Does Sunshine have a smell? Do the Angel comics stink? & whatever happened to tapes?

[shadowkat]

1. Does Sunshine have a smell? I've decided it does. Smells warm and fresh, clean. Not like dirt or flowers. More subtle. I'm not sure it can be reproduced. My granny used to say that it was better to line dry clothes because they would smell like sunshine. As if a warm hand had touched them with love. Sunshine smells like love. Or like a warm piece of blanket. Cottony. Today, I filled my apartment with the smell of sunshine washing away the floral taste of insect repellant, a rancid smell, sweet and acrid (the insect repellant not the sunshine.) It made me happy. The type of happiness that is almost fleeting and comes from nothing other than the knowledge that one is alive and happy to be on earth, soaked in sunshine.

2. Cleaned. Which included doing something I've been putting off for well like forever. I threw out my collection of cassett or music tapes. This was a heavy box, filled with well over 1000 tapes, most of which dated back 20-30 years. I stopped listening to them when I got the ipod and CD's. And well, my tape player, much like my VCR went kablooey. That got thrown out too - the tape player, not the VCR (VCR was thrown out about five-six years ago). Had interesting conversation with landlord about this...he was busy reinstalling the pigeon defense grid - ie plastic spikes to keep pigeons off the roof and away from my window. One of the spikes apparently fell off.

Landlord: Oh, I have a collection of tapes I got to get rid of myself. Including, *cough*Culture Club*cough*.

Me: Yep, I have that too. As well as all the bootlegged tapes of the Grateful Dead - my ex-boyfriend was a groupie. Actually, I have all the 60's, 70's and 80's music on tape, along with music sang by college friends. But I can't listen to it anymore - the tape has degraded.

Landlord: Grateful Dead? Cool!! (he looks at me as if I'm nuts for getting rid of them. Sigh. Yes, Ex-college boyfriend was a dead-head, what can I say? Also a philosophy major and singer - which turned out to be a deadly combination and something I was incredibly attracted to, until he permanently broke me of the habit.) I listened to mine a while back on a walkman.

ME: I stopped around the time, I got the ipod and well Cd's have taken their place. A bit more durable. (Pause) You know you are getting old when you can remember a time when you taped things and there were no CD's or MP3 players.

Landlord: Or you can remember 45s.

Me: Oh yeah 45s. Or how about when there wasn't an internet. Wasn't email. And the Mac was a huge computer with a tiny screen and sort of useless for anything but word processing.

(Sigh, sometimes, not always, but sometimes - I truly miss those days. The fact that 50-60% of the people reading this have no clue what I'm talking about and no memory of cassett recorders or a time that MP3 players did not exist...boggles my mind. Actually, I find it pretty mind-boggling that there are people online who don't know what it was like not to have an internet or email. When you had to fax everything and all phones were landlines. Funny, I don't feel old. Well, except for the creaks whenever I get up in the morning. I really miss the days in which I could pop out of bed without sitting for five minutes rolling shoulders and flexing neck, so I didn't end up with a charley-horse.)

Getting rid of the tapes wasn't as painful as I thought. Actually sort of freeing. I was becoming allergic to that box in my bedroom.

3. After all the cleaning, which included more than just getting rid of the tapes - was an all day affair, I decided to enjoy the lovely weather and ran errands. Walked up to neighborhood comic shop, which was mobbed with the stereotypical comic book buyer - heavyset, bearded dudes, and little boys (as in ten - twelve and able to crawl under tables, and who come up to my knee or waist. I more or less stood out, being the only woman in the joint - outside of the pretty girl at the desk. There were a few women who came in after me, but not for the comics, more as companions to the guys or their sons. It was free comic book day.

Anyhow...I realized reading through the offerings, that most comics (not all obviously) are in some respects the equivalent of a male romance novel. This is a term I coined after seeing the Frank Miller flick Sin City based on Miller's comic of the same name - which was all the rage back in 1980s, but I found rather derivative and ignored, even though comic book shop boy was literally begging me to try it. For Buffy fans - Sin City is notable in one respect - it is how the writer's came up with the back story for Spike's leather jacket, they borrowed the idea from Miller's Sin City. So if you hate that back story, think the whole Nikki/Spike bit is offensive and a lot of people do, you might want to skip Frank Miller's graphic novels.

Darker and more graphic than the worst Raymond Chandler offering, (don't get me wrong, I like Raymond Chandler, was weaned on Chandler). These comics, which I like to call noir horror or noir crime - and they have a special category in the store all their own, are all pretty much a like. And few if any are written by women - for much the same reason that few if any female romance novels are written by men, I suspect. This unfortunately bodes true of the other comics as well, not just the noir ones. Even comics that are based on books by women or stories by women have been adapted by men. There was one that was free - which was based on a woman's YA sci-fantasy novel - but adapted by a guy.

I bought the only comic I could find in the whole store that was written by a woman, granted didn't look at all the bound and expensive volumes, just the magazine issues. The store was crowded since it was free comic day.

This is by way of an introduction to my perusal of all of Bill Willingham's Angel comics in the comic store. As noted in an earlier post - the IDW editor Mariah H, got me curious about the comics. So thought I'd check them out, see what all the hubbub was about for myself.

What did I think? Short version? Well, I guess it is notable that although I did actually buy two comic books today, Willingham's Angel books were not amongst them.



