![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatManaged to figure out how to make fried chicken and fried zuccini/summer squash with almond flour last night. Seasoned it with garlic/parsley/sea salt/pepper, and used coconut oil. Was rather tasty.
Read that some online blog or zine believes :
AtS is better than BtVS. "If Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a show about becoming, then Angel is about something far more challenging: existing. There is a rot to the world, one that threatens to infect us all—not in grand, dramatic ways, but mundane ones. Entropy and inertia are the natural order of things. According to Holland Manners, the world doesn’t work in spite of evil—it works with it".
Eh, the two series are so completely different in tone and style, that it is akin to saying an apple is better than a pear. You either prefer the pear or the apple, but one is not necessarily better than the other. I personally prefer apples - I like the crunch and variety, pears are too mushy. Not a fan of mushy texture. Also pears are sweeter and have a higher inflammatory index. But I know lots of people who prefer pears.
My brother never understood why I preferred Buffy to Angel. He thought Angel was more adult (eh, not really - well not if you include the last four seasons of Buffy, which he wasn't fond of.) Also, my sister-in-law and brother never understood why my mother and I preferred Spike. My mother didn't like Angel and could never get into the series that bore his name, because in part she found the character uninteresting and the actor wooden. While my brother and sisinlaw loved the series, and found Angel adorable. Also they found the physical comedy on Angel hilarious, while it tended to fall flat for me - but the witty by-play and absurdist comedy on Buffy had me laughing out loud.
My father, on the other hand, blissfully ignored both series and watches NCIS instead.
Never been a fan of fantasy serials.
We don't discuss it much. But it is interesting - how people swear one series is better than another, when if fact they are merely just pointing out a preference which has zip to do with any objective criteria whatsoever. I mean, I can argue both are excellent and both are campy cheesy serials, with little effort.
I do however think that of the two, Buffy was far more innovative. Let's face it - Angel has been done multiple times. Brimstone (short-lived), Koljack the Night Stalker, Forever Knight, Moonlight, etc. The most innovative take on the whole Angel trope is probably the serial The Originals, which isn't nearly as well written or captivating. But Buffy? I can't think of anything that resembles Buffy past or present. The closest might have been Veronica Mars. Vamp Diaries - is more about the vampires, not about a girl's coming of age story fighting them. And is there any female superhero shows on at the moment? Not that I can think of. In the past? Maybe Wonder Woman or Dark Angel - but neither featured quite the type of character line up that Buffy had. No, I think one of the reasons I became a die-hard fan of Buffy in a way that I have not become a fan of anything else before or since, is that it just broke the mold or stood outside of the trope, often making fun of or satirising the tropes it found itself in. It just was so different. And unlike a lot of tv shows, never sat on its laurels or phoned it in - the writers kept experimenting and playing with the narrative form. I can't think of many tv shows that have done all of that.
So yes, from that perspective Buffy was the more innovative and interesting series. Angel was a spin-off that initially followed a fairly safe and traditional anti-hero noir detective trope. What Angel did do that separated itself from the pack, however, is it became highly serialized and built a mythology. It also played a little with the trope and commented on it, often making fun of itself in the process, particularly in the latter (and in my opinion at least far more interesting and innovative) seasons.
Actually if you think about it - both shows have that in common. The initial seasons sort of follow a standard and somewhat formulaic traditional television trope. A gang of high-school kids fight and occasionally fall in love with monsters, and the monsters reflect the nasty high school issues they are dealing with. That has sort of been done before and after Buffy - Vampire Diaries was sort of that trope, Hex, and a few others. Albeit not as often as the supernatural noirish lone detective trope has been done (the latest entry to that fold is Constantine and well Sleepy Hollow, Gotham, and Supernatural). Angel started out that way, then sort of drifted away from it - making a law firm of all things the main villain. Normally it's other vampires, family members, demons, or some criminal mob boss - but here it was lawyers and their ability to create order through "laws". Angel tackled order, law, regulations, and control as problems. The Authority - was always the main problem for Angel, the monster or demon that had to be overcome - whether that authority was religious in nature (ie. God or the PTB), legal (the evil law firm WRH), or societal pressures. The phrase "Everybody thinks this is a good idea" - was often the opposite on Angel. And this was in a way what set Angel apart from it's predecessors who often focused on chaos as the bad guy. In Forever Knight - the lead character was a cop, and the monsters were people outside of the police force. On Angel - the bad guy was the police force.
