![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shipperxThis was inspired by a question on a AtS list and by the sides for Ep 2 AtS. Now, don't expect this to be some organized essay. This is more of a stream of consciousness post as I try to puzzle this out.
Why do so many people (and David Fury) feel that it's possible to quantify guilt? And just to clarify, by "guilt" I don't mean the "we the jury hereby find the defendent guilty..." kind of guilt. I mean the "look into a man's face and read how he feels" kind of guilt.
"All we communicate to others is an orientation toward what is secret without ever being able to tell the truth objectively. Gaston Bachelard, The Poetics of Space
Guilt or innocence about whether a crime has been committed is a relatively straight forward question with some objective truth to it. However, judging and weighing what a person feels is quite different. Emotions aren't concrete and can be misinterpreted even by the person feeling them. It's just not that simple. People can feel guilt about things they shouldn't, or they can suppress a sense of guilt about one thing and it comes out as feeling guilty about another. But to go back to Season 5 BtVS "Weight of the World," guilt is just an emotion. It can be an important one if allowed to inform (or misinform) choices, but it's an emotion. It's not something that can be weighed, measured, counted.
"Conviction is worthless unless it is converted into conduct." — Thomas Carlyle
A sense of guilt paralyzed Buffy into uselessness in "Weight of the World."
A sense of guilt sent Spike to Africa in order to become "a man who would never..."
In one situation, guilt was a hindrance, in another it was something that led to a laudable action. . .perhaps the operative words being "led" and "action."
And that's where I come in conflict with some of the sentiments expressed by some in the fandom (and by what I think may be part of David Fury's lines in "Just Rewards"). What is 100 years of guilt worth? Really?
Should Angel and Spike (and Anya... and Willow...and Andrew...and...and...and...) feel guilty for their past crimes? Yes. If they have no sense of guilt then how can they understand what they have done wrong? That seems to be to be the primary factor of "soullessness" in the Buffyverse, and when I tear myself away from my visceral distaste for Season 6, I have to think that was part of what Season 6 was about insofar as Spike's soul is concerned. If the soul is a metaphor ... then the fact that Spike even felt guilt in that crypt scene with Clem meant that Spike's "earning" a soul was really the official passport stamp on a journey Spike had just made.
So did Spike feel guilt in Season 6/7? Hell yes! It irks the hell out of me when there are those who say that he didn't feel guilt. Excuse me, what were the lines about self loathing? What was the self flagellation (not to mention some incineration). As Spike said in "Same Time, Same Place," he carried the sin.
So, antis, scream about it all you want. David Fury, belittle it all you can... but the guilt was there and it was expressed.
Which brings us back to the question of Angel's 100 years in the gutter (Well, it wasn't really in the gutter as flashbacks have shown us. The 100 years included a trip to Shanghai and efforts to rejoin the fanged four. It included saving a puppy, leaving several people to be tortured by a demon in the Hyperion, hanging out with the Rat Pack in Vegas, attending Elvis and Priscilla's wedding, some Barry Manilow concerts, and judging by his wardrobe at least one trip to the disco outfits from hell (not literal hell you understand) outlet mall).
So what's Angel's 100 years of brooding worth?
Guilt means something, but what does it mean? Back to "Weight of the World," in that case guilt was shown to paralyze Buffy into uselessness. This concept was shown again in "Selfless" when Bitca Buffy arrived to tell Spike that if he had a soul to get up and do something with it, wallowing in misery accomplished nothing, and proved nothing.
Hold on.
Are we back to the double standards that so often find their way into Mutant Enemy text? Or is it a case of the writers being completely unable to agree on...well... anything.
If, as stompy footed Buffy said in "Selfless" that if you have a soul prove it. . .what did 100 years of uselessness accomplish? Anything? What was its purpose? Did "feeling bad and expressing it ad nauseum" really do anything? Was itworth anything?
Yes, the guilt was important. The gypsies cursed Angel to feel guilt to stop him from being a murderous monster. It was important in that respect as it did stop Angel from being the rapist/murderer that was Angelus. But beyond that change... what was it worth?
When is enough guilt enough? Is there an equation? 100 years of regret and it's "okay" to move on, get over it, and take a job at a law firm? Who set the 100 year limit? What if you don't have 100 years to spend in the gutter? What if you don't have 100 years to waste before making a difference? What about all the years when differences could have been made but weren't? Why was it "okay" in 1998 to have "perfect happiness" but in, say, 1978 it was less acceptable because, hey, there could have been 20 more years of guilt?
