Pet peeve here - Spike did not live with his mother. He owned the house and everything in it - the oldest male inherited it all. His mother was allowed to live there but she was not in charge except when he allowed it.Also they were pretty rich if they kept their own carriage rather than using a hack, and if they used the same doctor as Queen Victoria.)
From a historical perspective that may well be true. But is it from a story perspective? Keeping in mind the vast number of historical inaccuracies and inconsistencies there are in the text? (The ATPOBTVS board had a field day with Selfless).
Also, was his father dead? Away? And was he the only living male in the house? Did he own it?
We aren't really given that much information - outside of the fact that we see him with just his mother. And later he returns with Dru - and kills everyone in the house, except his mother - who he decides to turn into a vampire and then stakes. We also know he is 26, slightly older than Angel was when he was turned. (I'm only 126 - he states in one of the Buffy episodes.)
So multiple possibilities exist: 1. The male head of the household/father was away - it was the Victorian Age, he could be at his estates or business. 2. He may have had brothers or a father? Angel after all had a mother who we never saw. If brother - see #1 and #5). 3. he was as you suggest the male head of the household and she lived with him. 4. They'd been taken in by her brother and were living on his charity. 5. She was divorced (they did get divorced back then) and the father owned the house but lived elsewhere, but it was in her name. Or they were separated.
It really is not clear from the actual text or subtext, which it is.
[As an aside, I'm in the minority in the Spike fandom, in that I loved Spike in S5 Angel. Actually liked him better in that season than in S7, because he had more to do and we got a bit more of him. I had a different take on the character than most of fandom did, which often put me at odds with various people. (For example - it did not surprise me that he attacked Buffy in Seeing Red - saw that coming a mile away, what did surprise and fascinate me was what he did afterwards. Also was not at all surprised and thought it in character that he and Harmony shagged the moment he became solid. Or that he enjoyed tormenting Angel. I actually found that hilarious. But I didn't ship Angel and Spike as lovers, I shipped them as brothers, and I have a younger brother - that's our relationship. We snark and rip at each other in the same way. I loved their relationship - from the brother perspective. A lot of fans didn't see them as brothers - they saw them as either father/son (didn't see that really, more older brother/younger brother dynamic - the older brother acting as father figure at different points, because siblings can have that type of odd dynamic), or lovers. So how you viewed Spike in S5 and S5 in general probably had a lot to do with how you perceived the character. I know people who preferred him on Angel to Buffy, because they liked Spike with more edge. I liked him complicated. Actually, the Spike Wars were pretty much the result of everyone being deeply invested in their own view of the character and dammit all to hell!! if it isn't the only one. Differ with that interpretation at your own risk. When the character was portrayed and written so ambiguously that it was possible to have multiple interpretations. Heck the writers and actors themselves disagreed on how he should be interpreted. The commentary from everyone Marsters to Whedon is well contradictory and depending on their mood. Doylist and Watsonian views depict this.
I think that may be one of the reasons I got so obsessed with him. I loved the fact that there were so many perspectives and contradictory points of view. To some he was a romantic hero, some an anti-hero, other's a villain, others - comic relief.
It makes him an interesting but at times difficult character to discuss with people. Particularly those who intense feelings about him.]
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2014-10-13 02:42 am (UTC)From a historical perspective that may well be true. But is it from a story perspective? Keeping in mind the vast number of historical inaccuracies and inconsistencies there are in the text? (The ATPOBTVS board had a field day with Selfless).
Also, was his father dead? Away? And was he the only living male in the house? Did he own it?
We aren't really given that much information - outside of the fact that we see him with just his mother. And later he returns with Dru - and kills everyone in the house, except his mother - who he decides to turn into a vampire and then stakes. We also know he is 26, slightly older than Angel was when he was turned. (I'm only 126 - he states in one of the Buffy episodes.)
So multiple possibilities exist:
1. The male head of the household/father was away - it was the Victorian Age, he could be at his estates or business.
2. He may have had brothers or a father? Angel after all had a mother who we never saw. If brother - see #1 and #5).
3. he was as you suggest the male head of the household and she lived with him.
4. They'd been taken in by her brother and were living on his charity.
5. She was divorced (they did get divorced back then) and the father owned the house but lived elsewhere, but it was in her name. Or they were separated.
It really is not clear from the actual text or subtext, which it is.
[As an aside, I'm in the minority in the Spike fandom, in that I loved Spike in S5 Angel. Actually liked him better in that season than in S7, because he had more to do and we got a bit more of him. I had a different take on the character than most of fandom did, which often put me at odds with various people. (For example - it did not surprise me that he attacked Buffy in Seeing Red - saw that coming a mile away, what did surprise and fascinate me was what he did afterwards. Also was not at all surprised and thought it in character that he and Harmony shagged the moment he became solid. Or that he enjoyed tormenting Angel. I actually found that hilarious. But I didn't ship Angel and Spike as lovers, I shipped them as brothers, and I have a younger brother - that's our relationship. We snark and rip at each other in the same way. I loved their relationship - from the brother perspective. A lot of fans didn't see them as brothers - they saw them as either father/son (didn't see that really, more older brother/younger brother dynamic - the older brother acting as father figure at different points, because siblings can have that type of odd dynamic), or lovers. So how you viewed Spike in S5 and S5 in general probably had a lot to do with how you perceived the character. I know people who preferred him on Angel to Buffy, because they liked Spike with more edge. I liked him complicated. Actually, the Spike Wars were pretty much the result of everyone being deeply invested in their own view of the character and dammit all to hell!! if it isn't the only one. Differ with that interpretation at your own risk. When the character was portrayed and written so ambiguously that it was possible to have multiple interpretations. Heck the writers and actors themselves disagreed on how he should be interpreted. The commentary from everyone Marsters to Whedon is well contradictory and depending on their mood. Doylist and Watsonian views depict this.
I think that may be one of the reasons I got so obsessed with him. I loved the fact that there were so many perspectives and contradictory points of view. To some he was a romantic hero, some an anti-hero, other's a villain, others - comic relief.
It makes him an interesting but at times difficult character to discuss with people. Particularly those who intense feelings about him.]