Buffy was similar in a way - it too had issues with Authority. The Mayor was one the major villains in the series. As was the Watcher Council - who could not be counted on and often did more harm than good. Buffy was in some respects based heavily on the Western Trope of the lone gunfighter who comes into town to fix it up, the police, mayor, principal, council - all being a bit on the shady side and part of the problem. It's notable that when Buffy finally becomes an authority figure herself - she becomes her own worst enemy and must blow the town apart along with her image, until she becomes once again - the fighter, not the leader of an increasingly bureaucratic and fascist system.
While it's tempting to think that the writers/creators of these series have been reading a wee bit too much Ayn Rand in their spare time, I don't believe this to be the case. For one thing, not all authority is circumspect, nor is the individual always right. In Rand's universe - as satirized recently online, Buffy would not suffer the aid of Xander or pre-witch Willow. She would do it on her own. And she'd demand to be paid for it. (Although to be fair, I always thought the Council should have given her some compensation. I don't buy into the naive and somewhat childish theory that superheros should save people for free or out of pure altruism - when they have no income and aren't independently wealthy. Heck, soliders, firemen, and cops don't. Support your local sheriff. But that's beside the point and has zip to do with Rand, who was a bit of an extremist in her views. Probably the result of growing up in Stalinist Russia. A good and nasty dictatorship could turn anyone into an extremist.) At any rate - the rebellion against Authority or the Powers that Be is certainly not a new concept and not limited to Whedon or even Rand, although I think Rand had more problems with people who wanted to be taken care of - than authority per se, as long as she was the authority. Phillip Pullman certainly tackles similar issues with his controversial series of children's books entitled His Dark Materials - where a couple of kids challenge The Authority or the organization supporting HIM, the Authority doesn't appear to be around. An idea that has been borrowed to a degree by Supernatural - where Dean and Sam, demon hunters extrordinare, equally question the unknowable and notably absent Authority - and his crumbling organization of angelic followers. Or George Orwell and Adolus Huxley who warn of the dangers of trusting an Authority too much with our basic freedoms and rights in the sci-fi novels 1984 and Brave New World respectively.
But just because it's not a new idea, does not mean you can't be innovative. After all, to borrow an old adage from copyright law, there are no new ideas or even original ones, just new ways of playing with them. What Angel and Buffy did differently was how they envisioned the Authority, and dealt with the struggle to defeat it - discovering to both their considerable chagrin - that when they did finally overthrow or seemingly overthrew the Authority, someone or something had to fill the vaccume left behind - and in both cases it turned out to be Buffy and Angel.
When they became the Authority or guy/gal in charge - things didn't quite work as they thought. They found themselves making some of the same mistakes the authority figures they spent so much time fighting had made. In the end, the only escape, was to blow it apart. Creating another problem - chaos.
Unlike most series, there is no neat ending here. Buffy blows up her town, shares her power, journey's off into the horizon - but is suddenly responsible for all those girls she empowered and the consequences of unleashing them into the world with no rules or authority to train or hinder them. Angel similarly blows up the law firm, and is dumped into Chaos...with hell raining down on him.
The writer's don't provide neat answers. Just questions. Destroy the authority, do we become it? And what then? The child rebels against the adult order, only to become that order...Neither extreme works, and both try to work towards the happy medium.
Most series don't appear to explore it to quite that degree or in quite that fashion. Since Buffy and Angel don't just tackle religious order but also societal order. Most series seem to stop short somewhere along the road. And that may be how these differed at least to me.
Your Mileage May Vary of course.
Need to make dinner.This was unedited and not proofed. Read at your own risk. I may come back and edit tomorrow. Not sure. Didn't plan on writing it. Just sort of came out. [ETA - has been edited somewhat.]