There's no scale here that can be balanced. All the people that were killed are still dead. All the lives that were shattered didn't suddenly become unshattered. Guilt wasn't reparation for harm done and so there isn't a finish line or cosmic scale that's balanced. So what's the time limit?
There can't be one. There isn't one. It serves no purpose. 100 years in the gutter means nothing. There's nothing for it to mean.
Angel's epiphany in "Epiphany" said that quite clearly (and maybe David Fury and some others should go review that episode and that quite excellent epiphany). There is no "big win." Nothing you do changes what's been done so all that matters is what you do. Everything you do that eases someone else's suffering, that helps the world in some small way is all that matters.
Note the fact that it's "do". . .again we're back to action. So, what does guilt and inaction amount to? After initiating the difference in behavior and action, after it informs your world view, after it spurs you to change... what does wallowing accomplish but bad hair cuts and diets of vermin?
Was rat eating Angel in the throws of guilt really "better" than a Spike saving Xander from having his last eye poked out? Is Angel's inaction in the coffee shop guy's death better than Spike having helped Cassie as best he could?
How does that work? How is that "better"? Where is the rationale in that?
And the sad fact is, Spike didn't have a 100 years to spend in the gutter. He only lived a year after the souling. Was that year better spent in...oh... I don't know... SAVING THE WORLD, or in brooding?
"The force of character is cumulative." — Ralph Waldo Emerson
In "Just Rewards" "It's not fair. I nearly died from guilt and you moaned in the basement" [paraphrased] dialog Angel seems to be playing a "who suffered more guilt" question which (as is quite clear by now) I find to be pointless.
On top of that Angel (or Fury) seems to be playing some revisionist history here. As stated Angel didn't spend 100 years in the gutter and Spike spent longer than "three weeks moaning in the basement" (plus there was some torture, insanity, more torture, a near assination, and a feiry death also involved).
Has Angel ever willingly given his life to save the world? (And, no, I'm not forgetting Becoming 2. Angel didn't actually die. Since when does a sword through the stomach kill a vampire? Plus, there's the little fact that he was stabbed to avert an apocalypse that he started! And in the end it sounded like he was just sucked into Quor Toth or something. (Hell, Connor got sucked into hell and he really didn't do anything to deserve it).
I'm not saying that Angel didn't have a rough row to hoe. He did. I just don't see how his rough path makes his experience "better" or more "laudable" than Spike's. If anything, if pressed on the matter I would end up saying the reverse.
However, I don't think it should be pressed to that point (which is why I resent Fury bringing up the issue.) Angel has a reason to feel bad that is above and beyond Spike's. Angel has to face the fact that he didn't seek a soul to be a better man or for love of Buffy. He didn't seek a soul three times. This has to be really awful knowlege for someone like Angel (by that I mean the souled, moral version of Angel not Angelus). He was (as Joss pointed out at Comic Con) "clotheslined." It wasn't that he was on a path that led one step to the next by choice. He was snatched up by fate and dumped into a set of circumstances. Spike on the other hand deliberately sought out change.
To give it sort of a Christian slant (and I'm not getting religious here. I'm not the least bit religious. I'm just making an analogy). Part of "redemption" in a Christian sense is asking Christ into your heart. That's not all that different from "seeking a soul." So there is a point of pride in having sought a soul. There is a bit of expiation of sin in choosing to cease sinning, in choosing to change, in consciously making the choice to turn away from evil by one's own volition. It's a crucial thing that at least allows one to say, "At least, I chose to leave that life behind."
Poor Angel can't say that. His is the burden of knowlege that he didn't choose to turn from evil. He was basically struck by cosmic (and karmic) lightening. . .three times. He can't say to himself "Yes, but I chose to turn from evil." The choice was made FOR him, by gypsies and by Willow. So Angel is faced with a set of circumstances that Season 7 Spike (and Season 7 Anya for that matter) don't have.
If we take that the soul is truly what makes the difference, then souled Spike and Angel are as equals... but Angel has to live with the unsavory knowledge that he never CHOSE to change. For all that Angel loved Buffy, he never chose to change because of it. For all that Angel l--- Cordy, the return of Angelus showed essentially no evolution in Angelus.
