![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jul. 25th, 2015 10:20 amFound 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.
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.