Read that some online blog or zine believes :
AtS is better than BtVS. "If Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a show about becoming, then Angel is about something far more challenging: existing. There is a rot to the world, one that threatens to infect us all—not in grand, dramatic ways, but mundane ones. Entropy and inertia are the natural order of things. According to Holland Manners, the world doesn’t work in spite of evil—it works with it".
Eh, the two series are so completely different in tone and style, that it is akin to saying an apple is better than a pear. You either prefer the pear or the apple, but one is not necessarily better than the other. I personally prefer apples - I like the crunch and variety, pears are too mushy. Not a fan of mushy texture. Also pears are sweeter and have a higher inflammatory index. But I know lots of people who prefer pears.
My brother never understood why I preferred Buffy to Angel. He thought Angel was more adult (eh, not really - well not if you include the last four seasons of Buffy, which he wasn't fond of.) Also, my sister-in-law and brother never understood why my mother and I preferred Spike. My mother didn't like Angel and could never get into the series that bore his name, because in part she found the character uninteresting and the actor wooden. While my brother and sisinlaw loved the series, and found Angel adorable. Also they found the physical comedy on Angel hilarious, while it tended to fall flat for me - but the witty by-play and absurdist comedy on Buffy had me laughing out loud.
My father, on the other hand, blissfully ignored both series and watches NCIS instead.
Never been a fan of fantasy serials.
We don't discuss it much. But it is interesting - how people swear one series is better than another, when if fact they are merely just pointing out a preference which has zip to do with any objective criteria whatsoever. I mean, I can argue both are excellent and both are campy cheesy serials, with little effort.
I do however think that of the two, Buffy was far more innovative. Let's face it - Angel has been done multiple times. Brimstone (short-lived), Koljack the Night Stalker, Forever Knight, Moonlight, etc. The most innovative take on the whole Angel trope is probably the serial The Originals, which isn't nearly as well written or captivating. But Buffy? I can't think of anything that resembles Buffy past or present. The closest might have been Veronica Mars. Vamp Diaries - is more about the vampires, not about a girl's coming of age story fighting them. And is there any female superhero shows on at the moment? Not that I can think of. In the past? Maybe Wonder Woman or Dark Angel - but neither featured quite the type of character line up that Buffy had. No, I think one of the reasons I became a die-hard fan of Buffy in a way that I have not become a fan of anything else before or since, is that it just broke the mold or stood outside of the trope, often making fun of or satirising the tropes it found itself in. It just was so different. And unlike a lot of tv shows, never sat on its laurels or phoned it in - the writers kept experimenting and playing with the narrative form. I can't think of many tv shows that have done all of that.
So yes, from that perspective Buffy was the more innovative and interesting series. Angel was a spin-off that initially followed a fairly safe and traditional anti-hero noir detective trope. What Angel did do that separated itself from the pack, however, is it became highly serialized and built a mythology. It also played a little with the trope and commented on it, often making fun of itself in the process, particularly in the latter (and in my opinion at least far more interesting and innovative) seasons.
Actually if you think about it - both shows have that in common. The initial seasons sort of follow a standard and somewhat formulaic traditional television trope. A gang of high-school kids fight and occasionally fall in love with monsters, and the monsters reflect the nasty high school issues they are dealing with. That has sort of been done before and after Buffy - Vampire Diaries was sort of that trope, Hex, and a few others. Albeit not as often as the supernatural noirish lone detective trope has been done (the latest entry to that fold is Constantine and well Sleepy Hollow, Gotham, and Supernatural). Angel started out that way, then sort of drifted away from it - making a law firm of all things the main villain. Normally it's other vampires, family members, demons, or some criminal mob boss - but here it was lawyers and their ability to create order through "laws". Angel tackled order, law, regulations, and control as problems. The Authority - was always the main problem for Angel, the monster or demon that had to be overcome - whether that authority was religious in nature (ie. God or the PTB), legal (the evil law firm WRH), or societal pressures. The phrase "Everybody thinks this is a good idea" - was often the opposite on Angel. And this was in a way what set Angel apart from it's predecessors who often focused on chaos as the bad guy. In Forever Knight - the lead character was a cop, and the monsters were people outside of the police force. On Angel - the bad guy was the police force.