Spike, as Joss said at Comic Con, was more of an evolution of character. Angel was ripped out of evil by fate and by gypsies. Spike's evolution was a ladder he climbed almost entirely by himself.
"Our lives teach us who we are." — Salman Rushdie, 20th-century Anglo-Indian novelist
When people say that Season 7 Spike wasn't "all that different", they are often looking at the wrong thing. Season 7 Spike evolved from the Season 6 Spike. If you want to see the "big difference" you don't compare Spike from "Chosen" to Spike from "Tabula Rasa." You compare Spike from "Touched" with... say... the Spike from "Harsh Light of Day." THEN you see the difference. The Spike of "Chosen" was the one who in Season 5 chose to protect Dawn and Buffy through torture and potential death. The Spike of chosen was one who decided to help the scoobs after Buffy was dead. It wasn't the "He was one thing and then the other" as Angelus/Angel were. Spike was painful steps up an evolutionary ladder. He learned over the years. He learned what it was to care again in Season 5. He learned what it was to consider someone's safety. He was of course, incredibly handicapped what with being soulless, but there are steps taken in a different direction so that by the time you reach "Grave," there have been a lot of things that Spike went through that lead him to the point where Joss said Spike realized that he really and truly had to change if he wanted to be a man "who would never..." Spike earned a soul, not just in the cave but in every step that led to his deciding to go to that cave to seek the soul.
That, I think, is part of the reason that there's a difference between the way Spike and Angel feel about their experiences and why they express them differently (that and the fact that just about everything in their personalities and behaviors are different). Spike can at least look back and say that he chose to change his ways. . .and that was a remarkable step. The Spike he became was the one made that pivotal choice in "Grave." He can own it. It's his. Plus, once souled, he was three years removed from killing (as opposed to poor Angel who was ripped out of a horrific incident with the gypsy girl). Spike had good deeds to hold onto -- he had helped avert apocalypses, he had protected Dawn, he had fought on the side of the white hats, he had chosen to change. In the dark moments post souling these things probably provide some small bit of comfort and even possible avenue toward self esteem.
Angel wasn't in that place.
Spike also had association with white hats and some idea of what he could do "to help" as he said in "Beneath You." Again, Angel didn't have that. He was thrown out into a sea of humanity with nothing but guilt and no knowlege of any other way he could live. He didn't have examples of those fighting against the forces of darkness. He had no path or purpose until Whistler showed up. . .and after that point Angel's path is probably about as expeditious as Spike's. It's being given a sense of direction, of believing there may be a way to do good to expiate some of the horrors they've done. Spike knew what he was going into whereas Angel was struck blind. Spike had examples to follow whereas Angel was lost.
The situations are different, and the circumstances of souling were different. Having sought a soul versus having been cursed with one probably factors into how Spike and Angel have different perspectives on souling and on their outlooks post soulling.
As for Anya... it's just that ME didn't seem to harp on the issues like they have with Spike. They tended to see her as just "comic relief" and thus simply ignored that since she started wars (as per Selfless) and 1000 years of vengeance under her belt, she probably had far more blood on her hands than Spike and Angel put together. . . it just wasn't as big an issue for ME with her, not because it isn't as big an issue, but because like other things they just ignored it (sort of like the way they ignored that Willow murdered Rack who actually had no culpability in Tara's death. he was a bad guy, true, but as Buffy intimated in "Smashed"... do all criminals deserve the death penalty? And who was Willow to decide she could just kill Rack? He's hardly a great loss for the world, but ME turned a blind eye to the fact that what Willow did was in fact murder and didn't even qualify as vengeance). Still, Anya too had the salve in Season 7 that at least the second time she knowingly and deliberately turned her back on evil. It may have been forced on her in Season 3, but in Season 7 it was a choice made of her own free will.
I would think it would weigh heavily on Angel that if choosing a soul is truly possible that he has never chosen that path. It's sort of an extra angst to bear. I would think that knowlege would have to ache. I don't see Angel accepting the whole concept very well and thus probably being hard on Spike because of it.
Ultimately, despite their pasts and preternatural histories, Spike and Angel have slightly different burdens to bear.
Why do so many people (and David Fury) feel that it's possible to quantify guilt? And just to clarify, by "guilt" I don't mean the "we the jury hereby find the defendent guilty..." kind of guilt. I mean the "look into a man's face and read how he feels" kind of guilt.