I didn't exactly read them in depth or anything, I perused or scanned them. Not that it matters, deep and layered, these things are not. Fables actually is more layered. If you really want to read Willingham - I'd suggest delving into Fables - it's better written and drawn, not to mention a bit more creative. Willingham is not a good fanfic writer. Or hired gun. He definitely does not have a future in television writing. He reminds me a bit of Frank Miller, actually, yet not as subtle or creative. So, if you like this stuff - skip Willingham completely and spend your money on Miller and Moore. There's a reason Miller and Moore have hit mainstream stores, and Willingham remains on the fringes.

Regarding Spike's arc in the comics? Don't really see one to be honest. He basically has a cameo, he shows up, says something that is supposed to be witty and isn't. Does something that is supposed to be witty and isn't. And acts more or less like Philip Marlow in one of Raymond Chandler's darker novels - Farewell My Lovely - I think it was called. Can't remember. Was made into a movie at some point. A bad movie. Or one of Frank Miller's characters in Sin City - the epitome of the male romance novel. Willingham excels at male romance, but is not very good at wit. Wit is admittedly hard to do well. Not everything can pull it off. Say what you will about Brian Lynch - but he's definitely witty and rather good at satire. He has the same self-deprectating, psuedo sardonic/satiric wit that Whedon and Fury excelled at in the series. Which is why the only Angel/Spike comics that I will read are by Brian Lynch. I'm ignoring everyone else.

As for Spike's behavior?
It didn't bother me. Of course, I'd already read everyone's rants on it. So I was expecting something a lot worse than what I read. One of the benefits of reading reviews first, I suppose. I can see why it bothers other people. But I've read a lot of these types of comics, and novels not to mention seen a lot of noir films and tv shows in my lifetime - and I happen to work in a field where men are, shall we say, a bit on the crude side - heck, I work in a building where I share an elevator ride with ex-cons who masturbate in the elevator - while they travel to the fifth floor for transistional services aka art therapy.

Is it in character? Yes and no. [I admittedly have a view of Spike that appears to be somewhere to the right of the die-hard Spike shippers and to the left of the die-hard Spike haters, yet I ship the character violently. This makes my life as a Spike shipper fraught with frustration and peril. I have to be careful what I say or I get blasted by one or both parties (yes that's possible, trust me, and not pleasant - please don't do it now or I will delete you). I also have the wildly unpopular opinion in some quarters, wherein I think that Angel did far worse and still does far worse than anyone else ever has - the series has backed me up on that point. Spike to me, at any rate, always appeared to be a bit of a heroic foil to Angel's anti-hero - another view that I realize contrasts greatly with a lot of people online, who for reasons that continue to bewilder and amuse me, appear to see the exact opposite. Apparently...they did not understand the line in School Hard - where Spike makes it clear that Angel was his Yoda - ie. Angel taught Spike everything he knew and how to do it. What do you think a yoda is? The whole point - is that Angel was the worst vampire that ever lived. That's why Buffy and Angel are star-crossed lovers. Hero/Anti-hero. Get it? If they were both heroes, there wouldn't be a problem. That was the whole S2 character arc.]

My difficulty with the characterization in the comics has less to do with what Spike physically does (like I said above, it reminds me of a Raymond Chandler novel except with vampires), and more well to do with what he says while he's doing it.

Willingham doesn't appear to understand snark or for that matter know how to do it. (see above). From what I've seen of Willingham and Williams online? My guess is these guys take themselves far too seriously and have rather fragile egos. Freelance writing in comics - is not the easiest, most rewarding, recognized, or highest paying of writing professions. (It's the male equivalent of the Harlequinn or Regency Romance novel, or for that matter in tv terms - the daytime soap opera. All three are treated with more or less the same level of derision.) These guys would kill to get a screenplay, a directing gig, or a primetime tv show (all of which Lynch and Whedon have gotten).

Sardonic wit, self-deprecating wit, satiric wit, and gallows humor - is something you either get or you don't. I happen to love it - it's my brand of humor. I snark all the time on lj. When I get on the phone with my Dad - we have snark fests. It's a thing. One of the reasons, Spike is my favorite character is that he is so snarky. He has great one liners. And he has a sort of self-deprecating charm. In contrast, Angel tends to lack both - that dude takes himself far too seriously. Which is why Spike gets off on making fun of him. Someone has to. The humor regarding Angel - tending to be more physical than intellectual (snark), which is partly why Angel doesn't appeal to me that much. I prefer the snark. Physical humor, not all, but most, tends to make me cringe with embarrassment. Angel's bad dancing? Ew. There are episodes of that series - I just can't watch without cringing.

When Willingham attempts snark - and it's not just in regards to Spike - it comes across as well, crude low-brow jokes some of which are quite cringe-worthy. Spike was snarky not crude. There's a difference. Don't get me wrong, and someone will, I'm not saying Spike couldn't be crude. He could and was and is. But, he is mostly just snarky, with a lot of bravado, and self-deprecation. That's his coping mechanism - to make fun of everything including himself. This is hard to pull off - especially if you don't understand or like snark and self-deprecating wit. And from what I've seen online and in the Fables series? Willingham is not snarky. He takes himself and his writing far too seriously. So as a result, he tends to write the characters a bit too stiff.

The art? I'm not a fan of Denham. It's too busy. The proportions are completely off. The perspective is off. The characters move stiffly. And well, I like Jeanty's art better. Denham actually makes Jeanty look brilliant by comparison.

