Was Cole Evil?

[pubesy]

how can we simply accept that Phoebe and Cole would have never worked out, when Phoebe didn't even know that Cole had been possessed by the Source?

sometimes you don't get to know the full story of the other person when a relationship ends, you just don't want to hear it, and you dont care because no excuse will change what happened.

Its not just about cole turning evil, its also about him forcing her to take sides with him, give up all the good she had done, and ALLOWING the seer to poison her and her baby with that drink. you have got to wonder how much of that was cole and how much was the source. and i guess we will never know.

and sure, the charmed ones had many errors of judgement. but they are charmed ones. the show is called charmed. they are the heroines of the show, its not like the writers COULD or WOULD paint the Charmed ones in a bad light. and its also pretty boring if they made the charmed ones perfect little angels.

at the end of the day it all comes down to ratings and money. if the television network does not agree with the show, it wont be aired.
its not about insulting anybody's intelligence.
plain and simple

[ljones]

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?

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.

Cole was evil in a way, as the things that he had done in his life were the acts of evil.

You can say the same about the Halliwells and Leo. I keep saying this. The show has proven that they can be just as evil as Cole. Yet, many fans seem to believe that ONLY Cole had to struggle with his inner darkness, because he was half-demon. Thanks to Brad Kern, Cole's character was judged solely on WHAT he was . . . and this was so one-dimensional. What really annoys me that many fans seem to believe that there was nothing wrong with this. I realize I cannot force them to believe the same as me. But I still find it irritating.

excuse will change what happened.

Its not just about cole turning evil, its also about him forcing her to take sides with him, give up all the good she had done, and ALLOWING the seer to poison her and her baby with that drink. you have got to wonder how much of that was cole and how much was the source. and i guess we will never know.

You're bitching about what Cole had done, WHILE HE WAS POSSESSED BY THE SOURCE! If you want to complain about Cole's evil, complain about his murder of Ed Miller or what he had done after his emotional breakdown. Or complain about his attempts to kill the Halliwells in early S3.

And by the way . . . apparently Phoebe never really needed Cole's influence to succumb to evil. Check out her actions in "Valhalley of the Dolls", "Hyde School Reunion" and "Extreme Makover". Apparently, her sisters are no better.

Now, if you're going to contemplate about how much of Cole's S4 actions were him and how much was the Source . . . tell me this. How much of Piper was responsible for her attempt to kill Paige in "Hell Hath No Fury"? How much of Paige was responsible in her attempt to rip the heart out of that man in "Charmed Again"? How much of Phoebe was responsible in her attempt to beat Paige to death in "Sympathy For the Demon"?


You know what really bugs me about all of this? It bugs me that Kern's bad characterization of Cole (good=human half; evil=demon half) and sloppy handling of the Source story arc had paid off. He had managed to convince many fans with rather bad writing that Cole was too evil for Phoebe and that the Charmed Ones are the personification of purity, goodness and all that crap. So is it really Kern's fault in the end?

[pubesy]

ljones said:

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.

EXACTLY phoebe piper prue and paige were human, hence they could be "morally ambiguous." hence, yes they did act selfishly and make monsterous mistakes. but they are human. they are not some sort of angels destined only to be good.


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.


because how would there be a show in this storyline? a neutral character killing another neutral character. technically, dosent that make them both as bad as each other? and how would we know the difference between an innocent and a demon? or a demon and the charmed ones for that matter.

this is a tv show, not real life. there needs to be at least a sense of black and white-ness, so it all makes sense.

you are forgetting that this was a prime time TV show, in which not all viewers were "every-episode, every season, dedicated, writing on message board type fans"

a morally ambiguous type plot may make sense to dedicated fans who have watched from season 1, but it would not make sense to people who watch the show every now and then, or to new viewers.

i agree, many demons were very 1 dimensional, cardboard cut out "bad guy. " but if all demons were not "evil", how would the charmed ones justify vanquishing them?

Cole's character was judged solely on WHAT he was . . . and this was so one-dimensional.  What really annoys me that many fans seem to believe that there was nothing wrong with this.  I realize I cannot force them to believe the same as me.  But I still find it irritating.


cole was judged on his actions as well. not just what he was. the girls lived to fight demons, so of course he was going to be judged on what he was as well as his actions.

what is so wrong with actually enjoying a storyline? you are allowed to enjoy a storyline, even if it does not make sense in reality.