Buffy was similar in a way - it too had issues with Authority. The Mayor was one the major villains in the series. As was the Watcher Council - who could not be counted on and often did more harm than good. Buffy was in some respects based heavily on the Western Trope of the lone gunfighter who comes into town to fix it up, the police, mayor, principal, council - all being a bit on the shady side and part of the problem. It's notable that when Buffy finally becomes an authority figure herself - she becomes her own worst enemy and must blow the town apart along with her image, until she becomes once again - the fighter, not the leader of an increasingly bureaucratic and fascist system.
While it's tempting to think that the writers/creators of these series have been reading a wee bit too much Ayn Rand in their spare time, I don't believe this to be the case. For one thing, not all authority is circumspect, nor is the individual always right. In Rand's universe - as satirized recently online, Buffy would not suffer the aid of Xander or pre-witch Willow. She would do it on her own. And she'd demand to be paid for it. (Although to be fair, I always thought the Council should have given her some compensation. I don't buy into the naive and somewhat childish theory that superheros should save people for free or out of pure altruism - when they have no income and aren't independently wealthy. Heck, soliders, firemen, and cops don't. Support your local sheriff. But that's beside the point and has zip to do with Rand, who was a bit of an extremist in her views. Probably the result of growing up in Stalinist Russia. A good and nasty dictatorship could turn anyone into an extremist.) At any rate - the rebellion against Authority or the Powers that Be is certainly not a new concept and not limited to Whedon or even Rand, although I think Rand had more problems with people who wanted to be taken care of - than authority per se, as long as she was the authority. Phillip Pullman certainly tackles similar issues with his controversial series of children's books entitled His Dark Materials - where a couple of kids challenge The Authority or the organization supporting HIM, the Authority doesn't appear to be around. An idea that has been borrowed to a degree by Supernatural - where Dean and Sam, demon hunters extrordinare, equally question the unknowable and notably absent Authority - and his crumbling organization of angelic followers. Or George Orwell and Adolus Huxley who warn of the dangers of trusting an Authority too much with our basic freedoms and rights in the sci-fi novels 1984 and Brave New World respectively.
But just because it's not a new idea, does not mean you can't be innovative. After all, to borrow an old adage from copyright law, there are no new ideas or even original ones, just new ways of playing with them. What Angel and Buffy did differently was how they envisioned the Authority, and dealt with the struggle to defeat it - discovering to both their considerable chagrin - that when they did finally overthrow or seemingly overthrew the Authority, someone or something had to fill the vaccume left behind - and in both cases it turned out to be Buffy and Angel.
When they became the Authority or guy/gal in charge - things didn't quite work as they thought. They found themselves making some of the same mistakes the authority figures they spent so much time fighting had made. In the end, the only escape, was to blow it apart. Creating another problem - chaos.
Unlike most series, there is no neat ending here. Buffy blows up her town, shares her power, journey's off into the horizon - but is suddenly responsible for all those girls she empowered and the consequences of unleashing them into the world with no rules or authority to train or hinder them. Angel similarly blows up the law firm, and is dumped into Chaos...with hell raining down on him.
The writer's don't provide neat answers. Just questions. Destroy the authority, do we become it? And what then? The child rebels against the adult order, only to become that order...Neither extreme works, and both try to work towards the happy medium.
Most series don't appear to explore it to quite that degree or in quite that fashion. Since Buffy and Angel don't just tackle religious order but also societal order. Most series seem to stop short somewhere along the road. And that may be how these differed at least to me.
Your Mileage May Vary of course.
Need to make dinner.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-10-12 12:23 am (UTC)In the Buffyverse they are denied the right to really mature - they are simply seen as static entities. Moving to AtS opens their personal universes in some amazing ways. I know this was needed - Buffy had it's quota of characters to follow if nothing else.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-12 01:03 am (UTC)It defied description - another reason why Buffy stands heads and shoulders above Angel in television history. It blended genres and created a new one.
I would even say that some of those who do not handle the authority issue well - Wesley and Faith, obviously in different ways - are only redeemed in AtS. They were noir characters in a non-noir universe.