"All we communicate to others is an orientation toward what is secret without ever being able to tell the truth objectively. Gaston Bachelard, The Poetics of Space
Guilt or innocence about whether a crime has been committed is a relatively straight forward question with some objective truth to it. However, judging and weighing what a person feels is quite different. Emotions aren't concrete and can be misinterpreted even by the person feeling them. It's just not that simple. People can feel guilt about things they shouldn't, or they can suppress a sense of guilt about one thing and it comes out as feeling guilty about another. But to go back to Season 5 BtVS "Weight of the World," guilt is just an emotion. It can be an important one if allowed to inform (or misinform) choices, but it's an emotion. It's not something that can be weighed, measured, counted.
"Conviction is worthless unless it is converted into conduct." — Thomas Carlyle
A sense of guilt paralyzed Buffy into uselessness in "Weight of the World."
A sense of guilt sent Spike to Africa in order to become "a man who would never..."
In one situation, guilt was a hindrance, in another it was something that led to a laudable action. . .perhaps the operative words being "led" and "action."
And that's where I come in conflict with some of the sentiments expressed by some in the fandom (and by what I think may be part of David Fury's lines in "Just Rewards"). What is 100 years of guilt worth? Really?
Should Angel and Spike (and Anya... and Willow...and Andrew...and...and...and...) feel guilty for their past crimes? Yes. If they have no sense of guilt then how can they understand what they have done wrong? That seems to be to be the primary factor of "soullessness" in the Buffyverse, and when I tear myself away from my visceral distaste for Season 6, I have to think that was part of what Season 6 was about insofar as Spike's soul is concerned. If the soul is a metaphor ... then the fact that Spike even felt guilt in that crypt scene with Clem meant that Spike's "earning" a soul was really the official passport stamp on a journey Spike had just made.
So did Spike feel guilt in Season 6/7? Hell yes! It irks the hell out of me when there are those who say that he didn't feel guilt. Excuse me, what were the lines about self loathing? What was the self flagellation (not to mention some incineration). As Spike said in "Same Time, Same Place," he carried the sin.
So, antis, scream about it all you want. David Fury, belittle it all you can... but the guilt was there and it was expressed.
Which brings us back to the question of Angel's 100 years in the gutter (Well, it wasn't really in the gutter as flashbacks have shown us. The 100 years included a trip to Shanghai and efforts to rejoin the fanged four. It included saving a puppy, leaving several people to be tortured by a demon in the Hyperion, hanging out with the Rat Pack in Vegas, attending Elvis and Priscilla's wedding, some Barry Manilow concerts, and judging by his wardrobe at least one trip to the disco outfits from hell (not literal hell you understand) outlet mall).
So what's Angel's 100 years of brooding worth?
Guilt means something, but what does it mean? Back to "Weight of the World," in that case guilt was shown to paralyze Buffy into uselessness. This concept was shown again in "Selfless" when Bitca Buffy arrived to tell Spike that if he had a soul to get up and do something with it, wallowing in misery accomplished nothing, and proved nothing.
Hold on.
Are we back to the double standards that so often find their way into Mutant Enemy text? Or is it a case of the writers being completely unable to agree on...well... anything.
If, as stompy footed Buffy said in "Selfless" that if you have a soul prove it. . .what did 100 years of uselessness accomplish? Anything? What was its purpose? Did "feeling bad and expressing it ad nauseum" really do anything? Was itworth anything?
Yes, the guilt was important. The gypsies cursed Angel to feel guilt to stop him from being a murderous monster. It was important in that respect as it did stop Angel from being the rapist/murderer that was Angelus. But beyond that change... what was it worth?
When is enough guilt enough? Is there an equation? 100 years of regret and it's "okay" to move on, get over it, and take a job at a law firm? Who set the 100 year limit? What if you don't have 100 years to spend in the gutter? What if you don't have 100 years to waste before making a difference? What about all the years when differences could have been made but weren't? Why was it "okay" in 1998 to have "perfect happiness" but in, say, 1978 it was less acceptable because, hey, there could have been 20 more years of guilt?
There's no scale here that can be balanced. All the people that were killed are still dead. All the lives that were shattered didn't suddenly become unshattered. Guilt wasn't reparation for harm done and so there isn't a finish line or cosmic scale that's balanced. So what's the time limit?