Now, if you're going to contemplate about how much of Cole's S4 actions were him and how much was the Source . . . tell me this. How much of Piper was responsible for her attempt to kill Paige in "Hell Hath No Fury"? How much of Paige was responsible in her attempt to rip the heart out of that man in "Charmed Again"? How much of Phoebe was responsible in her attempt to beat Paige to death in "Sympathy For the Demon"?

when the girls were posessed or became demonic, and became violent, it was usually a metaphor for the girls unexpressed feelings, ie, piper in 'hell hath no fury' piper's unexpressed anger towards having a new sister and prue's death. Have you ever thought cole's possession was also a metaphor for his unexpressed feelings? just an idea.

Kern's bad characterization of Cole and sloppy handling of the Source story arc had paid off. He had managed to convince many fans with rather bad writing that Cole was too evil for Phoebe and that the Charmed Ones are the personification of purity, goodness and all that crap.

cole was not badly characterized. he played his part brilliantly, julian was excellent at showing cole's struggle between good and evil.

not everything in charmed is bad writing. some of it was quite brilliant, hence the reason why there are so many million fans worldwide. kern must have been doing something right to have the show run for 8 seasons.

if you thought the writing was so terrible, and the characters so 1 dimensional, then why did you watch it?

many people, including myself, LOVED the fantasy aspect of the show, where you KNEW the characters could never exist in real life. it was an escape from reality for an hour every week, where the plots were so over the top sometimes that it became light hearted comedy. of course if you analyze the show you will see big gaping holes in the plot where the show contradicts its self, but if you just accept the plot lines it makes it alot more fun to watch.

so many million viewers cant be wrong!

[alyssa24]

im no :-t sure that cole was evil because he just wanted to be and people well beings made him so hez not reall y evil

[ljones]

EXACTLY phoebe piper prue and paige were human, hence they could be "morally ambiguous." hence, yes they did act selfishly and make monsterous mistakes. but they are human. they are not some sort of angels destined only to be good.

What makes you think that angels are automatically good or destined to be good? There are a good number of Christians who believe that angels can turn dark or evil . . . hence, one of the concepts of "the fallen angel". After all, there are Christians who believe that Satan was originally one of God's angels, who took a darker path after questioning the deity's word.



In Season 6, CHARMED showed that even whitelighters/Elders - in the form of both of Leo and Gideon - can succumb to their inner darkness. Ironically, their path to darkness or decision to commit an evil act partly came from their own belief in their inner goodness.

because how would there be a show in this storyline? a neutral character killing another neutral character. technically, dosent that make them both as bad as each other? and how would we know the difference between an innocent and a demon? or a demon and the charmed ones for that matter.

There is nothing wrong with gradually making the characters ambiguous or gray. Other TV shows and movies have done this . . . with no apparent harm. At least the show could have developed with better writing and more interesting characterization. What is wrong with that? There is no law that CHARMED had to remain with its black/white moral compass that it had started with. Even if the show had not really been successful in gradually developing into a more ambiguous tone . . . at least they had tried. And I believe that they could have succeeded if Kern had not chickened out in the last moment with several storylines or with simply better writing.

if you thought the writing was so terrible, and the characters so 1 dimensional, then why did you watch it?

You know, several people have asked me this question on this board. And I had given my answer. If you want to know my answer to this question . . . check the board.

many people, including myself, LOVED the fantasy aspect of the show, where you KNEW the characters could never exist in real life. it was an escape from reality for an hour every week, where the plots were so over the top sometimes that it became light hearted comedy. of course if you analyze the show you will see big gaping holes in the plot where the show contradicts its self, but if you just accept the plot lines it makes it alot more fun to watch.

so many million viewers cant be wrong!

Even in fantasy, one has to consider the story and characterization. Some of the best fantasy and science-fiction stories have been able to develop a more ambiguous tone before the story had ended. Why couldn't CHARMED?

And by the way, even "so many million" viewers can be wrong.

a morally ambiguous type plot may make sense to dedicated fans who have watched from season 1, but it would not make sense to people who watch the show every now and then, or to new viewers.

This does not make sense to me. Why should the show refrain from developing into a more ambiguous tone for the benefit of viewers who watched the show every now and then or new viewers?

[whitelightertony]

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.

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.

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.

You state that in the present tense, as though they're still actively writing episodes for the show...

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.

No, the reason Ben's soul wasn't able to move on was because it was being held captive in the Underworld. We saw this in late-Season 3. The writers never bothered to follow up with this storyline.