The dialogue? Doesn't fit the characters. Willingham just does not have their voices. Lynch, love him or hate him, did have the character's voices down. Again this has a lot to do with the fact that Willingham just isn't that witty. He's trying. But it just doesn't quite work.

The plot? Boilerplate noir. I've read it before. It could be interesting. The whole Immortality for Dummies thing and Spike making fun of prophecies bit by hiring someone to write one. That in the right hands, could be hilarious. Here? It will most likely fall flat.

So, long story short? Sorry, Mariah, the story isn't interesting enough for me to waste time, money or premium binder space on (the damn comics have to go somewhere - right now they are organized in binders...thick heavy binders), and the arc seems rather non-existent. The story you think you are producing? I don't see on the page. As a result? I didn't buy them.

Instead - I spent my hard earned cash on Felicia Day's The Guild - which does appear to be witty and hey, look, written by a woman and is about women - a novelty. And Echo by Terry Moore, who can actually figure out proportion and perspective and is possibly amongst the best artists in the field (what the Buffy comics would have been like if Moore had been drawing them! But Moore like Miller is the double-whammy, he writes and draws his stories, so they are not collaborative efforts but more like graphic novels by one writer - an advantage, sort of akin to writing and directing your own film.) (I'm rather picky in regards to this ability, since I suck at it and it frustrates me no end. The lack of depth perception probably has something to do with this - that and my problems with any game involving balls, and well driving. Yet, I'm cursed with the ability to notice when proportion and perspective are off, just not the ability to be able to tell why they are off. This is why Denham makes me crazy as an artist - I can tell he's off, but can't quite explain how.)

If you want to read something like what Willingham is attempting to pull off? Pick up Frank Miller's Sin City, or better yet a Hellblazer comic book. Actually, Hellblazer - is a better fit. And better written to boot.

If you want more Angel and Spike? Save your money, save your time, your binder or shelf or cardboard box space, and energy - not to mention blood pressure and wait for Brian Lynch's Spike Unlimited comic coming out in the summer. From what I've read, Lynch and the IDW editors have chosen not to make the Spike Unlimited comic directly based on the Willingham story, but to let it be its own animal. As for Connor? Read fanfic instead. Although he doesn't necessarily come across that badly here, Connor admittedly isn't that hard to write - because the writers didn't give us enough of the character to really know which way he'd tumble, but the other characters will drive you up the wall, as will the lack of snark, which was an important ingredient in the series.

Comments

[probablecylon.livejournal.com]

These comics, which I like to call noir horror or noir crime - and they have a special category in the store all their own, are all pretty much a like. And few if any are written by women - for much the same reason that few if any female romance novels are written by men, These comics, which I like to call noir horror or noir crime - and they have a special category in the store all their own, are all pretty much a like. And few if any are written by women - for much the same reason that few if any female romance novels are written by men,

A friend who reads romance novels by the cartload tells me that I'd be amazed at how many famous romance writers are men publishing under female pen-names.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

A friend who reads romance novels by the cartload tells me that I'd be amazed at how many famous romance writers are men publishing under female pen-names.

Hmmm. Does she know this to be true? Because I used to think the same thing about Jan Cox Spears - but realized I was very wrong. She is a she after all.

Wish that were true of comics. But it is not. Of that much I can guarantee.
Having actually met some of the writers and seen them talk.

If what you state is true? That means men are writing women's stories even in women's genres. And how offensive is that? VERY. And may explain why I gave up on romance novels.

[probablecylon.livejournal.com]

She's involved in the book business (as am I) and while I believe her info to be reliable, I can't vouch for it absolutely, tho' I doubt she'd pass on hearsay, since she tends to be a bit more demanding when it comes to substantiating information.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Anyhow...I realized reading through the offerings, that most comics (not all obviously) are in some respects the equivalent of a male romance novel. This is a term I coined after seeing the Frank Miller flick Sin City based on Miller's comic of the same name - which was all the rage back in 1980s, but I found rather derivative and ignored, even though comic book shop boy was literally begging me to try it. For Buffy fans - Sin City is notable in one respect - it is how the writer's came up with the back story for Spike's leather jacket, they borrowed the idea from Miller's Sin City. So if you hate that back story, think the whole Nikki/Spike bit is offensive and a lot of people do, you might want to skip Frank Miller's graphic novels.

I like Sin City but in a fairly shallow way--I think you're right that it's like a male Harlequin romance. It takes noir conventions and dials them up to 11; all women are either virgins or whores or occasionally have bits of both but are never really people, whereas the men, while not necessarily complex, are at least distinctive. I never found the Nikki/Spike thing offensive until the racial undertones were pointed out to me. But it doesn't bother me.

As for Connor? Read fanfic instead. Although he doesn't necessarily come across that badly here, Connor admittedly isn't that hard to write - because the writers didn't give us enough of the character to really know which way he'd tumble

This is one thing that bugged me about Connor in season five of AtS. While everyone loved new and improved Connor, I just felt he was...a tabula rasa? A character designed to be liked by everyone, just slightly snarky but not enough to offend, good-natured but not so much as to be a blatant Mary Sue, etc. Some of that had to do with my own issues about what Angel did in "Home," and my general feelings about the series' treatment of the mindwipe. (I was expecting Connor and Wesley to be a lot angrier after the restoration of their memories--but I guess it makes sense that Wesley would blame himself, rather than Angel, in the end.) Lynch's Connor still seemed devoid of personality to me.