Well, to be fair, they weren't really part of the cast, so much as guest stars or supporting players, sort of like Lilah and Lindsey were in ATS. But in ATS, Wes was a lead character. And Faith was paired up as a foil to Angel not Buffy. Keep that in mind. Angel doesn't believe he can be redeemed, he would like to redeem Faith - she's sort of a foil. It's why Spike is redeemed on Buffy not really redeemed on Angel (unless you think he was in S5 Angel, but I honestly think he was redeemed in Buffy first.) He's to Buffy what Faith was Angel in many ways, and vice versa.
n the Buffyverse they are denied the right to really mature - they are simply seen as static entities. Moving to AtS opens their personal universes in some amazing ways. I know this was needed - Buffy had it's quota of characters to follow if nothing else.
Also different focus and themes. Wes was explored to a degree on Buffy - but considering he was on the series for about five to six episodes in the 3rd season and as a foil for Giles and barely had that many lines - while on ATS - he was basically Angel's version of Giles and a major character - in pretty much all the episodes.
Same with Faith in some respects. Although I actually think she had a far more interesting arc on Buffy - I prefer the episodes Consequences, Enemies, Who are You and This Year's Girl to the one's on ATS that I barely remember. And Who Are You is the episode that changed Faith, just as Bad Girls was. Angel basically was the wrap up.
So, I'll have to disagree on Faith - I think her arc on Buffy was far more interesting. Granted she didn't have as much to do in S7 - but at that point - it was more about Buffy coming to terms with Faith. And I'm not all that sure she had all that much to do on Angel in S4 - because she mainly served as a sounding board or foil for Angel's fight with Angelus in Orpheus, as well as Wes in the prior episode.
Keep in mind - Angel only explored characters that furthered Angel's arc. Spike's arc was far more interesting on Buffy than Angel - in more episodes. And Willow and Buffy - same deal - better on Buffy.
Darla and Dru however got more screen time on Angel - which makes sense they are Angelus' family - they informed Angel. Buffy? They were villains - although we did get more back story on Dru in Buffy than we did on Angel, actually, due to Spike. So Dru was actually better developed on Buffy. On Angel - she was merely something he felt guilty and responsible about.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-12 01:36 am (UTC)Also different focus and themes. Wes was explored to a degree on Buffy - but considering he was on the series for about five to six episodes in the 3rd season and as a foil for Giles and barely had that many lines - while on ATS - he was basically Angel's version of Giles and a major character - in pretty much all the episodes.
<italics> Also different focus and themes. Wes was explored to a degree on Buffy - but considering he was on the series for about five to six episodes in the 3rd season and as a foil for Giles and barely had that many lines - while on ATS - he was basically Angel's version of Giles and a major character - in pretty much all the episodes. <italics\>
Yeah - I can understand all that as a Doylist. But I was pure Watsonian in my comments. And in a Watsonian sense, this is what went wrong for Wesley. In fact, though he did take a moral stand in trading for Willow, he also made an ass of himself, got fired and tried to reinvent himself as a rogue demon hunt. But he was still desperately in need of validation.
<italics> So, I'll have to disagree on Faith - I think her arc on Buffy was far more interesting. Granted she didn't have as much to do in S7 - but at that point - it was more about Buffy coming to terms with Faith. And I'm not all that sure she had all that much to do on Angel in S4 - because she mainly served as a sounding board or foil for Angel's fight with Angelus in Orpheus, as well as Wes in the prior episode. <italics\>
I prefer her in Angel, from her torture of Wesley to the Angel Orpheus sequence. "Dude, you saved a puppy!", I like the emotional range she had in Angel, as well as her faith in Angel. It's very like Spike's faith in Buffy, really.