I'm not saying Benjamin Turner's "goodness" was stuck with Cole (or that would have even been the reason for Ben's soul unable to move on). I'm saying that Ben Turner most likely loved his son in the short time he was alive (following Cole's birth), and that capability for love (and the fact that it was part of Cole's blood and heritage) enabled Cole to make his own choices and reject the myopic mindset indoctrinated in him by Elizabeth Turner and the rest of the Underworld.

At some point, Cole must have found out that his mother murdered his father, and that his father's soul was being held hostage. This had to have had some significant emotional effect on Cole.

It's not like Cole was born to and raised by two vicious non-mortal demonic assassins, and that all he ever knew was their attitudes toward forces of Good.

[pubesy]

ljones said:

What makes you think that angels are automatically good or destined to be good?

angels should have been in inverted commas for my previous statement. i had no intention of bringing up the fallen angels argument. let's not get involved in arguments of catholicism, or other religions, i really don't have the interest or energy. i was merely stating that the charmed ones were not destined to be perfectly "good."

[

There is nothing wrong with gradually making the characters ambiguous or gray. Other TV shows have done this . . . with no apparent harm.

name one highly rated, globally popular tv show that ran for a least 3 seasons.

At least the show could have developed with better writing and more interesting characterization. Even if the show had not really been successful in gradually developing into a more ambiguous tone . . . at least they had tried.

THEY DID TRY!!!! Thus the avatar storyline, where the charmed ones found the avatars to be neutral, rather than "evil" for a time, until they saw the concequences of their actions. they had to work with demons on several occasions in order to defeat another demon or save a sister. the girls were never perfectly good and did "evil" deeds every now and then.
Cole was MORALLY AMBIGUOUS for a long time, he was about a million shades of gray. i don't know why you cant see that cole's character was well developed, He left millions of viewers, still pondering whether he was ultimately "evil", or just desperately in love.

the show was never 100% black and white. sure some demons were 2dimensional and some plots were very average, but there was quite a few shades of gray here.

You know, several people have asked me this question on this board. And I had given my answer. If you want to know my answer to this question . . . check the board.

well i have looked and i cant find you reason. i am sure you wont mind repeating yourself, or at least directing me, via posting the URL to where you have stated you reason for watching the show.

And by the way, even "so many million" viewers can be wrong.

hahahahaha, you are VERY wrong here. Charmed is directed at these million people. what is the point in creating a show that NO ONE watches?

Why should the show refrain from developing into a more ambiguous tone for the benefit of viewers who watched the show every now and then or new viewers?

how else does the show gain NEW viewers if the new viewers cannot understand the plot? they cant!



it shows an incredibly narrow mind frame to blame EVERYTHING YOU dont like on bad writing, or bad characterization. just because you don't like something, does not mean that the writing is automatically "bad."
maybe there is another reason why the story lines developed in the ways they did.

[ljones]

how else does the show gain NEW viewers if the new viewers cannot understand the plot? they cant!

Let me point you out to a few suggestions . . .

1) reruns on TNT

2) DVDs

it shows an incredibly narrow mind frame to blame EVERYTHING YOU dont like on bad writing, or bad characterization. just because you don't like something, does not mean that the writing is automatically "bad."
maybe there is another reason why the story lines developed in the ways they did.

Well, I guess we're both guilty of possessing a narrow mind. If I guilty to using the argument of bad writing to describe the storylines I didn't like . . . then you're guilty of accusing me of such a thing, because you didn't like what I had to say.

THEY DID TRY!!!! Thus the avatar storyline, where the charmed ones found the avatars to be neutral, rather than "evil" for a time, until they saw the concequences of their actions. they had to work with demons on several occasions in order to defeat another demon or save a sister. the girls were never perfectly good and did "evil" deeds every now and then.

I never said that they didn't try. I have accused them of not fully following through the ambiguity of the story. Let's take the Avatar storyline for example . . .

The sisters managed to see that the pacifist world that they had helped to create was not natural. Unfortunately . . . after the Avatar story ended, they accused the Elders of driving Leo into the arms of the Avatars. They expressed anger at the Avatars for tricking them into helping with the spell. Yet, they never acknowledged conducting a spell against someone without his or her consent was questionable.

