelightertony disagreed with my criticism and focused on what the enhancement of powers meant with respective to the collective. He noted:
"I disagree on both counts. First, post-"There's Something About Leo," Leo had access to (and was part of) the Avatar collective...it's almost impossible to imagine he would have been able to tap into their collective unless he had made the full physical transformation into an Avatar. But, creating somewhat of a paradox, he somehow managed to retain his whitelighter powers (although he limited his visits to the heavens to fraternize with his fellow Elders, for obvious reasons).
The same goes for Cole. At the beginning of "Centennial Charmed," Cole makes his "deal" with Alpha and the Avatar of Force. He promptly uses his newfound Avatar power for insidious purposes: to create an alternate universe where Paige was killed before she could become Charmed. Cole wouldn't have had access to such great power -- with such a concentrated amount of his own discretion driving it -- unless he had been elevated to Avatar status. Granted, he is an Avatar for a much shorter period of time than Leo is, but the evidence suggests that he does become a physical Avatar."
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Jul 1, 2008 18:07:41 GMT -5
My first full response was to consider what ascension to the Avatars meant. I noted:
My one clear conclusion was that I don't find the use of the phrase "physical Avatar" very useful. I suppose you mean the acquisition of enhanced powers. Clearly, Leo and Cole received this. Neither, however, became men in black.
Of course, you could also be referring to the hinging of these powers to the Avatar collective. Apparently, it is the connection of the demon or Elder to the collective which allows power enhancement to proceed. On the other hand, it gives a boost to the collective itself since it now has access to these enhanced powers.
As Season 7 made clear over and over, the loss of any Avatar weakened the collective as a whole. Yet, there is no mention of this in Season 5. Cole is never warned that his persistence in seeing his alternative world play out will have consequences for the collective. (I'll allow that the writers hadn't worked this out yet due to the temporary abandonment of the Avatar story arc upon the exodus of Julian McMahon.)
Let's assume that there is indeed a symbiotic relationship that is established when one ascends to Avatar status. Does that mean that one's moral structure is equally reconfigured? I don't think it does. Avatar Alpha himself claimed that the Avatars are amoral in the sense that the collective is beyond mere issues of good and evil. Yet, Leo is a highly moral entity who maintains his own perspective until his defiance leads to his own vanquish.
Two questions are obvious: The first, I believe, I have dealt with already when discussing the demise of Cole in Centennial Charmed. The vanquish of any member of the Avatar collective does weaken the collective as a whole. However, it does allow the Avatars to retain the powers from the vanquished entity. This is the only way I can logically decide why Avatar Alpha would risk ascension of Cole to the Avatar collective even while aware of Cole's volatile nature (at this point). There had to be some back end benefit: power retention.
Leo, likewise, brought great power to the Avatars. His demise did not prevent Extreme Makeover: World Edition. Perhaps since he was not yet an integral member of the collective, the collective was only marginally weakened. The loss of Avatar Beta was another matter.
The second concerns the ability of a pre-existing moral structure to persist as the symbiotic relationship to the Avatar collective deepens. To risk an analogy: when Picard becomes possessed by the Borg, he appears almost to have entirely lost his self. One suspects he would if not freed from the Borg. Yet, he does manage to blurt out the key to escape from the vanquish. Put them to sleep! Picard is free and all is well until the Borg return in a movie no less! I suspect that had Leo remained with the Avatar collective his pre-existing moral structure would have grown weaker as the symbiosis grew stronger."
Of course, whitelightertony parsed this thoroughly in the Charmed Cafe:
Quoting me: 'I'm still mulling over this one. My one clear conclusion was that I don't find the use of the phrase "physical Avatar" very useful. I suppose you mean the acquisition of enhanced powers. Clearly, Leo and Cole received this. Neither, however, became men in black.' I think the black costuming was just a formality. Leo never wore the robe, but he was still as much of an Avatar as Alpha, Beta, and Omega. In my view, once you ascend to becoming an Avatar, you're an Avatar. The fact that Leo was allowed to retain his whitelighter powers and Elder status while coexisting as an Avatar suggests to me that most of the other Avatars had ascended directly from being powerless mortals to their newfound Avatar existence.
Quoting me: 'Of course, you could also be referring to the hinging of these powers to the Avatar collective. Apparently, it is the collection of the demon or Elder to the collective which allows power enhancement to proceed. On the other hand, it gives a boost to the collective itself since it now has access to these enhanced powers.' Yes, which is why the Avatars viewed the "recruitment" of both Cole and Leo as desirable possibilities; not only would they gain important allies, but they'd have access to an extra dosage of magical power within their collective. Had they managed to recruit someone like Gideon - - or perhaps even a witch such as Aviva or a gypsy such as Eva Niccoli - - into undergoing the transformation to an Avatar body, their collective would have become even more potent.
Quoting me: 'As Season 7 made clear over and over, the loss of any Avatar weakened the collective as a whole. Yet, there is no mention of this in Season 5. Cole is never warned that his persistence in seeing his alternative world play out will have consequences for the collective. (I'll allow that the writers hadn't worked this out yet due to the temporary abandonment of the Avatar story arc upon the exodus of Julian McMahon.)'