Okay - ignore the pretend italics.....sigh
no subject
Date: 2014-10-12 10:00 pm (UTC)Angel is the opposite - Angel likes the patriarchial order, and wants its approval. He's the kid who rebels to get his parents attention but wants approval, while Buffy isn't really rebelling, so much as questioning the authority and deciding, okay, this doesn't work - I'm doing this instead. The different perspectives on authority are rather important I think in how the story arcs play out. Angel like Wes doesn't really dismiss it out of hand. And he struggles to play by its rules, even if he resides outside them. From Angel's perspective, Wes is similar to Giles...an information resource and someone to trust. And Angel, unlike Buffy, sympathizes with Wes on a deep level - both have father issues. Both want/need their father's approval. Both desire power and either don't have it or have it by unsavory means. And both want redemption - for past wrongs or failings. Buffy may have father issues but not quite on the same level as Angel and Wes.
Because of the perspective, the supporting characters come across differently.
Angel was far more interesting in his own series than on Buffy for example.
And even Spike - we see a different Spike on Angel, he's coarser in some ways,
and rougher. Even Buffy herself is different on Angel than on Buffy, because of whose pov we are in.
Angel doesn't believe in redemption, but Buffy clearly does - that comes across in the tone and focus of both series. On Angel - Spike's soul is questioned and whether a vampire can be good without one (of course not - from Angel's perception). But on Buffy, Spike gets his soul and it's not really questioned. Angel has to question it - or admit to his own failing.
Buffy doesn't quite have that problem, she does question it to an extent, but she is able to shrug the Angel conundrum off a bit - while Angel obviously can't. Also Spike could rest the shanshu from him, take away Angel's destiny, which has kept him going for the past five years...that means Angel has to worry about Spike. He's going to view him differently and emphasize his faults. Unlike Buffy - he's in competition with Spike. Buffy, on the other hand, questions Faith, because unlike Angel - she's in competition with Faith.
Faith is a threat. But less of one than Spike is to Angel. So Faith will always be viewed slightly differently in Buffy's pov - less capable, not trust-worthy. While in Angel's she is.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-13 01:50 am (UTC)Wesley has a wonderfully tragic existence - and that is tragic in the classical sense. It is his strength and hubris which leads to his downfall.
Spike, much as I love him, was really annoying on about 1/3 of his time on W&H - between the discovery of Lindsy-Doyle and the visit by Lawson mainly. His remarks about Angel and sex were as enjoyable as Anya's orgasm remarks. He did present a challenge to Angel, though I don't think he ever wanted the Shanshu. He wanted Angel to see him. That is one of his constants - from telling Cecily throughout most of his unlife. Dru saw him, and let him take care of her. I think through most of the shows Spike needed to be seen or he felt invisible. He needed validation from outside himself. His journey in Angel was to move past that.
(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.)
Faith - I think she and Buffy did reach an understanding once Faith felt the pressure of being the leader.
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.]
no subject
Date: 2014-10-13 03:33 am (UTC)I think he was all of those at different times, and I love to read different takes on various characters - mostly Spike. Here's my take - father was a wealthy American, mother was from a branch of dirt poor nobility - a youngest daughter, a niece. Victorian Americans always wanted the cache of nobility, while Brits wanted the cash infusion. Good breeding and a good name, but Spike was also the son of a tradesman in a time where work was still lower class. I also think his father is dead since there is no mention of him. That leaves Anne dependent on her child since her extended family would prefer to ignore the widow of an American.
I doubt he had siblings that were still alive, but I assume he had some that had died. We do know that Angel's mother existed and was alive. I kind of assume if they are not seen or spoken of then they are dead. Sibs are a total invention of mine but the birth and death rates happen to be high. Tuberculosis was rampant, and Mom did have it. William seemed pretty experienced in nursing.
Did her really kill everyone in the house? I assume that until he went to war with Angelus he kind of fed to eat. And after a good fight. But servants don't offer a good fight. Then again, anything is possible. This is the writer in me - I know I invented this out of bits and pieces and other historical knowledge, but it works for me. :D
As for lovers....in the years where they were the Fanged Four I can't imagine any reason for Angelus to not have sex with William, whether or not William was willing. This is what Angelus did - he played with your mind and your body. He might well want to drive the sniveling poet around the bend, but Spike survived by being unpredictable and eventually quite willing to take pain. Penn was a perfect little student and Spike was a challenge. I'd say they were victim/rapist at first and fuck buddies once they got past the early days.