I know that the girls were never perfect. I never demanded that they be perfect. I have demanded that they acknowledge that some of their more questionable actions be addressed. The writers never allowed them to question their killing of Cole in late S4. The writers brushed aside their theft of Darryl's soul with the latter easily (perhaps too easily) forgiving them. How did Piper managed to get P3 operating so soon after being released for the second time in S2? She was guilty of purchasing fruit that had not been inspected by Customs. And she knew it. Yet, we never learned whether the Feds had charged her with fraud or whether she had to pay a fine or experience jail time. Phoebe and Paige's actions against Rick Guttridge were brushed aside with an explanation of "It was necessary". And although they had acknowleded that the Avatars' spell against humanity was wrong and corrected what had happened, they still refused to acknowledge that the act of casting a spell against the will of anyone was wrong.

I'm not simply dismissing what I didn't like as "bad writing". I think that the above are serious signs of bad writing that has plagued the show throughout the years. And I don't think that calling me narrow-minded is going to change what I believe.

[pubesy]

ljones said:

Let me point you out to a few suggestions . . .

1) reruns on TNT

2) DVDs

yes, but how do they gain the interest to watch the reruns etc, if the first time they watch charmed (whether it be s7ep 13 or whatever) they cant pick out the "good guys" from the "bad guys" and the plot does not make sense?

i agree, its a great idea in theory to have all characters as morally ambiguous all the time, but in reality it couldn't happen. the show would become very heavy and bogged down in morality and details. the escapism and fantasy aspect of the show would be lost.

If I guilty to using the argument of bad writing to describe the storylines I didn't like . . . then you're guilty of accusing me of such a thing, because you didn't like what I had to say.

so are you now retracting your statement that Cole's character was badly written by producers?
that's what you have been stating throughout this topic, have you not? i'm a little confused

it's not that i don't like what you have to say, if i did not think you made any decent posts i would not reply to you.

I never said that they didn't try.

yes, you did.

At least the show could have developed with better writing and more interesting characterization. Even if the show had not really been successful in gradually developing into a more ambiguous tone . . . at least they tried.

hence implying that producers never even tried.

I know that the girls were never perfect. I never demanded that they be perfect. I have demanded that they acknowledge that some of their more questionable actions be addressed.

i completely agree here.

And I don't think that calling me narrow-minded is going to change what I believe.

i don't expect it to. all i am saying is not everything in charmed was badly written.

and by the way...

You know, several people have asked me this question on this board. And I had given my answer. If you want to know my answer to this question . . . check the board.

well i have looked and i cant find you reason. i am sure you wont mind repeating yourself, or at least directing me, via posting the URL to where you have stated you reason for watching the show.

i am still waiting.

[bewitchedbabe]

In my opinion I do not think that he was fully evil.
I mean he had evil powers, but he was part human as well.
He fell in love with Phoebe. If he was fully evil he couldn't have fallen for her, Right?!
After awhile he started using his powers for the greater good, does that not count for anything.
Phoebe is better off without him, because of all the strings that are attachted to loving him and being with him.
But no I do not believe that cole was evil.
Maybe I'm wrong, but if you have an opinion I'm open to hearing about it and descussing it!

[ljones]

bewitchedbabe said:

In my opinion I do not think that he was fully evil.
I mean he had evil powers, but he was part human as well.
He fell in love with Phoebe. If he was fully evil he couldn't have fallen for her, Right?!
After awhile he started using his powers for the greater good, does that not count for anything.
Phoebe is better off without him, because of all the strings that are attachted to loving him and being with him.
But no I do not believe that cole was evil.
Maybe I'm wrong, but if you have an opinion I'm open to hearing about it and descussing it!

Considering that Phoebe and her sisters have proven that they can be evil without anyone casting a spell on them or that the Halliwells have encountered humans who can be just as evil as the demons and other magical beings they have encountered . . . then why would she be better off without Cole? Perhaps Cole would have been better off without her. Or perhaps they would have been better off without each other. Who knows?

When Cole first appeared on the scene, I had automatically assumed that he would be paired off with Prue. Both seemed more sophisticated than the other characters. But the problem with Prue was that personality-wise, she and Cole seemed too similar to me (actually, a lot like Piper and Leo). Also, Prue had the maturity to deal with Cole's openly ambiguous nature (look at her relationships with Brendan Rowe and Bane Jessup) and finally acknowledge her own. Phoebe had an extroverted personality that could have balanced Cole's more introverted nature, but I feel that she lacked the maturity to handle his openly ambiguous nature or acknowledge her own.

If Cole had found someone with Prue's maturity and Phoebe's extroverted nature, he probably would have been better off.

[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.

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.

[Elder]

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]

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.

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."

[pubesy]

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?

(i really enjoyed reading that post v.)

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]

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.

[ljones]

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.

[pubesy]

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?

. . . 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]

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.

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.

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]

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.