There can't be one. There isn't one. It serves no purpose. 100 years in the gutter means nothing. There's nothing for it to mean.
Angel's epiphany in "Epiphany" said that quite clearly (and maybe David Fury and some others should go review that episode and that quite excellent epiphany). There is no "big win." Nothing you do changes what's been done so all that matters is what you do. Everything you do that eases someone else's suffering, that helps the world in some small way is all that matters.
Note the fact that it's "do". . .again we're back to action. So, what does guilt and inaction amount to? After initiating the difference in behavior and action, after it informs your world view, after it spurs you to change... what does wallowing accomplish but bad hair cuts and diets of vermin?
Was rat eating Angel in the throws of guilt really "better" than a Spike saving Xander from having his last eye poked out? Is Angel's inaction in the coffee shop guy's death better than Spike having helped Cassie as best he could?
How does that work? How is that "better"? Where is the rationale in that?
And the sad fact is, Spike didn't have a 100 years to spend in the gutter. He only lived a year after the souling. Was that year better spent in...oh... I don't know... SAVING THE WORLD, or in brooding?
"The force of character is cumulative." — Ralph Waldo Emerson
In "Just Rewards" "It's not fair. I nearly died from guilt and you moaned in the basement" [paraphrased] dialog Angel seems to be playing a "who suffered more guilt" question which (as is quite clear by now) I find to be pointless.
On top of that Angel (or Fury) seems to be playing some revisionist history here. As stated Angel didn't spend 100 years in the gutter and Spike spent longer than "three weeks moaning in the basement" (plus there was some torture, insanity, more torture, a near assination, and a feiry death also involved).
Has Angel ever willingly given his life to save the world? (And, no, I'm not forgetting Becoming 2. Angel didn't actually die. Since when does a sword through the stomach kill a vampire? Plus, there's the little fact that he was stabbed to avert an apocalypse that he started! And in the end it sounded like he was just sucked into Quor Toth or something. (Hell, Connor got sucked into hell and he really didn't do anything to deserve it).
I'm not saying that Angel didn't have a rough row to hoe. He did. I just don't see how his rough path makes his experience "better" or more "laudable" than Spike's. If anything, if pressed on the matter I would end up saying the reverse.
However, I don't think it should be pressed to that point (which is why I resent Fury bringing up the issue.) Angel has a reason to feel bad that is above and beyond Spike's. Angel has to face the fact that he didn't seek a soul to be a better man or for love of Buffy. He didn't seek a soul three times. This has to be really awful knowlege for someone like Angel (by that I mean the souled, moral version of Angel not Angelus). He was (as Joss pointed out at Comic Con) "clotheslined." It wasn't that he was on a path that led one step to the next by choice. He was snatched up by fate and dumped into a set of circumstances. Spike on the other hand deliberately sought out change.
To give it sort of a Christian slant (and I'm not getting religious here. I'm not the least bit religious. I'm just making an analogy). Part of "redemption" in a Christian sense is asking Christ into your heart. That's not all that different from "seeking a soul." So there is a point of pride in having sought a soul. There is a bit of expiation of sin in choosing to cease sinning, in choosing to change, in consciously making the choice to turn away from evil by one's own volition. It's a crucial thing that at least allows one to say, "At least, I chose to leave that life behind."
Poor Angel can't say that. His is the burden of knowlege that he didn't choose to turn from evil. He was basically struck by cosmic (and karmic) lightening. . .three times. He can't say to himself "Yes, but I chose to turn from evil." The choice was made FOR him, by gypsies and by Willow. So Angel is faced with a set of circumstances that Season 7 Spike (and Season 7 Anya for that matter) don't have.
If we take that the soul is truly what makes the difference, then souled Spike and Angel are as equals... but Angel has to live with the unsavory knowledge that he never CHOSE to change. For all that Angel loved Buffy, he never chose to change because of it. For all that Angel l--- Cordy, the return of Angelus showed essentially no evolution in Angelus.
Spike, as Joss said at Comic Con, was more of an evolution of character. Angel was ripped out of evil by fate and by gypsies. Spike's evolution was a ladder he climbed almost entirely by himself.