Brother - hell yes. But incest was clearly not an issue for Angelus. Father and son - not often but I can see it in the past. Old marrieds - yeah. That's the joy of Spangel - these two are both so important to where each of them is now, and yet not important at all. Spike slept with two women that Angel had (three if he slept with Darla which is more than possible). And he actually, voluntarily, went off to get a soul. Much as he hates it, he revolves around Angel. He tries to be the exact opposite of Angel as well. Either way he does seem to do a lot in reaction to Angel.
When Spike came to W&H, as much as Angel bitched and moaned he also reflexively worried. There is no way Angel would have killed Spike. You don't set ground rules with someone you intend to kill the next day. And Angel trusted Spike with his life - yeah, they couldn't stand each other, they had some deep problems, and they knew each other, really knew each other.
Many levels to explore....
The joy of YMMV is that it provides grist for the mill. Ideas go in - stories come out. Even my own comments sometimes surprise me.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-13 03:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-13 04:15 pm (UTC)I agree Spike was clearly the sole caretaker of his mother. They were upper-middle class, but did not have that many servants - possibly one or two.
He had a good education - most likely went to Eton and Oxford. Note the poetry and the fact that Spike knows more than one language, and knows books and text. Also William is seen in a scholarly setting and as a scholar. Plus, Spike's response to Dru is take down the wealthy - it's a very rebellious scholarly take on bourgeosie values at the time.
Angel was from the upper class - but he's Irish. Not English. Had servants. And a father who could get him out of trouble. A big fish in a small town.
Both merchant class.
This is clear from the text.
Since William appears to be the sole caregiver for his mother. The father is either dead, remarried, or not available. He also is clearly an only child - again since he's the sole caregiver and wants to take her with him. Whoever wrote that sequence in Lies My Parents Told Me clearly read The Vampire Lestate at some point - because it is quite similar to that text in some respects.
I'm guessing no siblings, or if there are any - they are either away in India, or not involved and don't care - since William feels the need to
save her from her disease and take her with him. He's devoted, too devoted, and that makes me think he's either an only child or the siblings are much older and long gone.
He probably killed the servants, not that there were many, since there are none in evidence and she wonders what happened to them. He sort of admits to killing them in Lies. And heck new vampire - hungry, also hello - Drusilla!
But you are correct, he wasn't really into killing in quite the same way Angelus was - since he turns down Angelus' offer to kill a bride and groom - and just wants to get back to Dru.
Did Angel and Spike have sex? Well - yes. That's in the subtext. But it only happened once or twice. (See S5 - Illyria and Spike sort of discuss it. Spike says there were hardly initimate...then pauses, and says, well there was that one time...but nothing serious.) So yes, vampires they played at it. But no, I don't think it was ever more than maybe once or twice. The text seems to contradict that. (I actually had hoped otherwise, but no - the text and subtext clearly state a one or two/three time thing tops.)
no subject
Date: 2014-10-12 05:07 am (UTC)Wesley was much more interesting on Angel - but notably, he *was* redeemed on Buffy. He speed up at the battle and Buffy admitted tacitly that it was classy. He ends Grad Day a buffoon - but a buffoon who gave his all, and survives. Giles even makes a point of mentioning he is going to find him! So BtVS seven gives happier, more redemptive endings for Cordelia and Wesley in s3 than AtS does.
In a way, AtS really is almost against the idea that redemption ia possible. The only unqualified success in redemption is Faith - and as you say, it was WAY that did the big work of turning her around. Connor gets 'redeemed' - but not really; Angel replaced the real Connor with a completely different person. We see Angel's stance on Lindsey. Lilah remains damned. Harmony even gets a sort of happier ending on Buffy - she at least grows enough to recognize that Spike will never treat her right, and leaves. Her forward momentum, such as it was, in AtS s5, is reversed at the end.