Or, it could be because none of the Avatars introduced in Season 5 were ever vanquished. Cole was recruited -- joining their collective -- and then met his demise. So it ended up being a wash (unlike in Season 7, when they gained and lost Leo and additionally lost Beta). Breaking even versus a net loss.
Quoting me: 'Let's assume that there is indeed a symbiotic relationship that is established when one ascends to Avatar status. Does that mean that one's moral structure is equally reconfigured? I don't think it does. Avatar Alpha himself claimed that the Avatars are amoral in the sense that the collective is beyond mere issues of good and evil. Yet, Leo is a highly moral entity who maintains his own perspective until his defiance leads to his own vanquish.' I agree that each Avatar has the potential to act independently from the collective. I think the collective pertains merely to their pooled magic shared amongst all the Avatars (which makes them so powerful). My guess is that the Avatars (aside from Cole and Leo) all chose to work together and cooperate because they shared the common goal of creating Utopia. Had any of the other Avatars chose to "rebel," for whatever reason, that could have thrown a monkey wrench into Project: Utopia.
Quoting me: 'Two questions are obvious: The first, I believe, I have dealt with already when discussing the demise of Cole in Centennial Charmed. The vanquish of any member of the Avatar collective does weaken the collective as a whole. However, it does allow the Avatars to retain the powers from the vanquished entity. This is the only way I can logically decide why Avatar Alpha would risk ascension of Cole to the Avatar collective even while aware of Cole's volatile nature (at this point). There had to be some back end benefit: power retention.' I agree that they probably retained Cole's residual magic...or at least, some remnants of his essence. The only reason they didn't absorb Leo's residual magic permanently was because Zankou and the Charmed Ones forced the Avatars to reset time (and, in the process, restore Leo to his former Elder/whitelighter status). I don't think Cole's demise really weakened the Avatar collective -- at least, insofar as it left them no worse off than they were before Cole had joined them. In fact, just the opposite: they were still better off -- even after losing Cole -- because Cole left his "magical imprint" behind with the Avatars.
Quoting me: 'Leo, likewise, brought great power to the Avatars. His demise did not prevent Extreme Makeover: World Edition. Perhaps since he was not yet an integral member of the collective, the collective was only marginally weakened. The loss of Avatar Beta was another matter.' Leo wasn't vanquished until after Utopia had been created. Also, remember that Beta was vanquished before the Avatars pooled their own magic to "eliminate" Leo from within their ranks. I think the combined loss of Beta and Leo is what weakened the collective. Had Beta survived, but the Avatars still elected to "eliminate" Leo, it would have been a wash (much like with Cole in "Centennial Charmed").
Quoting me: 'The second concerns the ability of a pre-existing moral structure to persist as the symbiotic relationship to the Avatar collective deepens. To risk an analogy: when Picard becomes possessed by the Borg, he appears almost to have entirely lost his self. One suspects he would if not freed from the Borg. Yet, he does manage to blurt out the key to escape from the vanquish. Put them to sleep! Picard is free and all is well until the Borg return in a movie no less! I suspect that had Leo remained with the Avatar collective his pre-existing moral structure would have grown weaker as the symbiosis grew stronger.' I'm not so sure I agree. I believe Leo's moral compass would have changed only as greatly as he allowed himself to be influenced by his Avatar peers. We don't know enough about the Avatars to have any idea about what each of them was like before they joined the collective; we can only conjecture. So it is entirely possible that every Avatar had the capability to make his or her independent decisions whenever he/she wanted to -- but none of them chose to go against the grain because they all wanted to create Utopia.
Had Utopia persisted, then perhaps there would have been eventual dissension within the Avatars' ranks?"
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Jul 1, 2008 18:25:37 GMT -5
A couple of points demand clarification. First, I doubt very much that the Avatars had ever been mortal creatures. My understanding is that they were a group of magical beings - some from the side of good, some from the side of evil - who pooled their magic in order to attempt something beyond good and evil. Their first attempt at utopia was defeated by the ancient Egyptians who used magic to defeat them. We are assured that this is a very special potion, but gosh how embarrassingly trite that is. Nevertheless, it was possible to defeat, i.e., weaken considerably the Avatar collective by use of the potion by vanquishing individual Avatars.
Second, as I made clear in my analogy to the Borg, retention of one's pre-existing moral structure seems only a temporary phase. There's nothing in the Avatar collective that leads me to believe that any of the full-fledged members are capable of "independent action". Perhaps this is why the Elders, aware of the Avatars, had always resisted an alliance, however temporary, with the Avatars.
Third, you suggest that it is possible for the residual magic of Cole to remain with the Avatars. I don't think so. All of Cole's incredible powers remained with the Avatars after he was banished onto a spiritual plane. You are correct reversing Extreme Makeover and the concomitant renunciation of the Avatars by Leo did not allow the Avatars to acquire any of his prodigious powers. The threat of annihilation at the hands of the potion-bearing Charmed Ones made the Avatars accept this deal, a deal where they actually fail in their attempt to enhance their powers and attempt utopia. And, since Avatar Beta is not restored when time is rewound, the Avatar collective is actually considerably weakened.
|
|