"Our lives teach us who we are." — Salman Rushdie, 20th-century Anglo-Indian novelist
When people say that Season 7 Spike wasn't "all that different", they are often looking at the wrong thing. Season 7 Spike evolved from the Season 6 Spike. If you want to see the "big difference" you don't compare Spike from "Chosen" to Spike from "Tabula Rasa." You compare Spike from "Touched" with... say... the Spike from "Harsh Light of Day." THEN you see the difference. The Spike of "Chosen" was the one who in Season 5 chose to protect Dawn and Buffy through torture and potential death. The Spike of chosen was one who decided to help the scoobs after Buffy was dead. It wasn't the "He was one thing and then the other" as Angelus/Angel were. Spike was painful steps up an evolutionary ladder. He learned over the years. He learned what it was to care again in Season 5. He learned what it was to consider someone's safety. He was of course, incredibly handicapped what with being soulless, but there are steps taken in a different direction so that by the time you reach "Grave," there have been a lot of things that Spike went through that lead him to the point where Joss said Spike realized that he really and truly had to change if he wanted to be a man "who would never..." Spike earned a soul, not just in the cave but in every step that led to his deciding to go to that cave to seek the soul.
That, I think, is part of the reason that there's a difference between the way Spike and Angel feel about their experiences and why they express them differently (that and the fact that just about everything in their personalities and behaviors are different). Spike can at least look back and say that he chose to change his ways. . .and that was a remarkable step. The Spike he became was the one made that pivotal choice in "Grave." He can own it. It's his. Plus, once souled, he was three years removed from killing (as opposed to poor Angel who was ripped out of a horrific incident with the gypsy girl). Spike had good deeds to hold onto -- he had helped avert apocalypses, he had protected Dawn, he had fought on the side of the white hats, he had chosen to change. In the dark moments post souling these things probably provide some small bit of comfort and even possible avenue toward self esteem.
Angel wasn't in that place.
Spike also had association with white hats and some idea of what he could do "to help" as he said in "Beneath You." Again, Angel didn't have that. He was thrown out into a sea of humanity with nothing but guilt and no knowlege of any other way he could live. He didn't have examples of those fighting against the forces of darkness. He had no path or purpose until Whistler showed up. . .and after that point Angel's path is probably about as expeditious as Spike's. It's being given a sense of direction, of believing there may be a way to do good to expiate some of the horrors they've done. Spike knew what he was going into whereas Angel was struck blind. Spike had examples to follow whereas Angel was lost.
The situations are different, and the circumstances of souling were different. Having sought a soul versus having been cursed with one probably factors into how Spike and Angel have different perspectives on souling and on their outlooks post soulling.
As for Anya... it's just that ME didn't seem to harp on the issues like they have with Spike. They tended to see her as just "comic relief" and thus simply ignored that since she started wars (as per Selfless) and 1000 years of vengeance under her belt, she probably had far more blood on her hands than Spike and Angel put together. . . it just wasn't as big an issue for ME with her, not because it isn't as big an issue, but because like other things they just ignored it (sort of like the way they ignored that Willow murdered Rack who actually had no culpability in Tara's death. he was a bad guy, true, but as Buffy intimated in "Smashed"... do all criminals deserve the death penalty? And who was Willow to decide she could just kill Rack? He's hardly a great loss for the world, but ME turned a blind eye to the fact that what Willow did was in fact murder and didn't even qualify as vengeance). Still, Anya too had the salve in Season 7 that at least the second time she knowingly and deliberately turned her back on evil. It may have been forced on her in Season 3, but in Season 7 it was a choice made of her own free will.
I would think it would weigh heavily on Angel that if choosing a soul is truly possible that he has never chosen that path. It's sort of an extra angst to bear. I would think that knowlege would have to ache. I don't see Angel accepting the whole concept very well and thus probably being hard on Spike because of it.
Ultimately, despite their pasts and preternatural histories, Spike and Angel have slightly different burdens to bear.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-08-05 07:50 am (UTC)There's a neat little icon here (the second one in the second row-"Remorse? Don't see any remorse there") that summarizes the remorse thing pretty well. Spike felt it, he just didn't wallow in it for 100 years.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-05 09:25 am (UTC)Great work.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-06 08:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-05 01:42 pm (UTC)Spike is not a "better" man because he wore the necklace. He was the unlucky shmuck who Buffy was willing to sacrifice. Angel came to Sunnydale fully intending to do what had to be done, and Buffy sent him away. But she was clear with Giles in LMPTM that she could make a sacrifice when it came down to it. And she did. She chose to let Spike die to save the world. Which again? Nice dramatic exit, but so not any better than the hundreds of times Angel nearly died to save random people he never even met, or was willing to die to redeem Darla, even though the PTB told him she was "worthless".