I admittedly have a view of Spike that appears to be somewhere to the right of the die-hard Spike shippers and to the left of the die-hard Spike haters, yet I ship the character violently. This makes my life as a Spike shipper fraught with frustration and peril. I have to be careful what I say or I get blasted by one or both parties (yes that's possible, trust me, and not pleasant - please don't do it now or I will delete you).

Yes to this. I think this is true of almost all characters--Spike is just one of the most polarizing. I think Spike is very heroic, as of season seven/AtS season five (and he's very heroic for an unsouled vampire before then, but that's one heck of a qualifier). But he's also got some character flaws. There are people who either see no wrong in Spike (or claim that any "wrong behaviour" is OOC) or people who can't see anything he does as good, and I just scratch my head at both.

I also have the wildly unpopular opinion in some quarters, wherein I think that Angel did far worse and still does far worse than anyone else ever has - the series has backed me up on that point. Spike to me, at any rate, always appeared to be a bit of a heroic foil to Angel's anti-hero - another view that I realize contrasts greatly with a lot of people online, who for reasons that continue to bewilder and amuse me, appear to see the exact opposite.

Yes, absolutely. One of the interesting things is that Angel shows his guilt much more than Spike does (after his time in the basement), and so people automatically take Angel as being the one who is "better." Interesting, too, how Angel actually tried to go dark (or "grey") in his own series' season two, but it's in later seasons where he does (I'd argue) his worst things (though locking up the lawyers, and trying to lose his soul, are very high on the list)--trying to kill Wesley, the mindwipe, killing Drogyn for the cause and Lindsey while he was working on his team.

[eilowyn.livejournal.com]

This is one thing that bugged me about Connor in season five of AtS. While everyone loved new and improved Connor, I just felt he was...a tabula rasa? A character designed to be liked by everyone, just slightly snarky but not enough to offend, good-natured but not so much as to be a blatant Mary Sue, etc. Some of that had to do with my own issues about what Angel did in "Home," and my general feelings about the series' treatment of the mindwipe. (I was expecting Connor and Wesley to be a lot angrier after the restoration of their memories--but I guess it makes sense that Wesley would blame himself, rather than Angel, in the end.) Lynch's Connor still seemed devoid of personality to me.

This comment got me thinking, and I gotta say that one of the biggest tragedies of AtS was how underused Connor was. I look at how dynamic and nuaced Victor Kartheiser is on Mad Men, and you really kinda wanna smack someone for not seeing how much potential he had and could have displayed. In my happy imaginary world where Buffy got a season 8 on TV and Spike stayed over there, season 5 of AtS would have been a big Connor-Angel season, similar to Dawn and Buffy in season 5.

I wish IDW (and the ever-ignorant Scott Allie)</small would realize that the Connor-Angel relationship is where you should be putting your money. THIS is what should be explored. Now, if we could just get Angel off this Twilight kick and make him go be a daddy . . .

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Vincent Kartheiser's awesomeness on Mad Men proves to me too that he was underused. I don't know that they did such a bad job with Connor in season four though. I'll have to rewatch it (which, I will! in a few months).

My personal happy-imaginary land, still has Spike on AtS season five, because I love Spike/Angel interaction hard. In that world AtS has a sixth season though. Also in my world, the BtVS TV show still ended with season seven, albeit with some changes, because I more or less figured going in that there would be only one year after season six.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

I never found the Nikki/Spike thing offensive until the racial undertones were pointed out to me. But it doesn't bother me.

Had more or less the same reaction. I didn't find it offensive until I ran into people whose buttons were seriously pushed by it mostly due to their own life experiences. From their pov - I can see why they hated it and Spike as a result of it. That said, it never bothered me and I don't share their pov, even though I do and can understand it. There were things Angel did that bothered me far more - the mind-wipe being amongst them. But we each have different triggers.

I agree with your description of Sin City. The film was to a degree even more so. What I appreciated about Sin City - when I flipped through it at the store - was the art. It's innovative and different.

This is one thing that bugged me about Connor in season five of AtS. While everyone loved new and improved Connor, I just felt he was...a tabula rasa? A character designed to be liked by everyone, just slightly snarky but not enough to offend, good-natured but not so much as to be a blatant Mary Sue, etc. Some of that had to do with my own issues about what Angel did in "Home," and my general feelings about the series' treatment of the mindwipe. (I was expecting Connor and Wesley to be a lot angrier after the restoration of their memories--but I guess it makes sense that Wesley would blame himself, rather than Angel, in the end.) Lynch's Connor still seemed devoid of personality to me.

Felt the same way. Interestingly enough, Vincent Kartheiser has also stated this - as amongst the many reasons he did not enjoy working on Angel. I found Connor interesting in S3-S4. S5 - he felt like a Stepford Kid - perfect. Which I think was intentional, but resulted in a character that I just did not care that much about one way or the other.

And, in the IDW comics - Connor, unfortunately, comes across much the same way. As devoid of personality. It's hard to really care much one way or the other. Not really sure if Willingham gives him more than Lynch did or not. I don't think so. He sounds and acts more or less the same. In fact that may well be one of the problems with Willingham's comic arc - it is centered around Connor - a character that unfortunately has not been fully developed or explored by anyone. Instead he appears to be everyone's Marty Lou - or their dream of what it would be like for them to be the son of Angel.

Yes, absolutely. One of the interesting things is that Angel shows his guilt much more than Spike does (after his time in the basement), and so people automatically take Angel as being the one who is "better."

