(no subject)

[shadowkat]

Watched the latest Sherlock but my mind kept wandering. Just couldn't focus on it. I think work has killed my brain again, well that and church and apartment hunting...so I really can't focus on any entertainment that requires any deep thought. Which explains why I review comic books. LOL!

There was however one great line in Sherlock that made me laugh my head off.

Sherlock upon realizing Watson was blogging about him and his cases online. "Go ahead Watson, go back to inflicting your personal opinions on people online." Sigh, unfortunately, that is what we do folks. We inflict our opinions on each other - sometimes politely....

The older I get the more I realize that not everyone interrupts things the same way. Sent out a Request for Proposal last week - and got five different questions all interpreting it differently.
Made me wonder if everyone read the same RFP. People boggle my mind. The range of ways you can interpret the same thing.

For the folks busy arguing about Angel's modus operandi and whether he was invested in saving souls or lives or whatnot? May I suggest that you check out :

http://atpobtvs.com/sindex.html

That site literally analyzes Angel the Series episode by episode, with in depth analysis, annotations, and philosophical meta by people who actually have advanced degrees in the topic.

It's possibly the most extensive site you'll find on Angel. Or at the least amongst them. As well as the most objective and thorough.

I'm used to arguments about Angel - I was on not one but two Angel boards back in 2002-2005. And we had battles, because I see Angel as more of an anti-hero, who pretty much deserved everything he got and then some, but was struggling to pick himself up and find redemption no matter how often his flaws got the better of him. What I liked about Angel was what the writers stated about the series at the time - its about those of us who aren't chosen, who aren't special, who are struggling to make our way. In some respects Angel was about struggling to find meaning in an increasingly meaningless universe. It was a complex story, with a wide variety of conflicting metaphors. But my friends on the ATPO board and Angel's Soul Board saw Angel very differently than I did. Many saw him as a hero, noble, many as just a guy struggling to make life work. What made the character interesting was the varied views.

That said? The character does not work for me in either the Dark Horse or the IDW comics. One has him too heroic, the other too moronically anti-heroic. Apparently this is a character no one can write convincingly - outside of the tv series, who knew? Either that or I really haven't given David Boreanze enough credit. Possibly a bit of both? Turns out Spike is easier to write. But that does make sense if you think about it, Angel after all is the traditional/classical hero (think Batman or Hercules), while Spike is a far more modern hero...think John Constantine or Iron Man.

Damn, it smells like waffles - from the hallway. I'm wondering about my neighbors.

Comments

[hazelk]

Many saw him as a hero, noble, many as just a guy struggling to make life work. What made the character interesting was the varied views.
It seems to me that Angel, as played by Boreanze, was pretty much a fill in your own hero character. A blank slate and once the fanfic writers got hold of him even more so. Spike as well to an extent.

David Hines had an interesting post (http://hradzka.dreamwidth.org/412402.html) a while back about how stock characters tend to be overwhelmingly male. They're easy to write because we already know most of them and I think it (the male bias) applies to protagonists as well to an extent. I mean people have diametrically opposed views on what kind of character Spike or Angel represented but like or loathe everyone seems to think they know who they are while one of main criticisms of Buffy is that she's so 'opaque.'

[shadowkat]

Can't say I agree with that interpretation at all. Angel and Spike were actually fairly well-drawn characters on both shows, with lots of back story and strong emotional arcs. Your saying just because people have vastly different views or interpretations of a character- then obviously the character was a stock character and under-developed? That's not true.
And seriously, people have vastly different views about everything.

We actually knew more about Spike and Angel than we did about Xander or Willow if you think about it. Or for that matter Giles.

The only characters I think come close to stock characters, and I don't believe there are any in Whedon's series are Harmony, Sam and possibly Riley who felt at times
felt overly cliche.

But a way to know if a character is stock or not? Is if someone can actually write an in-depth analysis using textual backup as opposed to merely making things up.