I would have enjoyed this post tremendously, as it is thoughtful and well written, had it indeed not contained the character bashing which Laura claimed was not present. Unfortunately, it missed the mark on that point alone. I have been chastised over on this side of the S/A fence for making sweeping generalizations about characters and assumptions about motivations of fans and characters alike. Yet I cannot seem to find one essay written by a fan of Spike that does not manage to compare him (always more than favorably) to Angel. If Spike is indeed the hero you would like him to be, let's let him fail or succeed on his own merit, and not because his fans feel the need to take on an already established character with his own following and canon.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-06 10:01 pm (UTC)I have affection for Angel.
If you ask me either/of... I choose Spike. . .and I make no apologies for it.
Spike walked his own journey.
Angel was chosen by fate.
I prefer the underdog who makes his own mark rather than the one chosen by fate. It's a fundamentally different type of story and there are those that love the whole "destiny" thing (and unsurprisingly these types tend to also be the one who love the whole "soulmates" thing).
I don't enjoy concepts of soulmates. My sense of individual purpose is that when I see "predestination" stories, I really want them to be proven incorrect because nothing can "predestined."
So... I have affection for Angel. I prefer Spike and prefer his story, and prefer action of choice and self determination.
We all have our hobby horses, this one is mine.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-06 10:42 pm (UTC)First off, no. At NO point did he blame Buffy for his actions. He said "Why did *I*--"
Where his discussion of Buffy came in was in saying that she made him FEEL.
Those are essentially DIFFERENT things. He took sole responsibilty for the ACTION. Where she was part of it is that he was saying she had influenced his HUMANITY.
These are separate issues and are in no way blaming her for his actions.
Second of all... the sense of guilt is no longer in debate. Based on viewing of "Seeing Red", "Villains", "2 to Go" and "Grave" there could be debate because god knows there was piss poor execution of this story. However, we are no longer basing it just on subjective viewing of the episodes (which can be debated). We have more information than that at this point in time.
Quote 1:
"Spike's quest was, and ALWAYS WAS, to get his soul restored for Buffy, despite any misleading leaks we may have put out that you fell for." - David Fury on the Bronze Beta, 11/19/02
Quote 2 (and note that this DIRECTLY addresses the question of what Spike was feeling):
"Spike looked into his soul at that moment [the attempted rape], and saw the demon in him, and that's what made him want to go get a soul .... We did a big ole mislead on you all, where we wanted you to think he gonna go get the chip out. We knew, the whole time, from the very beginning he was gonna go get a soul. And when he says I want Buffy to have what she deserves, he means a lover with a soul." - Jane Espenson, Buffy writer Radio interview on the Succubus Club, 5/22/02
Quote 3:
Moderator: "At the end of the finale, I thought Spike wanted to get the chip out, not get his soul back?"
Joss Whedon: "Noooo.... but you were meant to think that. I personally devised something called a plot twist."
At the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences panel "Behind the Scenes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer," 6/18/02
no subject
Date: 2003-08-06 10:44 pm (UTC)So we now know Spike categorically WAS seeking a soul the entire time and and that he did so because he looked at himself and saw a monster. (This is both within the text of the Clem/Crypt scene and in the writer interviews).
Joss was quoted yet again just the other week as saying that Spike sought the soul in an desire to change.
Then in addition to that, these interviews have been backed up by in show text with the lines in Beneath You (Joss penned) where it is point blank stated why Spike went for a soul.
One (who is so inclined) might DESIRE to say that Spike was fudging, however with interviews from writers we KNOW the authorial intent of those lines was that those lines were TRUE. If there was intent that it was debateable they could state it so (as in fact they did say in the same interview at Comic Con where they said he deliberately sought a soul to be a better man, that it is quite possible that Spike was lied in NEver Leave Me when he implied things he did "to girl's Dawns age" in an effort to make Buffy stake him).
We KNOW authorial intent. We now have in text lines that state what Spike's true intent was. The issue has been settled by writers making a definitive statement.
When, where, how they reached that decision is immaterial (if debatable) because within the context of the show they have now stated that this was his "intent all along" and they state it was "his intent all along" ergo it WAS (within that fictional universe) his intent all along. There is no debate left as to whether he felt guilt.