Which always struck me as sort of odd. Apparently whining about all the things you've done and how bad it makes you feel - means you are a good person? For me, it was what the characters actually did - that was interesting. Angel remonstrations or declarations of guilt always came across as a tad on the whiny side to me, for some reason. It was always about Angel's Guilt, not about the people he'd actually hurt.

Interesting, too, how Angel actually tried to go dark (or "grey") in his own series' season two, but it's in later seasons where he does (I'd argue) his worst things (though locking up the lawyers, and trying to lose his soul, are very high on the list)--trying to kill Wesley, the mindwipe, killing Drogyn for the cause and Lindsey while he was working on his team.

Agreed. I found it interesting that Angel does worse things as righteous/heroic/champion Angel, then he does in S2 when he goes grey, in S2 Buffy when he becomes Angelus, or in S4 when he loses his soul and becomes Angelus again.

Read your take on Angel in your lj - with your re-watch of the series?
And found myself agreeing a great deal. Like you, I preferred the latter seasons to early ones. And saw Angel very much as an anti-hero in his series for all the reasons that you stated in your entry.

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

Re: Angel. I've often thought that Angel wears his guilt like a badge of honor. He's almost proud to display it in some twisted way. Hell, he's made it his whole unlife's purpose to redeem himself from that guilt.

Spike deals with it more quietly. It's "private" (as he says to Buffy in Get It Done). Spike's very much for handling it himself while simultaneously doing the deeds to atone. Just without flashing his badge everywhere.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Agreed. He doesn't exactly broadcast it - keeps a lot of it to himself. But he does broadcast the bit about feeling "guilty".
Brooding on it, blaming himself for everything - almost as if he is "proud" of the guilt. Proud that he feels it. Angel's biggest flaw is his massive ego. Both souled and unsouled - it's his ego that brings him down every single time. He seriously sees himself as the best thing ever or the worst thing ever. And that hubris/vanity - is his downfall. In the series - it's interesting that his closest friends - Wes and Cordelia have similar issues. Both characters have a great deal of pride, both believe they can save the world and Angel. Cordelia's pride leads her to become well a host for Jasmine.
Wes' leads him to aid Holtz in stealing Connor. Fred's leads her to take the job at WRH and become Illyria. Gunn's pride leads him to get the mental upgrade and inadvertently betray Fred. Their pride does them all in - it provides WRH with the means of manipulating them.

Spike is different. He's proud, true, but not quite in the same way or about the same things. And he's less confident in who he is.

William was an individual who was constantly being made fun of, or rejected, except by his mother or parent. Liam was an individual who had lots of friends, any girl he wanted, had his mother and siblings love - the only person who rejected Liam was his father. So Spike is never quite sure, he expects to be rejected, is prepared for it, he doesn't think of himself as that important - while Angel assumes that he's the most important thing on the planet, the prodigal son, now if Dad would just acknowledge him.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Had more or less the same reaction. I didn't find it offensive until I ran into people whose buttons were seriously pushed by it mostly due to their own life experiences. From their pov - I can see why they hated it and Spike as a result of it. That said, it never bothered me and I don't share their pov, even though I do and can understand it. There were things Angel did that bothered me far more - the mind-wipe being amongst them. But we each have different triggers.

Agreed. I could certainly see Wood being angry about Spike's coat. But, well, I understand why Spike felt he needed it, and I see it as a character flaw but not a damning one. The mindwipe is bigger to me also.

I agree with your description of Sin City. The film was to a degree even more so. What I appreciated about Sin City - when I flipped through it at the store - was the art. It's innovative and different.

I do really like the art. I think the kind of. cartoonishness enhances the effect.

Felt the same way. Interestingly enough, Vincent Kartheiser has also stated this - as amongst the many reasons he did not enjoy working on Angel. I found Connor interesting in S3-S4. S5 - he felt like a Stepford Kid - perfect. Which I think was intentional, but resulted in a character that I just did not care that much about one way or the other.

I knew that VK didn't enjoy working on Angel, but I figured that he didn't enjoy season four.

As for the Stepford Kid thing--it was subtle, if that was intentional. Because they could certainly have made him more obviously perfect--make him so bright and vivacious and whatnot that everyone in the audience recognized that he seemed off, or fake. Instead they made him about as perfect as possible without alienating the audience, or seeming fake. It's an interesting tightrope walk.

I can't comment on Willingham, but Lynch's Connor struck me as kind of an extension of season five Connor; except we were told (but not really ever shown) that Connor had lots of memories in his head and this made him "conflicted." I can't really think of any occasions where Connor actually seemed bothered by this though. I guess his relationship with Gwen showed him being hurt, so they could go somewhere with that.

Which always struck me as sort of odd. Apparently whining about all the things you've done and how bad it makes you feel - means you are a good person? For me, it was what the characters actually did - that was interesting. Angel remonstrations or declarations of guilt always came across as a tad on the whiny side to me, for some reason. It was always about Angel's Guilt, not about the people he'd actually hurt.

It's interesting that Angel never apologizes to Holtz. He never actually apologizes to his victims, I think partly out of guilt. This is one thing that I think he has in common with Spike--he feels he could never ask for forgiveness. But whereas Spike can move on, Angel can't.

Anyway I agree that Angel was more self-indulgent about his guilt.