Now this all feeds into the basic difference between the two shows - but it is interesting that people claim that AtS is a show more committed to the idea of redemption. Because basically - it essentially disproves redemption is possible. Angel fails when he decided his son was unsalvageable without rewriting him from the ground up - and permanently dooms everyone else in his life, including people like Lindsey who actually take their cues from Angel. (Lindsey is possessed with Angel - and I think him finding out that Angel took over W&H clues Lindsey in that Angel has given up on his epiphany, so Lindsey should give up on trying to change too. Lindsey, when he thinks Angel has a) turned a corner and b) respects him, in NFA, sees himself as a potential good guy. Lindsey is another classic narcissist - much less committed to goodness than Angel, but when Angel seems to think it's possible for Lindsey to be good, or acts like he does, Lindsey considers it. Like Angel, he is desperate for a place in the world, from W&H or Darla. That Angel so completely dismisses him is indicative of Angel's total lack of belief that Angel himself can ever change, IMO. It's not so much that I think he owes Lindsey better - well, he owes him better than executing him! - but mostly that he owes himself better.)
no subject
Date: 2014-10-12 05:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-12 01:35 pm (UTC)I also think on the redemption arc - part of it really was focus oriented, the writers of Angel who playing around with whether it was possible to redeem someone like Angel. And well the genre, of course.
Angel was at the outset a much darker series than Buffy - with a nihilistic take on the world. Everyone who was redeemed on Buffy - fell back into the pit on Angel or was sorely tempted to. Even Faith to a degree.
And the series focused more on the dark side of the characters, their flaws. While Buffy focused more on the positives, in many ways. While Angel and Spike did horrible things on Buffy - on Angel - the horror of what they had done is shown in far darker overtones. I think that's one of the reasons various fans preferred Angel to Buffy, or vice versa.
On Buffy, Wes is more comic relief and he is shown as a bit of a buffoon. He is redeemed or rather in the end he decides to do the right thing - and works towards Giles approval as opposed to the Watchers. There's a little of that comic buffonery on Angel, but not much and it is much darker in aspect- he's shown as far more twisted. And what little redemption he receives - it gets sidelined by Home. Wes is understandably furious with Angel when he discovers what Angel did. He doomed them all to hell. Well not all - Gunn probably would have chosen WRH, but there was a strong indication that Wes and Fred were questioning it based partly on what had happened previously with Connor.
I think people often mistakenly think a nihilistic or darker take on a character or examination of a character or idea is more adult or better - when it is merely a different way of looking at it.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-12 08:35 pm (UTC)It's amongst my favorite and most brilliant written of the series - because it really digs into the psychology of Faith and Buffy, using the slayer mythology to further play with that.
Faith's interaction with Riley - is a good example. Where she attempts to just have "sex" with Riley, but Riley "makes love" to her - and she's thrown by it.And wants to know what he expects from her? Does he want something from Buffy? Does he see her as more than - well an object? Clearly Faith has never been seen as anything more than a weapon, a tool or an object.
Five By Five is more about Angel - or the male need to save the broken female.
Typical in a noir universe - with Faith playing femme fatal with the heart of gold. It's a great trope - but nothing new is said in the episode, and it doesn't tell us anything about Faith or Angel which we didn't already know from Enemies and Consequences - which were somewhat better written. (It does however tell us a few interesting things about Wesley. But that's about it.)
Buffy is portrayed as the bad guy here - wanting Faith to pay (understandable considering), while Angel is working to redeem her - a somewhat predictable take. I liked the episode and it is amongst the few I enjoyed in S1 Angel, but it is overrated.
Also, Bad Girls through Enemies - really provides some interesting information on Faith and Angel, and their relationship. Angel clearly understands Faith on a level that Buffy doesn't. At first he's worried that Buffy has fallen, then when he figures out it is Faith - he charges to her rescue, attempting to reach her - unfortunately Wes and the Watcher's interrupt him screwing things up.
In Angel - Wes redeems himself with Faith - but again the focus is more on Wes and Angel than Faith herself. It's a very male view of the character.
In Orpheus Faith attempts to save Angel and learns from Angelus that while Angel could help and save Faith - she can't really save him. Buffy is a wee bit less chauvinistic, but again that is the genre. Noir isn't the most feminist or female empowering of genres. I love the genre, but I am aware of that issue. I admit to being a bit disappointed that they didn't go a bit more in depth with the Wes/Faith relationship - but there really wasn't much time. We do however get a neat bookend with him saving Faith.