At this point to state otherwise is to go in opposition to the shows intent. Which --cool. There are things that I rebel against in the show. I think the whole "Doctor" business is beyond stupid and thus rarely if ever address it. HOWEVER, I am well aware and flat out admit that I am saying this in CONTRADICTION to the show's intent and to show canon. It's willful rebellion against the story. And if you wish to willfully rebel against the show's text and it's writers. That's fine but in contradiction to the show.
The issue was settled by the only people who can definitively settle the debate and they have now gone on record multiple times what was the intent, what was the motivation, and then they cemented it with dialog within the show while repeated again that what was said was the intent.
End of textural debate (if not end of rebellion)on that particular issue. The show's intent in that regard has been cemented by the show itself.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-07 06:49 am (UTC)You haven't tried very hard then:
http://www.allaboutspike.com/why.html
The essay on Spike's hero's journey is especially well-written and documented.
You can also go here:
http://bloodyawfulpoet.com/essays.html
It's strange to me that you know who Laura is and, presumably, that she runs a web site on Spike, yet you've never looked at it or clicked on the Essays link? Or tried the BAPS web site--BAPS is pretty well known in Spike fandom (there's a link to it on my spoiler page, for example).
You're a friend of Barb's and you never read any of her brilliant essays, especially the end-of-season-6 review?
You're either lazy, stupid, or in such denial about Spike's positive qualities that you will willfully ignore any evidence discussing them. I vote the latter.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-07 01:35 pm (UTC)Wow! How do you screen comments? I haven't figured out how to reply to them even though it says you can and it will unscreen. OK, here goes. You wrote:
As I mentioned in Barb's LJ, I don't have time to continue a conversation with someone who is obviously not interested in grown up debate. You may feel free to follow me around to all your friend's LJ and throw insults around since you clearly have nothing else to do but defend Spike to anyone who dares disagree with your world view. But I will no longer respond to any comment you make in any live journal.
This comment was screened. You must respond to it or unscreen it before others can see it.
I clearly have nothing else to do? You mean, you haven't gone to look at my LJ? I'm crushed, crushed!
I don't follow you around to my friends' journals. I read my friends' journals because, duh, they are on my friends list. You know how this LJ thing works, right?
I'm sorry I assumed you were interested in reading any of those essays, but if I ever see you say again on a LJ or any BB that you've never read a pro-Spike essay that doesn't compare Spike and Angel, I will probably call you lazy, stupid, or in willful denial. Again. Also, maybe a liar, though I guess you can evade that accusation if you don't actually *read* the essays. Because I can't think of another alternative to why you would say such a thing.
If that's not it, then I figure you must feel pretty stupid for not having looked around very much to find the really cool essays by a lot of smart people out there, but there's really no shame in it. Why not try http://www.google.com? Type in "Spike redemption essays"--I bet you'll find even more great essays out there, none of which mention, much less bash Angel.
Ooh, here's another cool site:
http://www.nothinglikethesun.com/Essays.shtml
I just checked out the first essay, and no, no mention of Angel, yet it's pro-Spike and his redemption. I think LJ highlights the links automatically, so you just have to click it. No trouble at all, in case it's that laziness thing kicking in.
Hope this helps.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-11 03:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-11 08:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-12 08:18 pm (UTC)If the writers hadn't come out and said that was the interpretation they were writing.
Joss emphasized that yet again just recently at Comic Con. At that point, it's become the show position.
Now, if you are saying "That may what's on the show but I don't accept that." That's fine. Everyone is entitled to that. But it is something where we choose to do these things (and there are occasions where I choose it to) I admit openly that I had taking a stand against the shows intent. . .one that they've stated. I can say that I see the events on screen and therefore reject the show. But I don't deny what the show meant to say or that I am standing in opposition to the show. Nor, can I argue with someone who accepts and agrees witht the show's stance. I can only say that I reject the show (and again there are instances where I choose to do that. I just do so with the knowlege that my position is considered apocraphyl by the show. There's a point of admitting that the show and it's writers are saying one thing and that is the show's position, regardless of one's own. You don't have to accept it as your own, but personally when I do this I openly admit that it is in opposition to the writer's stated stance on the text. I don't pretend it is otherwise.
If you're going to rebel against the show... embrace your rebellion.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-14 10:34 am (UTC)