Agreed. I found it interesting that Angel does worse things as righteous/heroic/champion Angel, then he does in S2 when he goes grey, in S2 Buffy when he becomes Angelus, or in S4 when he loses his soul and becomes Angelus again.

I disagree about season 2 of Buffy--he kills a lot of innocent people, and nearly ending the world seems pretty terrible. But it's very obvious in season four of Angel, where Angelus, um, beats Faith up and kills the Beast, whereas Angel sells his friends out to Wolfram & Hart for his son.

Read your take on Angel in your lj - with your re-watch of the series?
And found myself agreeing a great deal. Like you, I preferred the latter seasons to early ones. And saw Angel very much as an anti-hero in his series for all the reasons that you stated in your entry.

Thanks! I'm not sure how and whether I'll be able to write on the eps; I might just skip around and focus on the interesting ones, or the easy-to-analyze ones or some such.

[ever-neutral.livejournal.com]

I admittedly have a view of Spike that appears to be somewhere to the right of the die-hard Spike shippers and to the left of the die-hard Spike haters, yet I ship the character violently.

You know, I think I come from the same place, actually.

I also have the wildly unpopular opinion in some quarters, wherein I think that Angel did far worse and still does far worse than anyone else ever has - the series has backed me up on that point.

Yep. I don't understand how anybody could disagree with this. I'd have to conclude they're not too familiar with Buffyverse canon.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yep. I don't understand how anybody could disagree with this. I'd have to conclude they're not too familiar with Buffyverse canon.

Oh, they are familiar with Buffyverse canon - can recite chapter and verse. They just have a completely different perspective on it is all.
A lot of people think of Angel as literally two people - Angel and Angelus.
They insist Angel never did anything that bad and was really heroic.
They don't see the nuances. Or they interpret the nuances differently.

I know this, because I've had the unfortunate experience of arguing over it till I thought one of my blood vessels would break from sheer frustration and annoyance. Have since learned there are three things that I am not allowed to argue about:

1. Angel and Buffyverse Characters
2. The Death Penalty and Abortion
3. Politics and Religion

That doesn't mean I don't. It just means when I do - I tend to end up wanting to throw my computer against the wall out of sheer frustration.
It's head-ach inducing. You cannot convince someone who believes Angel is a hero that he's not. It's pointless to try. Sort of akin to trying to convince someone who thinks George W Bush was a good president, that he was not. If they haven't figured it out on their own by now...;-)

[probablecylon.livejournal.com]

One chief difficulty with people who can cite 'chapter & verse' is that one has to be able to tell the difference between interpretation from the facts, and ad-hoc gimmicky towers of Explainyness which only use the facts as points on which to stack these towers. The interpretation has to be woven into the structural integrity of the shows, which is shot through with occasional non-sequiturs or difficulties. Non-interpretators spend vast amounts of time explaining bits of phlebotnin or mere expedient bits of storytelling as if those had to be thoroughly exposited.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Very True. But to be fair - some of them make valid and good arguments. It comes down to perspective here and worldview and well, what you pick up on and what bothers you, and after a while, you have to decide whether being right about such things matters - particularly in regards to characters in cult tv show.

For examples of some of the better arguments - I can direct you to the ATPO board archives at www.atpobtvs.com - where there were people who provided intelligent arguments. One in particular was Maladaza who argued Angel with Sophist, who argued Spike.

[probablecylon.livejournal.com]

Arguments are so often about things other than what they appear to be about. A civil discussion about differing interpretations, one that remains civil, is academic -- two people comparing notes about how they've received or think about what's entertained both of them. One that (d)evolves into something more impassioned is about the non-discussed subject occasioned by the overt discussion. I haven't previously encountered a response to a cult tv show which produced as many dreams as Buffy has, which suggests to me that it gets in closer to basic anxieties than most shows of cult status have done.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Arguments are so often about things other than what they appear to be about.

Sometimes tempers flare due to personality conflicts or how the two people are discussing the topic. Tone in writing is an important thing and often in academic writing - tone comes across as smug or superior - which can, not always, turn off people.

We can't see each other, we don't hear each other's voices - so all we have are words. And unfortunately that can cause problems. A poster may not intend to sound superior or abrasive or smug - but they do, and the reaction they are getting from the other poster - may well be based on the words they are using to convey their point, not on the point. It's the how, not the what that is pissing the other person off.

This happens a lot online - because we have people from various occupations, classes, races, cultures, etc...communicating. Also people make assumptions based on writing style, assuming just because someone writes like a 50 year old English Lit Professor, means they are a 50 year old English Lit Professor, when in reality they may be a 15 year old kid going to Private school in Britian.

Disputes also arise based on conflicts in personal experience -example:

1. Buffyfan1 - married high school sweetheart, who was 10 years older. Or they married high school sweetheart who was 10 years younger. They identify strongly with Angel.
2. Buffyfan2 - was molested by a college guy when they were in highschool. It was traumatic. They had a huge crush on him.
He treated them like crap. They identify strongly with Buffy and maybe Xander.

Get these two on a board and watch the sparks fly. There are others, I've seen. It helps to remember that you don't know what people are going through in their personal lives or have gone through and you don't know why they are posting online.
While you may be posting a dissertation on Buffy, someone else may just be trying to distract themselves from the fact that their mother is dying of cancer.


haven't previously encountered a response to a cult tv show which produced as many dreams as Buffy has, which suggests to me that it gets in closer to basic anxieties than most shows of cult status have done.