[hazelk]

I wasn't saying they were stock characters or underdeveloped. What I was saying was that like stock characters they fit certain well known types (in your own example the traditional Batman/Hercules hero type for Angel) closely enough that people see the type and impose that on the character regardless of their particular back story. It was an observation about how fans respond to the characters more than the characters per se and seemed a reasonable stab at trying to explain the (to me) curious phenomenon that people don't simply have different interpretations of these characters but diametrically opposed takes.

[shadowkat]

Ah. Thank you for the clarification.

I'm reading this at work where I'm multi-tasking, so admittedly misread.

I made the same attempt you did - trying to break it down into stock character tropes in my post above, but your response reveals to me the flaw in my own analysis.

I'm making an assumption about how others (who I don't know much about outside of what they post online which is relatively little) view or think about things. We honestly don't know why say one person sees "protagonist privilege" being expressed in the comics and another really doesn't. Is it political leanings? (shrugs). Any more than we can explain - why one interprets the female empowerment in Chosen as anti-feminist and another person does not. (I personally liked the female empowerment spell in Chosen). We can guess, but it is hard to know. Same with characters - I honestly can not find a clear pattern as to why one friend sees Angel as a noble hero and the other as a cursed guy etc. I've tried.
But each time I think I've figured out the formula, someone comes up with a new variable that just does not compute.

[shadowkat]

Okay, I scanned David Hines post now and I now understand what you were getting at. Sorry...about that. No time to read it in more depth or rather no energy. (I blame work).

The essay made me think a lot of Salt - a film that had originally had a male lead and was changed for Angelina Jolie. The stock story was the male lead saves his wife and son or something like that while on the run and how this informs his character, and motivation - etc. But it was removed from the script when Angelina took over the role - because the producers did not think it believable that a wife would save her husband. It went against the stereotype.

For many people - Buffy works best when she goes against the stereotype, when she plays with it or goes along with it - you see vehement responses. e.g. Plays Bella to Angel's Edward. The reason for this - is many of the fans of Buffy came to the show because she was not the stereotype, not the swooning gal we see in so many romantic vampire gothic tales.

People want Buffy to be the powerful working class gal heroine. I think this would not be the case if she wasn't amongst the few working class gal heroine's who can slay the bad guy and save the world.

I was having a lengthy discussion about stereotypes with norwie in my lj - and we were snarking about the following:

"Torture the Cheerleader, Save the World"

I stated, be nice if it were torture the football player for a change of pace.

That's the problem.

Going further - part of the reason a sizable chunk of the fandom is so obsessed with Spike is he goes against the stereotype - he's actually the girl in a good portion of the series. The femme fatale. Which is an interesting twist on an old trope. Angel likewise bucked stereotype by being portrayed as both the damsel and a twist on the old curse cliche. Remove the curse - he's evil, with it he's good. Cursed to be good. Spike...is the femme fatale with the heart of gold. (Sort of the male version of what BSG did to a degree with Starbuck).

