(no subject)

[shadowkat]

Found a few things of interest on lj today:

1. http://community.ew.com/2015/07/24/love-bites-angel-or-spike/

Basically one EW blogger writes for Team Angel, and one for Team Spike. So far they have one comment.
The Team Angel comment lost me when she told me that both Angel and Buffy were heroes...eh, not really. Angel is what I'd call an anti-hero or classic noir hero - whose actions inevitably doom everyone around him, and he can never quite rise above his flaws. Reminds me a lot of the character of Luke in General Hospital, actually, abusive father, saintly mother, adoring sister, killed both his parents, and tries to be a hero, has an earth-shaking soul-mate relationship with a petite blond girl, who is a hero, but he can't ever really be with -- without destroying her. Later, he has a far more adult relationship with a rich bitchy heiress, who saves him a few times from himself, but is always feeling put aside by his one great first love with the pretty blond heroine (Laura). Finally, coming to grips with his issues, he decides to leave town, leave both loves, and go find his own redemption. It's not a new trope. Actually I didn't realize how similar the character's arcs were until I just wrote that.

Hero? Eh...depends on how narrow or broad your definition is and what your criteria for hero is.
Mileage varies on it. I've argued it to death on lj. Dlgood and I used to fight over it. We have yet to persuade one another. Actually, we just end up pissing each other off. Which to be honest happens most of the time that anyone engages in this particular debate. Because let's face it - one person's idea of a hero may well be another person's idea of a villain. Look at the political landscape, for every person who saw Obama or Bush or Reagan or Clinton or Carter or Nixon or Roosevelt or Churchill as heroic, there was someone else who REALLY didn't. Same is true with religion and mythology. Hercules - if read one way, is heroic, read another way is anything but.

Actually that was what I liked about how they wrote Angel and Spike on Buffy, you could argue it both ways. This was true of all the characters on that series, at any given moment they could either do something unexpectedly heroic or villainous.

People want it to clear cut or black and white. Black hats vs. White Hats. Heroes vs. Villains. But seriously? That's boring and predictable. Far more interesting when its not.

2. Tumblr discussions.

*People on Tumblr miss livejournal, while there are folks defending tumblir

* and Frelling Talk's discussion of it in LJ

Personally, I think the popularity is a side effect of people doing everything communication oriented on their smartphone.

Comments

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, I agree with all that. But ...I still don't see any of that as being necessarily heroic, at least not in the modern sense of the word. It is however the definition of the film noir hero.

"The noir hero is a knight in blood caked armor. He's dirty and he does his best to deny the fact that he's a hero the whole time.” - Frank Miller.

or, better yet - see the essay below:

http://www.filmnoirstudies.com/essays/detective_hero.asp

These hard-boiled heroes are anti-social loners that are subject to existential angst. The environments they live and work in are dark and scary metropolises, often red-light districts, or otherwise dehumanizing environments, like large desolate office buildings. They are experiencing anonymity through their large scale surroundings. The tough guy is often marked by an excellent gift of verbal wit, even if they are not always given the strongest intellect; this is a heritage from the hard-boiled novels. Their worlds are dominated by crime, corruption and cruelty. The protagonist often gets tangled up in some of these activities himself, in addition to his interest in the erotic. Thus, he lives in a distorting world.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/general/does-film-noir-mirror-the-culture/the-male-protagonist.php

In the Angel's world, there are no heroes, there are no villains, just monsters with varying agendas. But within that world there are flashes of heroism.

Anyhow, I think this goes back to the general thrust of my initial post about differing types of heroes? And how mileage, it varies on this point?

I mean we generally agree, what we disagree on is what type of hero Angel is. I don't see him as a romantic hero, I see him as a hero caked in blood.

[elisi]

I wouldn't call him a romantic hero, and he certainly fits into the noir mould very well. I just think there's... more to him.

I get like this with my favourite characters - there are so many facets that I automatically rebel if someone tries to pigeon hole them. Spike is probably the ultimate example of this, but Angel is up there too. :)

ETA: What I mean is that how I view is a little like a patchwork quilt. With opinions like this playing into it. He's a son, he's a lover, he's a hero, he's a monster, he's a victim, he's a father (not just to Connor, but to those he's sired as well)... Actually, maybe this fic captures him best: Shashu Blue.

He wears the coat, the look, the cadence of noir... But it's only the first layer.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Eh, not really pigeon-holing. Just don't see him the way that the EW shipper did, which is swoon-worthy big hero or as a romantic hero. And I like the character too..

Don't believe me? Check out this essay:

http://www.oocities.org/shadowkatbtvs/as_restraint.html

Also I was discussing him within the narrow context of the EW post, not generally.

[elisi]

Oh, I'm not arguing, really. Pollyanna here... /o\

And nope, not a big swoon-worthy romantic hero. Unless it's Spike swooning. ;)