Interesting. I have. Quite a few actually. Too many to count.
Battlestar Galatica, Star Trek, Star Gate, Supernatural, Merlin,
Smallville, Star Wars, BladeRunner, most daytime soap operas, X-men comics, sigh...the list is seemingly endless. Granted, the Buffy fandom often has more scholars in it than some of the others - but I've seen similar things written on Star Wars and Star Trek and similar battles. Babylon 5 and Farscape also come to mind. And don't get me started on Doctor Who - which has been around the longest.

Buffy really isn't as exceptional or distinctive as many fans would like to believe. ;-)

[probablecylon.livejournal.com]

I guess I've had limited contact with fandom, since I liked the original Trek in school but was put off by the folks who were donning the uniforms, etc. I only became involved in online Buffy fandom because the show was going outside boundries into areas not populated by sf/fantasy fans.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Hee. I have a lot of people on my flist who are fans of Doctor Who, Supernatural, Star Trek, and BSG as well as Harry Potter, and Star Gate - every once and a while they will post a commentary on their specific fandom or a link. That and fandom_wank is quite informative.

Heck, all you have to do is pop over to Television Without Pity and read their threads.

You don't have to be part of a fandom - to know what it is doing. Not in this day and age. ;-) And it only takes ten minutes.

[shapinglight]

My major quarrel with Willingham's Spike is not that I don't think Spike can be rude, crude and badly behaved. We all know that he can. It's that Willingham's version of the character seems to have no positive qualities at all. He's not even any good in a fight.

It's like Willingham has taken all the most negative qualities of the character (which I suspect are the only ones he can see, or the only ones he enjoys), dialled them up to 11 and thrown the positive qualities out in the trash.

In other words, it's a caricature. Caricatures are based on the actual character, just exaggerated out of all proportion.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

I don't think I could cope with Frank Miller. I tuned into the end of the Sin City movie and found it quite viscerally repulsive (while at the same time being mesmerised by the stupid). Up to then I'd liked the idea of it because of the color innovations.

Agree on Willingham's Spike. Spike was funny and didn't try too hard, his guy isn't and does (although I feel the same about Lynch's Spike).

[eilowyn.livejournal.com]

Let's have a moment to focus on the positive things in your post: sunshine smells like comfort and happiness. Yes, comfort and happiness have a smell, and they smell like sunshine.

And how awesome is Felicia Day? I really think she has the potential to be remembered as a feminist icon, because she's such a trailblazer as a filmmaker and business woman. I really think her Guild comics may be the first comics I actually go out and buy. Go her!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Hee, thanks...see this is why I do multiple topic posts. Give people a choice on what to focus on.

Day's interesting. She got frustrated with Hollywood - so chose to write and direct her own webseries and put it online. Which by the way is a profitable idea - there's quite a few young Hollywood freelancers that are making $2000 a week with webseries on youtube. Not my thing, unfortunately. But if I were an actress and film-maker - that's the direction I'd go.

[ubi4soft.livejournal.com]

I may be stupid for thinking this way, but I still prefer Spike on IDW. S8 has 6 more issues, then S9 with Whedon maybe as executive producer, lets say 12 more issues, and then? I don't want Spike in DH's hands especially outside of Whedon's supervision. At least on IDW there's a chance for improvement and he's one of the major players.

[kerry-220.livejournal.com]

Here via petzipellepingo's links. Just wanted to say thank you for this. It's like a little light went on for me. I've been struggling to understand why I've hated Spike's (and others) characterisation so much. I've been saying things like childish, misogynistic and crude. But the point is it's just not funny, let alone witty or clever. Ha! How simple is that?

Willingham just doesn't 'get it'. If he has a sense of humour, which I doubt, it tends towards sneering and a little cruel.

I shall sleep well :-)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Hee. You are very welcome and thank you for the comment. ;-)

[candleanfeather.livejournal.com]

I loved your considerations on the smell of sunshine and on these little moments where you feel happy just because you feel alive. These are precious little moments of grace.

And about housecleaning though it's a chore there're weird feelings of accomplishement and satisfaction coming out of the damn thing once it's done.

Agree with what you say about Spike and Angel. Angel as the antihero is the only version palatable to me. There's no way I can be sold the Big Selfless Heroe Angel in his immaculate armour. Unfortunately for the character he has been doted with flaws I can't stand in RL. Though I do like dork Angel.

Word again about what you say about Willingham's Spike. The dialogues (or what I've seen of them) are just painful, but if it weren't for the rest, I'd give Willingham some slack for this, because I think Spike is very hard to write (at least to me, and not being a native speaker of course just doesn't alleviate the task for me).

And word about protecting one's blood pressure. :-)

I don't know A Moore's work, but it's not the first time I've seen you make very positive remarks about what he writes and now my curiosity has awaken. Is there something you'd rec me to read first?

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I don't know A Moore's work, but it's not the first time I've seen you make very positive remarks about what he writes and now my curiosity has awaken. Is there something you'd rec me to read first?

I'd shoot for Promthea (Buffy S4 Primeval was based on Promethea) or The Watchmen (which is similar to the story and themes Whedon is playing around with on the Buffy comics, but in my opinion better done.). Swamp Thing is also quite good.

V for Vendetta - gets mixed reactions, as does League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. If you try League, only read Vol 1.
Vol II - is a bit offensive in places.

I haven't read The Lost Girls and it's difficult to get a hold of.