When you do that - you will often attract attention. And if you play close attention to some of the fanfic out there - you'll note many writers are writing about a Buffy who is in the male role and a Spike in a female nuturing role.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I always saw Angel (not Liam, Angel) as someone who wanted to be a real hero, who tried to be that guy, but who doesn't have the natural inclination for it. It's not the person that Liam was. It's not his natural predisposition. But it is who Angel thinks he needs to be. So he strives (and fails and strives again). I think one thing that I am willing to buy in all the stupidity that is the DH comic, is that there is a Liam thread in Angel that still insists on being the most important thing around. He likes to be called "special". Want to lead Angel into something he shouldn't do it? Imply to him that he's special and chosen and you've got decent odds in luring him at least partially down that path. Angel wants to prove himself. Liam's failing is that he prefers thinking himself special so being 'chosen' really, really appeals to him (belatedly 'proving himself' to his father as Darla warned he would always do). Angel may have realized it's a never ending battle (which is what I think NFA was saying and so I think those who are currently on the side of NFA being his defeat and 'giving up' are missing the point, which was to fight even if you were pretty sure you couldn't win. Liam, on the other hand, always preferred to not have to work very hard and to have things handed to him, so that achilles flaw is under there somewhere manifesting itself in how willing Angel is to believe that somehow, someway he's 'special'. It's the internal conflict that makes him interesting. What's so infuriating about the comic is that there is no internal conflict. There's no part of him left that doesn't believe that fate really did choose him as most specialest vampire of all, which is really his missing the fact that he's cursed. If fate deemed him 'special' it was via curse, which I can't help but think should be a big ol' red flag for him whenever 'chosen' pops up. He wasn't chosen for anything 'good' that Liam or Angelus had done, so he probably should be far more wary of looking gift horses in the mouth... which AtS Angel had, on occasion, learned to do. Twangel? God, he's easy to seduce.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Hmmm...that's actually an analysis that I agree with.
I think the problem with the comics is they've overly simplified the characters or dumbed them down, as it were. (Which makes me wonder if the actors brought more to the enterprise than we are giving them credit for or they for that matter are giving themselves credit for? It is possible that on the page, Buffy is just a dumb valley girl from SoCal. (Southern California) - which is how Kristy Swanson played her in the film. Gellar played her as street smart, but that's partly because Gellar exudes a certain street smart bitchy savvy. No, I've analyzed this enough using shooting scripts and purely text that I think there was actually more depth to them in the series and far more showing then telling.)

At any rate, my only quibble with you analysis above is I think there is more to both Liam and Angel than the curse or feeling special, sure that's a flaw and a fatal one, just like his tendency to want to believe in destiny/fate, and desire to control things - but the comics are ignoring the character's attributes or the things that made Buffy fall for him, garnered Spike's friendship and comraderi, and the friendship of Faith, Willow and Cordelia. And by ignoring those attributes - the character becomes a convenient strawman for whatever metaphor or theme the writer wishes to pronounce. The comics have in a sense turned a complex character into a stock villain, with little depth.

Sure you can analyze the metaphor Angel or Twangel stands for. But your character analysis is going to be regrettably one sided. Because in order for Angel to work in the comics - you have to forget his desire for family. The shame of it all is - with a little fiddling, I could actually make Angel work as Twangel,
create a complex villian and explore the issue with much more depth. It doesn't require much - just showing us more of Angel's pov early on, possibly giving him a reason to shirk this world such as say Connor died horribly in his arms or all his friends died or any number of things. But to act as if he doesn't care about Connor or LA or any of his friends or connections there? That doesn't quite work.

The Angel I see in the comics is the one I saw in Becoming. Angel's changed since Becoming. He's been betrayed by people he trusted and by prophecies and the powers...while I can see him falling for Twilight's spiel, I don't see him falling for it in the way it has been written here.

Putting it in pure mathematical terms - the formula doesn't compute, Whedon left out five or six numbers.
It's like Whedon rounded off numbers, took shortcuts here and there, and added bits that don't belong over here...in short he turned Angel into Superman (or how Whedon views Superman - this comic reminds me a lot of a Superman comic I read once-upon a time), but without any empathy or understanding of what motivates the character or why he is doing what he is. It is clear to me, anyhow, that Whedon doesn't understand Angel.
He didn't really create or run Angel the Series - that was Greenwalt, Bell, Minear, Fury, DeKnight, Craft and Fain, and Merle (DeNight's wife). Whedon just consulted.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Oh I agree that the comics are insanely reductive where Angel is concerned. His ability to be led by calling him special is only a small aspect of who Angel is. It's just that that's the only thing that the comics focus on where Angel is concerned. The guy had good qualities too!

The Angel I loved was the one who held baby Connor and wanted desperately to do right by the kid. The Angel I loved was the one who knew how to make Cordy dance with joy if he sent her clothes. The Angel I loved, loved sappy Barry Manilow songs and Charleston Heston movies and who knew "Soylent green is people!" He's the guy who saw the monster as his reflection in Pylea and yet still struggled to try to be the hero. Angel had many good qualities and a few more petty ones. The comics choose to focus exclusively on one flaw, pump it up on steroids, and make him all about that one flaw. It really damages the character because what had once been just one flaw has now become a fatal one that eclipses so much good. I think the biggest (and most inexplicable) thing DH and Joss did was completely ignore Connor's existence and the way that would have influced Angel's actions. It's the big gaping hole in their Twangel plot and without it, it just truly does not make all that much sense. By avoiding Connor they've made Twangel a cartoon.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I think the biggest (and most inexplicable) thing DH and Joss did was completely ignore Connor's existence and the way that would have influced Angel's actions. It's the big gaping hole in their Twangel plot and without it, it just truly does not make all that much sense. By avoiding Connor they've made Twangel a cartoon.

Exactly. And it was fixable, not now - too late, but it was at a certain point. They could have used Connor, much as they do in Home and in End of Days to motivate Angel. Heck it is Connor partly who even motivates Angel in the Jasmine arc. If you've watched the S4 episode about Angel losing his soul (forget the name of it) - that episode makes it abundantly clear that there were four things important to Angel: 1) being the "CHAMPION" or Special and Saving the World, 2) Having Connor's love and a good relationship with him, 3) Cordelia and Wes and his friends, and 4) Buffy. Not necessarily in that order. The comics make out as if the only two things important to Angel are well 1 and 4. They ignore completely 2 and 3 - which is just plain bad writing. Sure you can argue that you can't mention Connor because IDW holds the rights...but I'm not sure that works - considering they took IDW's lead character and turned him into a villain.

Fanfic writers who have done this (and there have been more than a few) have been reamed on sites such as BadFic. Also it is worth saying that when Bill Willingham ignored similar items with Spike - people were in a uproar.

The Angel I loved was the one who held baby Connor and wanted desperately to do right by the kid. The Angel I loved was the one who knew how to make Cordy dance with joy if he sent her clothes. The Angel I loved, loved sappy Barry Manilow songs and Charleston Heston movies and who knew "Soylent green is people!" He's the guy who saw the monster as his reflection in Pylea and yet still struggled to try to be the hero.

Hee, you forgot my favorite - which was that Angel is not a bad detective. He has a photographic memory and is an excellent artist, thinks visually. Also a great deal of empathy for people who have royally screwed up. He understood Faith, Cordelia, Wes,
even Spike - the outcasts. His discussion with Spike in Damage is an insightful one. Angel believes in redemption. That everyone has good in them.

Here - I don't see any of that. What I see is well Captain Hammer. Angelus was far more complex, not to mention smarter than Twangel appears to be. And had better lines. ;-) Angel actually was funny. He's not here. He's Captain Hammer.

The problem with reducing Angel to well a cartoon - is it makes no sense that anyone in their right mind would want to spend their lives with him or shag him. He's loathsome in this role. The only thing that is attractive about this cartoon Angel is his looks.
So it makes you wonder about the heroine. I can see where Whedon wanted to go with it - he was trying to set Buffy up to be so disconnected, so lonely, so desperate that she takes the leap to be with Angel. As OZ states in Retreat, there's a temptation to just give in to the power, give in to the desire, the wolf, let herself be swept away in. That's what the writer tells us he is doing - it's what he intended us to see. BUT it is not what I see on the page, it's not what he shows us. He wrote it all wrong.
He did the same thing in Dollhouse. He has too many ideas, many of which are contradictory, and he's throwing them all on the page at the same time - what he needs is a good editor or director who can pull it together into a cohesive whole. There's a reason he keeps getting canceled - he can't focus. Dollhouse had some of the same flaws the comics do...he's trying to discuss torture porn and female exploitation and horrifying aspects of that at the same time as all these other ideas...so what we end up with is a convoluted mess.

That's why, I think, we've got so many opposing views of the comics. There's too much left open to interpretation.