Angel as the antihero is the only version palatable to me. There's no way I can be sold the Big Selfless Heroe Angel in his immaculate armour. Unfortunately for the character he has been doted with flaws I can't stand in RL. Though I do like dork Angel.

Have similar issues with the character. He's not palatable to me as hero - actually I find the idea of Angel as a hero incredibly offensive. Admittedly - Angel is doted with character traits that
push my buttons and I can barely stand in RL. So, yep, right there with you. ;-)

Interestingly enough, I don't really think of Spike as being that difficult to write. But then I've been writing a similar character forever. Even before he popped up in Buffy. Angel on the other hand - I struggle with. And in fanfic - people seem to have more troubles with Buffy and Angel and Willow, than they do Spike and Xander. Not sure why. I know on the series - the writers begged Whedon to let them write Spike scenes. He was, or so they said, the most fun to write.

[candleanfeather.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the recs, I'll try to find Promethea or the Watchmen.

[oursin.livejournal.com]

Heh: on getting old, I can remember 78s! and having to keep changing the needle and making sure the gramaphone was kept wound up!

Rain also has a smell. Last night we came out of the Tube station and it had been raining and there was a wonderful fresh smell.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yes, there is nothing like the smell of a fresh rain, it washes things.
Of course - it depends on the rain - it rains for days, the ground smells musty and moldy, and I can't breath. ;-)

Yes, 78's - I remember 78's as well. We have an old Edison Grammaphone
that belonged to my grandparents. Beautiful machine. All wood.

[ann1962]

1. Absolutely. I used to love when my mom lined dried clothes for the very reason your granny cites.

8-track tapes.

*g*

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Hee. 8 track tapes. Yes, my brother and I had our own personal 8-track tape players, as did my parents. It was the first and only time that my parents chose to get a gadget when it first arrived on the market.
They ignored my uncle who advised them that regular tape players would take over and 8-track tapes would go the way of the Dodo.

Since that fiasco, our family waits a very long time before purchasing a new fangled gadget. My parents waited close to five or six years before purchasing a VCR. At the time - it wasn't clear which would take off Betamax or VCR - so they decided to wait and see, having learned their lesson with 8-track tapes.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

It is funny how much technology has changed in my lifetime... It broke my heart to get rid of my lps (many of which were irreplaceable), I was proud of myself for never getting tricked into 8-track tapes(!), but I DID by Betamax instead of VHS (and I still say it was the better machine! lol)... I've gotten rid of so much stuff in my life, it is always hard... but worth it (I feel lighter and more ready to face the future afterwards).

It sounds like you had a fun and productive Saturday, I hope you're having a good Sunday too!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I got rid of the cassett player ...not 8-track tapes. Not sure that was clear? Maybe should go edit? Because got three comments about 8-track tapes?

I did own one - but that was when I was 12. The only gadget my family ever bought ahead of the curve was an 8-track tape player, and 8-track tape players for my brother and myself. It was the only time they did this.
After that fiasco, we waited five years before buying a gadget, sometimes three. We never ever got it when it first hit the market. Learned our lesson with the 8-track tapes. Hee.

I've learned - you need to throw things out. Hoarding them...just weighs you down. My grandparents hoarded things - to such an extent it took us forever to get rid of them - one of the side-effects of growing up in or being part of the depression, I suspect.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, I'm sure everyone knew you meant cassette tapes... but people were reminded of the short lived technology they had years and years ago (I think we all would have assumed that you were too young to have had 8-track!)...

Personally I've been betting that Blue Ray will go the way of 8-track (ie will never really catch on and eventually will be junked). We'll see if I'm right. lol

Of course I have clung to some obsolete tech: I had a lap top with Windows 98, because it will still play my MYST, Zork, and other computer games... which I haven't played in years, but I hate to throw out. I guess I should put those behind me at some point.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Personally I've been betting that Blue Ray will go the way of 8-track (ie will never really catch on and eventually will be junked). We'll see if I'm right.

I'm wondering the same thing...there's so many HD technologies out there.
And they keep changing rapidly. Also Blue Ray has some issues or so I've heard. Thought I needed to get one - until an AV guy on my flist told me I was fine with DVD, that it would take a very long time to move past that.

Really hope you are right though - so do not want the Blue Ray.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

Well I could be wrong (I'm definite no tech expert) but I think that the Blue Ray people never made a clear case about why they were so much better than the DVD.... And now it sounds like the next big thing is going to be the 3-D players for home theaters... some people are gambling that more and more movies will be made for 3-D viewing (but I don't think it is something I would want or need).

[atpo-onm.livejournal.com]

Nearly everybody else is talking comics, I'll join the few who are talking tapes (big surprise, eh?)

Did you really have over 1000 tapes-- that wasn't a typo and you meant 100 instead?

In either case, why not sell them? Believe it or not, there are still people who use cassettes and at even $0.25 to $0.50 ea. that's $250-$500! Are they playable, most of them, I mean?

If you say you don't know who to/how to sell them, you need to e-mail me. Seriously.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Most likely not a typo - although I didn't exactly count them. They filled a huge box that I kept in my bedroom for 14 years. Most, possibly all of them are more than 20 years old. And few if any still play good music...they didn't to begin with - taped off of the radio, others records and CD's. Lots of degraded mix tapes.

At any rate, too late now - I threw them out Sat, and today was garbag day - not to mention the fact that it was pouring this morning. So if they haven't been picked up yet? They are sopping wet.